> -Message d'origine-
> De : Ben Campbell [mailto:b...@nostrum.com]
> Envoyé : jeudi 3 août 2017 00:14
> À : The IESG
> Cc : draft-ietf-dmm-mag-multihom...@ietf.org; Jouni Korhonen; dmm-
> cha...@ietf.org; jouni.nos...@gmail.com; dmm@ietf.org
> Objet : Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft
De : Warren Kumari [mailto:war...@kumari.net]
Envoyé : jeudi 3 août 2017 01:38
À : The IESG; SEITE Pierrick IMT/OLN
Cc : Jouni Korhonen; dmm-cha...@ietf.org; dmm@ietf.org;
draft-ietf-dmm-mag-multihom...@ietf.org
Objet : Re: RE : Warren Kumari's Discuss on draft-ietf-dmm-mag-multihoming-04:
Hello
Please see inline
Pierrick
Sent from my cell phone, mind the typos.
Message d'origine
De : Warren Kumari
Date : 02/08/2017 22:23 (GMT+01:00)
À : The IESG
Cc : draft-ietf-dmm-mag-multihom...@ietf.org, Jouni Korhonen
, dmm-cha...@ietf.org, jouni.nos...@gmail.com,
dmm
Hello Kathleen,
You're right. .. sorry for late reply to Hilary's concern. Please see our reply
below.
Regards
Pierrick & Sri
there is one security issue that is mentioned in RFC5213 that
is exacerbated by the current draft. I.e.,
To address the threat related to a compromised mobile access g
Hello,
Thanks for comment, please see details inline.
Regards
Pierrick
Sent from my cell phone, mind the typos.
Message d'origine
De : Alia Atlas
Date : 02/08/2017 17:51 (GMT+01:00)
À : The IESG
Cc : draft-ietf-dmm-mag-multihom...@ietf.org, Jouni Korhonen
, dmm-cha...@iet
Hello Mirja,
Thanks for the comments. We will update the document accordingly; please see
inline for resolution.
Regards,
Pierrick
> -Message d'origine-
> De : dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de Mirja Kühlewind
> Envoyé : lundi 31 juillet 2017 23:49
> À : The IESG
> Cc : dm
Hello,
Thanks for the review; please find below clarifications and answers. We will
update the document accordingly.
Regards,
> -Message d'origine-
> De : Robert Sparks [mailto:rjspa...@nostrum.com]
> Envoyé : mercredi 14 juin 2017 21:26
> À : gen-...@ietf.org
> Cc : i...@ietf.org; dmm@
Hi all,
Sorry for the late reply... I have read this document and, like other
reviewers, I think it is in good shape. Actually, I do not have much to add to
Dirk's review, just few editorial details below.
Thanks for authors for this hard work.
Regards,
Pierrick
my comments -
Folks,
-01 was updated following Danny's review. -02 is here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmm-mag-multihoming/
Below are revision notes.
Pierrick
> In section 1 (Introduction):
> In the paragraph below the 4 bullets change the past tense to present tense:
> replace - 'Th
I support adoption of this I-D
Pierrick
> -Message d'origine-
> De : dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de Jouni
> Envoyé : dimanche 24 juillet 2016 06:57
> À : dmm@ietf.org
> Cc : "刘大鹏(鹏成)"
> Objet : [DMM] WG Adoption call for draft-chan-dmm-distributed-mobility-
> anchoring-08
Hi,
I support this I-D.
Pierrick
> -Message d'origine-
> De : dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de Jouni
> Envoyé : mercredi 15 juin 2016 19:16
> À : dmm@ietf.org
> Cc : "刘大鹏(鹏成)"
> Objet : [DMM] WGLC #2 for draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-05
>
> Folks,
>
> This email start
Hi,
I have read this I-D and I think it is ready to move forward.
The only commen I have is that all configuration variables (section 4.1) have
default value, except for LCMPReregistrationStartTime and
LCMPInitialRetransmissionTime
Pierrick
> -Message d'origine-
> De : dmm [mailto:dm
Hi,
De : Z.W. Yan [mailto:y...@cnnic.cn]
Envoyé : mercredi 25 mai 2016 03:24
À : SEITE Pierrick IMT/OLN; Jouni.nosmap; dmm@ietf.org
Objet : Re: Re: [DMM] WGLC reminder
Hi, Pierrick,
Thanks for your comments.
