Re: [DMM] vepc draft Rev. 04 - /62s to UE, not /64s

Hi Fred, Le 12/06/2015 17:24, Templin, Fred L a écrit : Hi Alex, -Original Message- From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:alexandru.petre...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 6:03 AM To: Templin, Fred L; Tony Hain; 'Jouni Korhonen'; dmm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [DMM] vepc dra

Re: [DMM] vepc draft Rev. 04 - /62s to UE, not /64s

Le 11/06/2015 18:53, Templin, Fred L a écrit : Responding to two in one: -Original Message- From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tony Hain Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 9:47 AM To: 'Alexandru Petrescu'; 'Jouni Korhonen'; dmm@ietf.org Subject: Re:

Re: [DMM] vepc draft Rev. 04 - /62s to UE, not /64s

I was asked in private about this "SIM connection", I clarify below. Le 11/06/2015 18:19, Alexandru Petrescu a écrit : Le 11/06/2015 18:02, Jouni Korhonen a écrit : 6/4/2015, 7:08 AM, Alexandru Petrescu kirjoitti: Le 04/06/2015 05:42, Templin, Fred L a écrit : Hi Alex, ---

Re: [DMM] vepc draft Rev. 04 - /62s to UE, not /64s

Le 11/06/2015 18:02, Jouni Korhonen a écrit : 6/4/2015, 7:08 AM, Alexandru Petrescu kirjoitti: Le 04/06/2015 05:42, Templin, Fred L a écrit : Hi Alex, -Original Message- From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:alexandru.petre...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 8:36 AM To

Re: [DMM] Scaling properties of AERO

Le 08/06/2015 23:29, Templin, Fred L a écrit : Hi, I finally had a chance to sit back and think about the scaling properties of AERO, and I think it is within reason for each AERO link to service O(10^9) Clients. Here is what I wrote in the latest AERO draft version: "Scaling properties of th

Re: [DMM] vepc draft Rev. 04 - /62s to UE, not /64s

- Fred fred.l.temp...@boeing.com Alex Thanks - Fred fred.l.temp...@boeing.com Alex Thanks - Fred fred.l.temp...@boeing.com Alex But yes, I agree with you. cheers, --satoru On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 8:31 PM, Alexandru Petrescu mailto:alexandru.petre...@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi,

Re: [DMM] vepc draft Rev. 04 - /62s to UE, not /64s

Hi Fred, Le 04/06/2015 17:10, Templin, Fred L a écrit : Hi Alex, -Original Message- From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:alexandru.petre...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 7:09 AM To: Templin, Fred L; Satoru Matsushima Cc: dmm Subject: Re: [DMM] vepc draft Rev. 04 - /62s to UE

Re: [DMM] vepc draft Rev. 04 - /62s to UE, not /64s

Le 04/06/2015 05:42, Templin, Fred L a écrit : Hi Alex, -Original Message- From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:alexandru.petre...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 8:36 AM To: Templin, Fred L; Satoru Matsushima Cc: dmm Subject: Re: [DMM] vepc draft Rev. 04 - /62s to UE, not /64s

Re: [DMM] vepc draft Rev. 04 - /62s to UE, not /64s

Le 29/05/2015 20:21, Templin, Fred L a écrit : Hi Alex, -Original Message- From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alexandru Petrescu Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 10:59 AM To: Satoru Matsushima Cc: dmm Subject: Re: [DMM] vepc draft Rev. 04 - /62s to UE, not /64s Le 29/05

Re: [DMM] vepc draft Rev. 04 - /62s to UE, not /64s

vehicles need several subnets. Alex But yes, I agree with you. cheers, --satoru On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 8:31 PM, Alexandru Petrescu mailto:alexandru.petre...@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi, In addition to what Behcet says. I read the example below. I think it is just an example, bu

