Hi Jouni, > -----Original Message----- > From: jouni korhonen [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 2:44 AM > To: Templin, Fred L > Cc: [email protected] Laganier; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MEXT] The first proposal for the DMM charter > > 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.
I'm not sure I fully understand what you are trying to say, but what I am trying to say is that IRON provides an alternative mobility management scheme that does not depend on any of the *MIP mechanisms and is, IMHO, a better mobility management system. Hence, I recommend a closer look at IRON: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-ironbis Thanks - Fred [email protected] > - Jouni > _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