Please see my inline feedback
2016-05-25
Z.W. Yan
Hi,
I've read draft-ietf-dmm-hnprenum and I think this draft can move forward.
I've just couple of comments/questions
What do you mean by _uplink_ ISP?
s/ which detected the attachment/ which detects the attachment/
"[sic.] a scheme is also needed for the LMA to immediately initiate the PMIPv6
> -Message d'origine-
> De : Moses, Danny [mailto:danny.mo...@intel.com]
> Envoyé : mercredi 6 avril 2016 19:40
> À : SEITE Pierrick IMT/OLN
> Cc : dmm@ietf.org; sarik...@ieee.org
> Objet : RE: [DMM] WGLC #1 for draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-01
>
> H Pierrick,
>
> Thanks for the supp
Hi Dany,
I support this I-D. I find the document very useful, and well written. We all
agree that mobility management must be activated on purpose, it likely
requires an enhanced source address selection framework where applications can
obtain IP address with specific properties. By allowing a
Hi,
We have updated draft-ietf-dmm-mag-multihoming:
https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dmm-mag-multihoming-01.txt
This release addresses comments received during wg last call, namely: all
references to dsl and bbf use-case have been removed.
Pierrick
Hi Suresh,
> -Message d'origine-
> De : dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de Suresh Krishnan
> Envoyé : jeudi 10 décembre 2015 00:39
> À : Dapeng Liu; dmm
> Objet : Re: [DMM] Call for adoption confirmation:
> draft-seite-dmm-rg-multihoming-
> 02
>
>
> On 11/25/2015 05:22 PM,
> -Message d'origine-
> De : Mingui Zhang [mailto:zhangmin...@huawei.com]
> Envoyé : mercredi 9 décembre 2015 10:32
> À : SEITE Pierrick IMT/OLN; dirk.von-h...@telekom.de; dmm@ietf.org
> Cc : alexandre.petre...@gmail.com
> Objet : RE: [DMM] Call for adoption confirmation:
> draft-seite-d
Hi Dirk,
> -Message d'origine-
> De : dirk.von-h...@telekom.de [mailto:dirk.von-h...@telekom.de]
> Envoyé : mardi 8 décembre 2015 11:06
> À : SEITE Pierrick IMT/OLN; dmm@ietf.org
> Cc : alexandre.petre...@gmail.com
> Objet : RE: [DMM] Call for adoption confirmation:
> draft-seite-d
Hi,
> -Message d'origine-
> De : dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de Erunika
> Envoyé : mercredi 9 décembre 2015 05:13
> À : dmm@ietf.org
> Objet : Re: [DMM] Call for adoption confirmation:
> draft-seite-dmm-rg-multihoming-
> 02
>
> Hi,
>
> I also support the adoption.
>
>
Hi,
> -Message d'origine-
> De : Mingui Zhang [mailto:zhangmin...@huawei.com]
> Envoyé : mercredi 9 décembre 2015 03:54
> À : dirk.von-h...@telekom.de; SEITE Pierrick IMT/OLN; dmm@ietf.org
> Cc : alexandre.petre...@gmail.com
> Objet : RE: [DMM] Call for adoption confirmation:
> draft-seit
Good point... moreover, "rg" means nothing here...
> -Message d'origine-
> De : dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de Alexandre Petrescu
> Envoyé : vendredi 4 décembre 2015 12:02
> À : dmm
> Objet : Re: [DMM] Call for adoption confirmation:
> draft-seite-dmm-rg-multihoming-
> 0
Hi,
I think there is big misunderstood here... this draft does not intend to define
the BBF hybrid access architecture... not even to address this specific
use-case. Few months ago, we had a consensus (including AD) to not focus on a
specific use-case; we thus have removed all references to BBF
Hi,
I have read draft-gundavelli-dmm-lma-controlled-mag-params and support it.