Re: [DMM] vepc draft Rev. 04 - /62s to UE, not /64s

Hi, In addition to what Behcet says. I read the example below. I think it is just an example, but just to make sure. Please - do not allocate /64s to end users in a cellular network. Allocate at least /62s to end users. This is to allow the smartphone to perform tethering (small network o

Re: [DMM] AERO as DMM working group item

Le 17/04/2015 18:27, Templin, Fred L a écrit : Hello, I would like to request adoption of AERO as a DMM working group item as a solution for enhanced mobility anchoring in particular and distributed mobility management in general. The latest draft version of AERO is here: https://datatracker.ie

Re: [DMM] Call for adoption: draft-perkins-dmm-4283mnids-01

Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 3:27 AM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: Le 23/04/2015 19:11, Behcet Sarikaya a écrit : On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: Le 22/04/2015 18:06, Behcet Sarikaya a écrit : Hi Alex, On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: Le

Re: [DMM] Call for adoption: draft-perkins-dmm-4283mnids-01

Le 24/04/2015 21:30, Behcet Sarikaya a écrit : [...] When the car arrives home it connects to the WiFi available in home, thus handing over from LTE. This is a sold use-case at e.g. Tesla. The WiFi hotspot can be the one deployed in-house, in-garage, or the WiFi offered by the electrical rechar

Re: [DMM] Mobility Exposure and Selection WT call

Hi Fred, Le 22/04/2015 19:22, Templin, Fred L a écrit : Hi Alex, -Original Message- From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:alexandru.petre...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 9:59 AM To: Templin, Fred L; Jouni Korhonen; dmm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [DMM] Mobility Exposure and

Re: [DMM] Call for adoption: draft-perkins-dmm-4283mnids-01

Le 23/04/2015 19:11, Behcet Sarikaya a écrit : On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: Le 22/04/2015 18:06, Behcet Sarikaya a écrit : Hi Alex, On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: Le 16/04/2015 06:58, Jouni Korhonen a écrit : Folks, The

Re: [DMM] Mobility Exposure and Selection WT call

Le 22/04/2015 18:51, Templin, Fred L a écrit : Hi Alex, -Original Message- From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:alexandru.petre...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 12:42 PM To: Templin, Fred L; Jouni Korhonen; dmm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [DMM] Mobility Exposure and Selection WT call

Re: [DMM] Call for adoption: draft-perkins-dmm-4283mnids-01

Le 22/04/2015 18:06, Behcet Sarikaya a écrit : Hi Alex, On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: Le 16/04/2015 06:58, Jouni Korhonen a écrit : Folks, The adoption call for this I-D has ended. There is a clear concensus to adopt the I-D as a working group item. I

Re: [DMM] New Version Notification for draft-yan-dmm-hnprenum-01.txt

Le 13/04/2015 07:33, Z.W. Yan a écrit : Hi, all, During the Dallas meeting, we introduced the issue of HNP-renumbering in PMIPv6 and heard some positive voices. In order to present it more clearly and collect more comments, we updated the draft with the 01 version. https://tools.ietf.org/html/dr

Re: [DMM] 回复： 回复： Call for adoption: draft-yegin-dmm-ondemand-mobility-03

Le 17/04/2015 09:50, Alper Yegin a écrit : Hi Dapeng, [as an individual contributor] I support the idea of “Exposing mobility state to mobile nodes and network nodes” as described in our charter. For this particular draft, after some offline discussion with the authors, I still have the fol

Re: [DMM] Call for adoption: draft-perkins-dmm-4283mnids-01

Le 16/04/2015 06:58, Jouni Korhonen a écrit : Folks, The adoption call for this I-D has ended. There is a clear concensus to adopt the I-D as a working group item. I support its adoption. We have been working with an identifier specific to automobiles to use to realize access control. Ident

Re: [DMM] question on 'draft-moses-dmm-dhcp-ondemand-mobility'

