Fred, On Jan 3, 2012, at 7:42 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote: >> >> The protocol solutions should be based on existing IP mobility >> protocols, either host- or network-based, such as Mobile IPv6 >> [RFC6275, 5555], Proxy Mobile IPv6 [RFC5213, 5844] and NEMO >> [RFC3963]. > > I don't understand the "should be based on existing IP > mobility protocols". IRON for example provides an > alternative mobility management solution which I believe > has significant advantages over other approaches: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-ironbis-10 > > Thanks - Fred > [email protected]
I admit I have not followed much of the IRON work. However, the overal idea is that if your solution needs specific bindings to existing mobility providing protocol(s), then your choices more or less are listed above (or some existing flavor/variation of those). If your solution does not depend on any specific mobility protocol i.e., does not require specification of protocol specific bindings, then you are free to deploy it on top of anything, including IRON. - Jouni _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