>From my point of view, this document would allow in-band device management,
>which can facilitate deployment of PMIP based architecture. Moreover, this
>option could be used together with notification messages, and
Hi Behcet,
This extension is for any use-case requiring a MAG to be multihomed. For sure,
multihomed RG can be one of them, but there is no reason to restrict MCoA to
this use-case.
Pierrick
> -Message d'origine-
> De : dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de Behcet Sarikaya
>
Hi Dirk,
Tanks for the review, we will modify the doc accordingly.
Pierrick
De : dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de dirk.von-h...@telekom.de
Envoyé : mardi 1 décembre 2015 15:32
À : maxpass...@gmail.com; dmm@ietf.org
Objet : Re: [DMM] Call for adoption confirmation:
draft-seite-dmm
Hi,
I have read this document and I have no particular comment to make.
I support this document.
Pierrick
> -Message d'origine-
> De : dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de Jouni Korhonen
> Envoyé : jeudi 10 septembre 2015 20:48
> À : dmm@ietf.org
> Objet : Re: [DMM] WG Last
I support adoption of this I-D
4/1/2015, 8:02 AM, Jouni Korhonen kirjoitti:
> Folks,
>
> This emails starts a two week call for the I-D
>draft-perkins-dmm-4283mnids-01
> to confirm the aadoption s a DMM WG document. The call ends April 15th
> EOB PST.
>
> Express your support or opposition t
Hi,
I support the adoption of this I-D
pierrick
4/2/2015, 7:21 AM, Jouni Korhonen kirjoitti:
> Folks,
>
> This emails starts a two week call for the I-D
>draft-wt-dmm-fpc-cpdp-00
> to confirm the adoption as a DMM WG document. The call ends April 16th
> EOB PDT.
>
> Express your support or
De : Marco Liebsch [mailto:marco.lieb...@neclab.eu]
Envoyé : jeudi 18 décembre 2014 15:45
À : SEITE Pierrick IMT/OLN; dmm@ietf.org
Objet : RE: [DMM] Data-Plane anchors in a control-/data-plane separated
deyploment
Hi Pierrick,
thanks for the feedback. Agree that we can avoid the anchor term, si
Hi Marco,
I definitely agree that a DP node can play different role; quoting the PMIP
example, a node can play either à MAG or LMA role, or even both rôles. A single
name thus makes sense. However, the term anchor is à bit confusing since it
refers implicitely to HA/ LMA. So, i suggest to use D
Hi Li,
Architecture considerations and solution design are two different things, which
should not be addressed in the same I-D. People may agree with the big picture
depicture and architecture but not agree with going on extensions to the GRE
protocol to address the issue. BTW, I think that goi
Hi,
On roaming:
Sri, I guess you meant "inter-controller interface", right? IMU, roaming is
about coordination between controller belonging to different administrative (or
routing?) domain.
Sri already clarified this, but I think it is important to insist on the fact
that the wort item shall
De : Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) [mailto:sgund...@cisco.com]
Envoyé : mercredi 24 septembre 2014 19:48
À : SEITE Pierrick IMT/OLN; Charles E. Perkins; dmm@ietf.org
Objet : Re: [DMM] Fwd: New Version Notification for
draft-perkins-dmm-4283mnids-00.txt
Hi Pierrick,
The NAI that is used in S2a/S5 p
Hi Charlie,
Thanks for the list… it looks good. I’m just wondering about security
considerations… Actually, from 3GPP standpoint, security constrains on IMSI and
GPRSS/LTE temporary identifiers (P-TMSI, GUTI). AFAIK, IMSI is very rarely sent
on the air (maybe only one time at the beginning of t
Hi,
I second Charlie on this proposal, especially on the need for additional MNID
and tunnel types. Another example for the latter is: using GRE with MIP/NEMO.
BR,
Pierrick
>-Message d'origine-
>De : dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de Charlie Perkins
>Envoyé : lundi 8 septe
Oops... Sorry... I guess I need more coffee this morning or new pair of
glasses
Thanks for the answer...