Le 03/04/2015 20:12, Templin, Fred L a écrit : Hi Danny and Alper, In this draft, you seem to be considering only DHCPv6 address delegation for when the node is acting as a mobile host. I am wondering if there are similar considerations for DHCPv6 prefix delegation for when the node is acting as

Re: [DMM] Mobility Exposure and Selection WT call

Le 31/03/2015 00:42, Templin, Fred L a écrit : Hi Alex, -Original Message- From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alexandru Petrescu Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 3:03 PM To: Jouni Korhonen; dmm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [DMM] Mobility Exposure and Selection WT call Le 26

Re: [DMM] DMM work teams

Le 26/03/2015 14:01, Alper Yegin a écrit : Brian, This is exactly how WTs have been operating. Anyone thinking otherwise is not closely following the work. Alper, I agree. Just one little comment: some times it is difficult to participate to audioconferences. Alex Alper On Mar 26, 2

Re: [DMM] Mobility Exposure and Selection WT call

Le 26/03/2015 13:17, Jouni Korhonen a écrit : Alex, 3/26/2015, 11:00 AM, Alexandru Petrescu kirjoitti: [snip] I thought by "fixed" you meant it stays the same wherever the Host goes (something like the Home Address). Alper - I think a LL address can also be qualified as 'fi

Re: [DMM] Mobility Exposure and Selection WT call

Le 13/02/2015 03:09, Alper Yegin a écrit : Hello Alex, I looked at the slides. I think I understand the concept of type of IP address from a mobility perspective: fixed, sustained, nomadic. I have remarks: - could an aquired prefix (DHCPv6 PD) also be qualified as fixed, sustained, nomadic?

Re: [DMM] Mobility Exposure and Selection WT call

Le 19/02/2015 10:47, Alexandru Petrescu a écrit : Le 19/02/2015 16:30, Alper Yegin a écrit : This is source address selection, hence multicast address is out-of picture. Unicast vs anycast distinction is orthogonal to mobility type of the address. - MAC-based, random-based (RFC7217

[DMM] clarifications on draft-chan-dmm-distributed-mobility-anchoring-01 - and 2 questions

Hello, During yesterday's DMM meeting there were several clarification questions on draft-chan-dmm-distributed-mobility-anchoring-01. I talked this morning to Anthony, and I think there is a case. The IP Anchor - we all know what is. It typically anchors the HoA of Mobile IPv6 protocol. It is

[DMM] SUSTAINED, NOMADIC, FIXED: existing kinds, lifetimes

Alper, authors of draft-yegin-dmm-ondemand-mobility-03, I would like to ask how do you see the relationships between other kinds of addresses (HoW, CoA, LL, GUA, ULA, NATTed, privacy, multicast) and the SUSTAINED, NOMADIC, FIXED addresses. In addition, I think there may be a relationship with th

Re: [DMM] 回复： DMM API

Hi, Alper, Sorry for interfering but I have a few points where I agree with Dapeng. Le 25/03/2015 16:43, Alper Yegin a écrit : Hello Dapeng, On Mar 25, 2015, at 11:01 PM, Dapeng Liu wrote: Hello Alper, I still have the following comments: 1. Regarding the definition of “fixed IP address”

Re: [DMM] Mobility Exposure and Selection WT call

Le 19/02/2015 16:30, Alper Yegin a écrit : This is source address selection, hence multicast address is out-of picture. Unicast vs anycast distinction is orthogonal to mobility type of the address. - MAC-based, random-based (RFC7217). Orthogonal. ? One wouldn't want her 'fixed' address (n

Re: [DMM] Mobility Exposure and Selection WT call

Le 13/02/2015 09:09, Alper Yegin a écrit : Hello Alex, I looked at the slides. I think I understand the concept of type of IP address from a mobility perspective: fixed, sustained, nomadic. I have remarks: - could an aquired prefix (DHCPv6 PD) also be qualified as fixed, sustained, nomadic?

