On Nov 4, 2011, at 6:18 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > Hi all, > > I am confused about all these very high level, intelligent looking comments, > and I must say I am fed up with them :-). > > Non-tunneled communications is already there in DMM. You connect to the > nearest HA and all new communications is non-tunneled. > > Do we agree that we should differentiate client-based and network based > protocols and discuss them in different places? or even there is no issue for > one.
IMHO I see no reason to focus only on client-based or network-based solutions. FWIW the DMM solution space: o is incremental to an existing IETF mobility protocol, be that client-, network- or even transport-based. o or alternatively may not depend on a specific mobility protocol at all i.e. non-anchored solution is also in scope. o solution is backward compatible in a sense that if a host or a network does not support DMM, nothing breaks. o focuses on IPv6 because anything IPv4 is just NAT-games. - Jouni > > I think this is what we should decide now. > > Regards, > > Behcet > > On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 3:19 AM, jouni korhonen <[email protected]> wrote: > Pete, > > On Nov 4, 2011, at 3:16 AM, Pete McCann wrote: > > > A good architecture is made not only from deciding what to standardize but > > also from what not to standardize. > > Exactly. > > [snip] > > > > > Perhaps IETF could take LIPA as a starting point to design a cleaner > > mobility management solution. > > What came out from a certain SDO as a "Local IP Access" did not turn out as > the most elegant solution :) But I do agree that from the idea & initial use > case point of view, it definitely is something to look at.. even as a basis > for a cleaner design. > > > It isn't clear to me that we should even start with tunnels as a basic > > building > > block. > > I am along the same lines. See my earlier mail on the charter > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04905.html > > - Jouni > > > > > > > -Pete > > > > On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 8:43 PM, Hesham Soliman <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> Hi Charlie, > >> > >> I agree completely with you on the problems with the current interfaces in > >> LTE, and in 3G before that. > >> I don't know what the best way to go about it would be. I say this because > >> many people on this list are aware of what's happening in LTE and > >> presumably have similar opinions about the complexity of their solutions, > >> but it's still there. > >> > >> Hesham > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: "Charles E. Perkins" <[email protected]> > >> Organization: Wichorus Inc. > >> Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 10:49:21 -0700 > >> To: Jari Arkko <[email protected]> > >> Cc: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> > >> Subject: Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group > >> > >>> Hello folks, > >>> > >>> For several years now, I have been studying 4G wireless > > [snap] > > > > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