>-Message d'origine-
>De : Jouni [mailto:jouni.nos...@gmail.com]
>Envoyé : jeudi 4 septembre 2014 10:04
>À : SEITE Pierrick IMT/OLN
>Cc : dmm@ietf.org; dmm-cha...@tools.ietf.
Hi Jouni,
I did not attend the interim meeting, so maybe I'm missing something... but
this draft charter does not include anymore item related to the maintenance of
IP mobility protocols (If I remember well, previous proposal had this item). Is
it an oversight?
Pierrick
>-Message d'origi
>-Message d'origine-
>De : dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de Behcet Sarikaya
>Envoyé : mardi 22 juillet 2014 19:04
>À : Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
>Cc : dmm@ietf.org
>Objet : Re: [DMM] IETF#90 DMM agenda update
>
>On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
>
Exactly... this is why DMM call#5 was devoted to NG-POP... Moreover, we had a
lot of discussions regarding architecture from the very beginning of DMM in
order to justify the effort and I think these discussions should be captured...
>-Message d'origine-
>De : dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ie
Hi,
Just to be sure that we are on the same page
De : dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
Envoyé : jeudi 17 juillet 2014 06:37
À : Marco Liebsch; Hirschman, Brent B [CTO]; Alper Yegin
Cc : dmm@ietf.org
Objet : Re: [DMM] demand for DMM traffic steering
Hi
I suggest the following for the protocol maintenance part:
OLD TEXT
The DMM working group will also work on maintenance-oriented and
incremental extensions to the Mobile IPv6 protocol, specified
in RFC 5213, RFC 5844, and RFC 6275.
NEW TEXT
Hi,
Title of the presentation will be:
Next-Generation POP: a driver for DMM
Pierrick
De : dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de Alper Yegin
Envoyé : mardi 10 juin 2014 10:45
À : dmm@ietf.org
Objet : [DMM] Next-Generation Mobility Protocols and Architectures, Call #5
Hello Folks,
P
Hi,
Just to explain why we chose the term "Location management" instead of "binding
management":
Actually, we have considered that "binding management" has too much IP mobility
flavor and we wanted something more generic. BTW, of course, LM refers to IP
location management... "binding manage
Hi Alex
>-Message d'origine-
>De : dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de Alexandru Petrescu
>Envoyé : vendredi 28 mars 2014 12:11
>À : dmm@ietf.org
>Objet : Re: [DMM] rechartering draft comments
>
>Le 27/03/2014 22:40, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) a écrit :
>>
>>
>> On 3/27/14 2:26
>-Message d'origine-
>De : Jouni Korhonen [mailto:jouni.nos...@gmail.com]
>Envoyé : jeudi 20 mars 2014 10:00
>À : SEITE Pierrick IMT/OLN
>Cc : Alper Yegin; dmm@ietf.org
>Objet : Re: [DMM] re-charter text updated
>
>
>On Mar 20, 2014, at 4:44 PM, pierrick.se...@orange.com wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>-Message d'origine-
>De : dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de Alper Yegin
>Envoyé : jeudi 20 mars 2014 09:42
>À : Jouni Korhonen
>Cc : dmm@ietf.org
>Objet : Re: [DMM] re-charter text updated
>
>
>On Mar 20, 2014, at 10:30 AM, Jouni Korhonen wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mar 20, 2014, at
De : Weixinpeng [mailto:weixinp...@huawei.com]
Envoyé : mercredi 19 mars 2014 03:13
À : SEITE Pierrick IMT/OLN; Alper Yegin; Charlie P.
Cc : dmm@ietf.org; dmm-cha...@tools.ietf.org; Xiongchunshan (Sam)
Objet : RE: [DMM] Where to place mobility functions
Hi Pirrick,
I agree with you that the anc
Hi Rute,
De : Rute Sofia [mailto:rute.so...@ulusofona.pt]
Envoyé : mardi 18 mars 2014 15:00
À : SEITE Pierrick IMT/OLN
Cc : Alper Yegin; Charlie P.; Weixinpeng; dmm@ietf.org;
dmm-cha...@tools.ietf.org
Objet : Re: [DMM] Where to place mobility functions
Hello Pierrick,
by stating that the MAPs
I realize that I gave a very bad example of centralized control functions... In
our context, we should rather talk about centralized mobility control function
(with distributed DP function)... anyway, my proposal for text revision is
still valid.
De : dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] De la par
Hello,
Distributing mobility anchors closer either to the MN or CN are both valid
scenarios. But, maybe there are other optimal anchor location; actually, here,
we are seeking to reach optimal routing by placing the anchor closer to the
optimal data path. Also, we may also want to keep a centra
Hi,
Mobility issues are not specifically in MIF scope. So, as long as we are
talking about exposing mobility state, the I-D should be in DMM. Another reason
is that MIF is still discussing the generic MIF API, so, I'm not sure they can
go on the mobility area before a while.
Pierrick
>-M
Which document are you referring ?
De : dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de Xiongchunshan (Sam)
Envoyé : vendredi 21 février 2014 08:19
À : dmm@ietf.org
Objet : [DMM] MPTCP Proxy for Mobile Networks
Hello folks,
Here I have some comments on this document:
1)
5.2 Traffic mediation
By definition an IP mobility anchor leads to non-optimal route. Actually, the
idea behind req#1 is to avoid using mobility anchor far from the optimal route;
and, effectively, this anchor is usually far from both the MN and the CN
Alper, does the following rewording address your concern?
REQ1
Hi,
Please let me jump into the discussion. First of all, thanks for having read
and comment the draft. Although, I agree with Dapeng's answers, I have couple
of comments:
2013/7/24 Jouni Korhonen mailto:jouni.nos...@gmail.com>>
Authors,
In Section 4.2. it is stated:
"view using common an
Hi,
Please see comments inline.
BR,
Pierrick
De : dmm-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de Alper
Yegin
Envoyé : jeudi 18 juillet 2013 10:17
À : Liu Dapeng
Cc : dmm
Objet : Re: [DMM] New Version Notification for
draft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01.txt
Hi Dapen
Suggestion for revision:
s/ and scalability, which require costly network dimensioning /and scalability,
which require costly network engineering to resolve./
-Message d'origine-
De : dmm-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de Jouni
Korhonen
Envoyé : mardi 4 juin
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
> "curr
Hi Jouni,
IMHO, it is worth to use generic mobility functions (e.g. ingress/egress
redirection, location update, and so on) to describe and compare mobility
solutions. Such a framework shall facilitate comparison of solutions and gap
analysis. Actually, I think it is the only fair approach. For
Hi all,
I tend to agree with Georgious, however I still do not figure out what is the
use-case for distributed mobile multicast (other than academic considerations)?
Can someone give concrete example?
I haven't real all messages from this thread. So, maybe I missed important
points.
BR,
Pierr
> -Message d'origine-
> De : Konstantinos Pentikousis [mailto:k.pentikou...@huawei.com]
> Envoyé : mercredi 14 novembre 2012 18:32
> À : SEITE Pierrick OLNC/OLN; jouni korhonen; dmm@ietf.org
> Objet : RE: [DMM] comments on draft-ietf-dmm-requirements-02
>
> Hi Pierrick, all,
>
> |IMHO
> >> | "PS2: Divergence from other evolutionary trends in network
> >> | architecture
> >> |
> >> | Centralized mobility management can become non-optimal
> with
> >> a
> >> | flat network architecture."
> >> |
> >> | o What are the "other"? I would consider removi
Hi Jouni, Kostas,
Please see comments inline.
Pierrick
> -Message d'origine-
> De : dmm-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de
> Konstantinos Pentikousis
> Envoyé : mardi 13 novembre 2012 16:53
> À : jouni korhonen; dmm@ietf.org
> Objet : Re: [DMM] comments on draft
Hi Kostas,
Maybe some clues in section 3.2 of draft-ietf-dmm-requirements and in
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chan-distributed-mobility-ps-05
As well in http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-yokota-dmm-scenario-00.txt and
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-liu-distributed-mobility-02
Br,
Pierrick
Jouni,
> -Message d'origine-
> De : jouni korhonen [mailto:jouni.nos...@gmail.com]
> Envoyé : vendredi 21 septembre 2012 11:10
> À : SEITE Pierrick RD-RESA
> Cc : 'Jouni Korhonen'; 'karag...@cs.utwente.nl'; dmm@ietf.org;
> h.anthony.c...@huawei.com; juancarlos.zun...@interdigital.com; dmm-
Jouni,
Thanks for clarifications. I agree, we have a good idea on what could be a DMM
environment. However, the application of IP mobility protocols in such
environments is worth to be described; we need to clearly figure out
application and issues. Now, you're probably right when saying there
I agree. So, we have different "DMM practices" on the table and first step is
probably to get consensus on what could be the practices.