Re: [DMM] Mobility Exposure and Selection WT call

Le 11/02/2015 12:43, Alper Yegin a écrit : Hello, Yesterday's call was attended by: Danny, Byoung-Jo Kim, Jouni, Seil, Sergio Figueiredo, Marco, and Alper. Slides can be found at: yegin.org/NGMobility/DMM_WG_Exposure_Selection_WT-Call3.pptx

[DMM] Mobile IPv6 maintenance: HA never deletes a tunnel

Hello, There is a bug in an otherwise very good Mobile IPv6 Home Agent implementation. This particular Home Agent never deletes a tunnel interface. As such it does not support MNs which are silent for a while; when they come back up the tunnel is still there and cant be modified. A forcin

Re: [DMM] offlisted mails - names of Work Teams

Le 29/10/2014 18:40, Brian Haberman a écrit : On 10/29/14 1:33 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: Le 29/10/2014 18:25, Brian Haberman a écrit : Alex, On 10/29/14 1:17 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: Sorr not the intention for surrendering anyone, just some thoughts. I think there is a language

Re: [DMM] offlisted mails - names of Work Teams

Le 29/10/2014 18:25, Brian Haberman a écrit : Alex, On 10/29/14 1:17 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: Sorr not the intention for surrendering anyone, just some thoughts. I think there is a language/communication problem here. DMM is chartered to handle the maintenance of all mobility protocols

Re: [DMM] offlisted mails - names of Work Teams

Sorr not the intention for surrendering anyone, just some thoughts. Do you think Mobile IPv6 needs improved implementations? Alex Le 29/10/2014 18:15, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) a écrit : Alex - I give up :) Regards Sri On 10/29/14 10:12 AM, "Alexandru Petrescu" wrote: Le 29/

Re: [DMM] offlisted mails - names of Work Teams

use currently it does not work. Alex Sri On 10/29/14 9:55 AM, "Alexandru Petrescu" wrote: Le 29/10/2014 17:42, Jouni a écrit : On Oct 29, 2014, at 4:56 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: My remarks to the Charter proposal got rejected in this respect. Because NEMO was already

Re: [DMM] Maintenance of Mobile IPv6

Le 29/10/2014 17:34, Jouni a écrit : On Oct 29, 2014, at 5:15 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: Hello, There are a few things that I think are needed for the maintenance of protocol Mobile IPv6; most important appear first: - help with automated portal authentication in WLAN. Hopping on and

Re: [DMM] offlisted mails - names of Work Teams

Le 29/10/2014 17:42, Jouni a écrit : On Oct 29, 2014, at 4:56 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: My remarks to the Charter proposal got rejected in this respect. Because NEMO was already part of the existing charter text. The Charter currently does not say NEMO. The charter does mention

Re: [DMM] offlisted mails - names of Work Teams

Le 29/10/2014 16:03, Brian Haberman a écrit : I want to ask a question (or two) on this thread... On 10/29/14 10:56 AM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: Jouni, I reply here, but I will write separate emails. Le 24/10/2014 19:51, Jouni a écrit : Ok.. once more. On Oct 24, 2014, at 7:46 PM

[DMM] Maintenance of Mobile IPv6

Hello, There are a few things that I think are needed for the maintenance of protocol Mobile IPv6; most important appear first: - help with automated portal authentication in WLAN. Hopping on and off from a WiFi hotspot to another, even without moving physically, is often obstructed by we

Re: [DMM] offlisted mails - names of Work Teams

Jouni, I reply here, but I will write separate emails. Le 24/10/2014 19:51, Jouni a écrit : Ok.. once more. On Oct 24, 2014, at 7:46 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: Le 24/10/2014 18:17, Brian Haberman a écrit : Alex (and others), On 10/24/14 11:00 AM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: But under no

Re: [DMM] offlisted mails - names of Work Teams

Le 24/10/2014 18:17, Brian Haberman a écrit : Alex (and others), On 10/24/14 11:00 AM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: But under no circumstances should they become unaccountable with respect to the WG at large. Please (re-)read what I posted about these teams a little while ago. http

