Alex - I give up :) Regards Sri
On 10/29/14 10:12 AM, "Alexandru Petrescu" <alexandru.petre...@gmail.com> wrote: >Le 29/10/2014 18:03, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) a écrit : >> Alex: >> >> The maintenance work does include mobile router based deployments; The >> work that we did in NETEXT, MEXT, MIP4 comes under that maintenance >>scope. > >But NETEXT, MEXT and MIP4 are all closed. So where is the maintenance >happenning now? > >> We don't have to split the hair in analyzing what is in the charter >>text. >> If MIPv6 and PMIPv6 is included, why would NEMO be excluded ? Its the >>same >> protocol. > >First, PMIPv6 does not include neither NEMO nor Network Mobility, it >includes Prefix Delegation. We discussed this extensively at the time >and that's what we concluded. > >NEMO (i.e. NEtwork MObility, check spelling) is an extension to Mobile >IPv6 and Mobile IPv4 to realize network mobility. This comes with a >design requirement on the address architecture where one considers >Prefixes in addition to Addresses. > >One can tweak it in any way one wants, but still is that network >mobility is an additional extension to the MIP6 space - does DMM do the >same? > >Network mobility questions to each of the groups: > >Is Mobility Exposure happening in a Terminal about its own mobility? Or >is it exposing the states of each other terminals attached to a Mobile >Router? From the start or an afterthought? > >Forwarding Path and Signalling Management: are the route updates >concerning an address or a prefix? > >Enhanced Anchor is anchoring a prefix or an address? > >> Unless we work on some totally unrelated stuff, I don't see a reason as >> why a given extension will not be allowed. If the deployments need it >>and >> the WG agrees, we better do that work here; IETF cannot just pull the >> plug. General mobility and mobile networks related work is all in scope. >> At least that's how I interpret the text. > >Well, one particular maintenance aspect of Mobile IPv6 is the "never >delete tunnel" of a particular Mobile IPv6 implementation. This is not >a new feature, not a new protocol, it is a bug. > >Should the bug be corrected? Should implementations tweak around it? >Should the spec be updated? Because currently it does not work. > >Alex > >> >> >> >> Sri >> >> >> >> On 10/29/14 9:55 AM, "Alexandru Petrescu" <alexandru.petre...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Le 29/10/2014 17:42, Jouni a écrit : >>>> >>>> On Oct 29, 2014, at 4:56 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> My remarks to the Charter proposal got rejected in this respect. >>>>>> >>>>>> Because NEMO was already part of the existing charter text. >>>>> >>>>> The Charter currently does not say NEMO. >>>> >>>> The charter does mention mobile routers. That is nemo enough at least >>>> for me. >>> >>> Yes, no, sorry. >>> >>> Network mobility is a concept where groups of endnodes move together. >>>A >>> Mobile Router implementing Mobile IPv6 could be in charge of that >>> router, conceptually. >>> >>> In practical deployments, this MR ranges from a small pc to whole racks >>> of blades in charge of that mobility. Using or not using Mobile IP at >>> all. >>> >>> Network mobility is involving more than Mobile Routers, and some times >>> no Mobile Routers at all. >>> >>>> Besides, the first revision of the charter text was put into git on >>>>Mar >>>> 5, 2014. >>>> You have had enough time to build more consensus to include "explicit >>>> NEMO >>>> wording" than the last minute when everybody is rather reserved to do >>>> any >>>> changes if just possible. >>> >>> I agree with you. I am sorry for too late expression. >>> >>> I am as happy to know that Network mobility is _not_ considered by DMM >>> (where should it then?) than it _is_. >>> >>> Alex >>> >>>> >>>> - Jouni >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> dmm mailing list >>> dmm@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