Pierrick
> -Message d'origine-
> De : Peter McCann [mailto:peter.mcc...@huawei.com]
> Envoyé : mercredi 19 septembre 2012 21:54
> À : Zuniga, Juan Carlo
Hi Jouni and Julien,
Sorry for jumping into the discussion but I'm a little bit confused with recent
discussions in DMM. So, let me ask for clarifications about the scope of the
gap analysis...
The WG is now tackling with the work item 'Practices and Gap Analysis' and, in
my understanding, w
Hello Folks,
We have submitted a new version of our proposal about basics for DMM:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-seite-dmm-dma-05
This document is about the utilization of vanilla IP mobility protocols for DMM.
Summary of changes:
- section 2 (Introduction): revision and alignment with r
Hi,
IMU, the requirement here is the separation of the control and data planes,
i.e. what we called partial distribution; SDN is part of the solution but I'm
not sure we have a new requirement.
BR,
Pierrick
> -Message d'origine-
> De : dmm-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.or
Hi,
As an operator guy, I will not dispute a use-case dealing with roaming :-).
However I think that it is out of the scope of our considerations here (I mean,
from the IETF standpoint). IMU, the goal of DMM is not to specify a full system
architecture (to which statement (1) below seems to ref
Hi Georgios,
It seems to me that the requirement: "need of supporting both single-operator
and cross-operator mobility management" is a deployment requirement. I
understand the requirement but I do not see how to "translate it" into an IP
generic wording. FSo, fcusing only on protocols (as we a
Hi,
We'll make our DMM demo after the DMM meeting, around 11:30, in the same
meeting room.
BR,
Pierrick
___
dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
> -Message d'origine-
> De : Marco Liebsch [mailto:marco.lieb...@neclab.eu]
> Envoyé : lundi 19 mars 2012 11:53
> À : SEITE Pierrick RD-RESA-REN; jouni.nos...@gmail.com; c...@it.uc3m.es
> Cc : dmm@ietf.org
> Objet : RE: [DMM] New DMM draft:draft-bernardos-dmm-distributed-
> anchoring-00.t
> -Message d'origine-
> De : jouni korhonen [mailto:jouni.nos...@gmail.com]
> Envoyé : lundi 19 mars 2012 11:59
> À : SEITE Pierrick RD-RESA-REN
> Cc : c...@it.uc3m.es; marco.lieb...@neclab.eu; dmm@ietf.org
> Objet : Re: [DMM] New DMM draft:draft-bernardos-dmm-distributed-
> anchoring-00.
I think it is worth to work on solution providing more information on the type
of address. IMHO, it is a requirement for the UE to play with more than one IP
address and select the more appropriate source address according the
topological anchor point. DMM is clearly one use-case but, this featu
Hi Dapeng,
No, there is no modification of the streaming application, it's based on VLC.
Pierrick
> -Message d'origine-
> De : liu dapeng [mailto:maxpass...@gmail.com]
> Envoyé : vendredi 16 mars 2012 08:19
> À : SEITE Pierrick RD-RESA-REN
> Cc : ext-bruno.fa...@nokia.com; m...@ietf.org;
Hi Romain,
This implementation is not based on UMIP, this is a home-made mobility protocol.
BR,
Pierrick
> -Message d'origine-
> De : Romain KUNTZ [mailto:rku...@us.toyota-itc.com]
> Envoyé : vendredi 2 mars 2012 19:18
> À : SEITE Pierrick RD-RESA-REN
> Cc : ext-bruno.fa...@nokia.com; m.
79 matches
Mail list logo