Re: [DMM] offlisted mails - names of Work Teams

Le 24/10/2014 15:50, Jouni a écrit : On Oct 24, 2014, at 12:42 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: I agree with this request from Behcet because it may give greater visibility. I am interested about what is happening in each of the teams, although I also think they need a level of separation from

Re: [DMM] offlisted mails - names of Work Teams

I agree with this request from Behcet because it may give greater visibility. I am interested about what is happening in each of the teams, although I also think they need a level of separation from the rest of the world. What are the names of the work teams? 1 - Mobility Exposure 2 - Forward

Re: [DMM] WG Review: Distributed Mobility Management (dmm)

Jouni, Thank you for the message. Here are the modifications: Where the Charter mentions "Mobile IPv6 protocol family (RFC x, y, z)" it should also mention RFC 3963 and RFC 5177. (these RFCs were mentioned in past versions but disappeared somehow). Where the Charter says "The working group

Re: [DMM] WG Review: Distributed Mobility Management (dmm)

Hello, I would like to comment on reusing prior work. Citing RFC3963 and RFC 5177 (v4 and v6 extensions to Mobile IP for network mobility) seems logical to me, since they're about Mobile IP too. Citing RFC 4888 and RFC 4889 (NEMO Route Optimization PS and solution analysis) seems logical to

Re: [DMM] "A Day in the Life of an Enterprise Mobile Device User"

Le 11/09/2014 00:00, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) a écrit : Hi Fred, On 9/4/14 7:50 AM, "Templin, Fred L" wrote: No, in that "VPN" is cited in the scenario and VPN+Mobile IP are not working well together. Right - switching between VPN and non-VPN will be important for enterprise network mobile

Re: [DMM] regarding the re-chartering..

Le 05/09/2014 14:45, Alper Yegin a écrit : Hi Alex, On Sep 5, 2014, at 3:32 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: Le 05/09/2014 10:48, Alper Yegin a écrit : Alex, DMM is not meant to be only about a bunch of MIP-based solutions. There are various components in DMM solution space that'd also

Re: [DMM] regarding the re-chartering..

me problem may arise when trying to identify a particular 'flow'. Alex Alper On Sep 4, 2014, at 1:14 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: Le 03/09/2014 20:53, Brian Haberman a écrit : Behcet, On 9/3/14 2:33 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: You don't seem to understand my points. Th

Re: [DMM] regarding the re-chartering..

me. Alex Regards Charlie P. On 9/4/2014 3:14 AM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: Hi, In DMM, precedents and the keen NETEXT, there seems to be a hard-rooted disconnect between the product developped - (P)Mobile IP - and the deployments. We know for a fact that 3GPP deployments (2G/3G/4G) do

Re: [DMM] regarding the re-chartering..

Le 04/09/2014 12:31, Jouni a écrit : [...] In DMM, precedents and the keen NETEXT, there seems to be a hard-rooted disconnect between the product developped - (P)Mobile IP - and the deployments. We know for a fact that 3GPP deployments (2G/3G/4G) do not use (P)Mobile IP. We also know that 3GPP

Re: [DMM] regarding the re-chartering..

Le 03/09/2014 20:53, Brian Haberman a écrit : Behcet, On 9/3/14 2:33 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: You don't seem to understand my points. That is quite possible. Your comment on the list was "I am against any deployment work before we decide on a solution..." I read that as an objection to h

Re: [DMM] "A Day in the Life of an Enterprise Mobile Device User"

Le 04/09/2014 08:47, Alper Yegin a écrit : Hi Fred, Can this scenario not be realized by simply placing an HA in the enterprise network and using Mobile IP? I guess yes and no. YEs, in that it is a typical Mobile IP scenario with handovers WiFi/4G/Ethernet. No, in that "VPN" is cited in the

