Hi Jouni, > -----Original Message----- > From: Jouni [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 10:21 AM > To: Templin, Fred L > Cc: [email protected] Laganier; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MEXT] The first proposal for the DMM charter > > > Fred, > > > On Jan 9, 2012, at 6:52 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote: > > > 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. > > > > In the above "solution" being a solution for distributed mobility > management.
I'm still not exactly sure what you are tring to say. Please have a look at IRON and let me know why or why not you think it addresses DMM and we can go from there. Thanks - Fred [email protected] > Hope that clarifies. > > - Jouni > > > > 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
