2011/11/7, jouni korhonen <[email protected]>: > > 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.
I have concern about only focuse on IPv6. IPv4 is still widely used today, we have to consider that. regards, Dapeng > - 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 > -- ------ Best Regards, Dapeng Liu _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