Re: [DMM] rechartering draft comments

Le 27/03/2014 22:40, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) a écrit : On 3/27/14 2:26 PM, "Jouni Korhonen" wrote: You know that it just happens to be the only RFC even attempting to explain how LMAs are selected dynamically. If the reference here is contentious, I am happy to remore it.. just give me al

Re: [DMM] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmm-requirements-14.txt

maintain a stable IP address or prefix. H Anthony Chan -Original Message- From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alexandru Petrescu Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 3:28 AM To: dmm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [DMM] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmm-requirements-14.txt Thanks for this new

Re: [DMM] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmm-requirements-14.txt

Thanks for this new version. A comment: Mobility support is also needed, for example, when a mobile router moves together with a host and an application in the host is interrupted by a change of IP address of the mobile router. ^and p

Re: [DMM] AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-dmm-requirements

ols are at risk for data loss and numerous other dangers, including financial harm to the users. H Anthony Chan -Original Message- From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alexandru Petrescu Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 5:45 AM To: dmm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [DMM] AD Evaluat

Re: [DMM] AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-dmm-requirements

Le 31/01/2014 00:18, Jouni Korhonen a écrit : On Jan 29, 2014, at 5:56 AM, Brian Haberman wrote: [snip] The above seems a little clunky. Does this work for everyone? A DMM solution MUST NOT introduce new security risks, or amplify existing security risks, that cannot be mitigated by exis

Re: [DMM] AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-dmm-requirements

rovided at other layers. It is then not always necessary to maintain a stable IP address or prefix. H Anthony Chan -Original Message- From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:alexandru.petre...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2014 11:39 AM To: h chan; dmm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [DMM] AD

Re: [DMM] AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-dmm-requirements

P address fixed regardless of the change of the IP address of the Mobile Router, and the Access Router performs ingress filtering, and reachability of these Hosts and Routers at a fixed IP address is necessary. Alex H Anthony Chan -Original Message- From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:

Re: [DMM] AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-dmm-requirements

Le 30/01/2014 15:03, Brian Haberman a écrit : Anthony, I am fine with that. I would like feedback from the rest of the WG on these changes. Brian On 1/29/14 1:53 PM, h chan wrote: Delete those explanatory sentences then. REQ5: Co-existence with deployed networks and hosts

Re: [DMM] AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-dmm-requirements

: an application (of a host in a mobile network) may not be able to cope with a change in the IP address of the MR when the MR moves. When the node is a host an application (of a MN) may not be able to cope with a change in the IP address of the MN when the MN moves. H Anthony Chan -----Origin

Re: [DMM] AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-dmm-requirements

ere are no hosts attached to it or when there are no active applications running in the hosts of its network. Any comments/changes/corrections? H Anthony Chan -Original Message- From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:alexandru.petre...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 1:27 PM To: h c

Re: [DMM] AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-dmm-requirements

maintain a stable prefix (its MNP). It could also just maintain stable just its MNP, but not its HoA; and vice-versa. Is that mobility? For each of these there is an application :-) Alex Any comments/changes/corrections? H Anthony Chan -Original Message- From: dmm [mailto:dm

Re: [DMM] AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-dmm-requirements

Le 28/01/2014 02:45, h chan a écrit : I will drop "related" Regarding the following 5. Section 5: - I am a little confused by REQ2. It says that a DMM solution should be transparent to the applications. This remark is typically true when we talk Mobile IP on a Mobile Host and an applicatio

Re: [DMM] tunnels-vs-host routes and other DMM components

Hello Alper, In this discussion, I may be missing the 'Mobile Router vs Host' dimension. We would use host-based routes if we need Mobile Hosts, but we'd use prefix-based routes if we needed Mobile Routers. The route convergence speed and domain size scalability aspects apply differently.

Re: [DMM] Preparing for DMM future steps and rechartering

Le 13/11/2013 16:39, Peter McCann a écrit : Hi, Brian, Brian Haberman wrote: Hi Pete, Speaking with no hat on... On 11/12/13 4:29 PM, Peter McCann wrote: Hi, Sri, Even if we agree that those services are necessary (and I would point out once again that most of them are not beneficial to the

Re: [DMM] Preparing for DMM future steps and rechartering

e MIP signaling plane and piggyback on some routing updates, or over OpenFlow ? So, what is the result, we use a generic non-MIP interfaces and make them look like MIP interfaces ? What is the point ? This is DMM ? Regards Sri On 11/11/13 7:51 AM, "Alexandru Petrescu" wrote: I think

Re: [DMM] Preparing for DMM future steps and rechartering

Le 11/11/2013 16:29, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) a écrit : Hi Pete, I'm not sure, I agree with this, or understand this to be precise. I do not know know CP (in the form of PMIP, GTP or some other protocol XYZ) can be completely eliminated. There needs to be some interface between the access ga

Re: [DMM] comments on draft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01

Le 07/08/2013 05:37, Liu Dapeng a écrit : Hi Alex, 2013/8/1 Alexandru Petrescu mailto:alexandru.petre...@gmail.com>> Hello DMMers, I follow on the Chair invitation to suggest gaps to the gap analysis document. I must though say I have been following this discussion only remotely so I

Re: [DMM] Call for WG Adoption of a "current practices and gap analysis" document

I support [2] draft-liu as basis for WG item, because it first abstracts the common functions of mobility protocols. And, a combination of the two could only be better, right? Alex Le 19/12/2012 21:25, Jouni Korhonen a écrit : Folks, We are unfortunately slipping our milestone, our (chairs) a

Re: [DMM] brief comparison

Hi Pierrick, Le 09/01/2013 14:24, pierrick.se...@orange.com a écrit : Hi Alex, Please see inline. Pierrick -Message d'origine- De : dmm-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de Alexandru Petrescu Envoyé : mercredi 9 janvier 2013 11:26 À : dmm@ietf.org Objet

Re: [DMM] brief comparison (was: Call for WG Adoption of a "current practices and gap analysis" document)

Hello DMMers, I take advantage of this request to expose briefly a comparison between the two drafts draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis-03 and draft-liu-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01. The first analyses gaps between DMM reqs and MIP6, MIP6-RO, HMIP, HAswitch, flow mobility, src adr selection. E

Re: [DMM] Mobility-related work in the IEEE

Thanks for the notice. Browsing the Internet I could find that 'OMNI' stands for Open Mobile Network Interface (not necessarily the latin prefix 'omni' like in omnibus stopping everywhere.) But I wonder what is more about OmniRAN and what is it going to study. Is there an interaction with the L

Re: [DMM] Comment on Req2 transparency for DMM

rwise the support to maintain a stable home IP address or prefix during handover may be declined. H Anthony Chan -Original Message- From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:alexandru.petre...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 11:39 AM To: h chan Cc: dmm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [DMM] C

Re: [DMM] Comment on Req2 transparency for DMM

H Anthony, Yes, this reflects Sri's and my suggestion about removal of MN/MR qualifier. I agree with the idea of the new text as you put it. Then, if I re-read just like that, there still seems to be some difficulty to my brain to understand: Le 01/08/2012 23:35, h chan a écrit : The DMM solu

[DMM] Comment on Req2 transparency for DMM

DMM coleagues, I would like to comment on the REQ2 "Transparency to Upper Layers when Needed". The slide 4 of slides-84-dmm-1.pptx at https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/84/materials.html says: The DMM solutions MUST provide transparency above the IP layer when needed. Such transparency is ne

[DMM] New ITS email list for discussing IPv6 and vehicular communications

Dear participants in DMM WG, A new email list ITS Intelligent Transportation Systems has been set up at IETF. It is intended for discussions of IP and vehicular communications. https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its Let us discuss IPv6 and vehicular on the ITS email list. Let us meet