ns; dmm@ietf.org
>>Cc: Vijay Devarapalli
>>Subject: Re: [DMM] regarding the re-chartering..
>>
>>I do not see a reason why multiple MN-Id instances need to be present in
>>a
>>single message ? In my experience, this is strictly a deployment
>>considerati
Hi Sri, please see inline.
>-Original Message-
>From: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) [mailto:sgund...@cisco.com]
>Sent: Donnerstag, 11. September 2014 15:58
>To: Marco Liebsch; Charlie Perkins; dmm@ietf.org
>Cc: Vijay Devarapalli
>Subject: Re: [DMM] regarding the re-charte
marco
>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) [mailto:sgund...@cisco.com]
>>Sent: Donnerstag, 11. September 2014 00:42
>>To: Charlie Perkins; Marco Liebsch; dmm@ietf.org
>>Cc: Vijay Devarapalli
>>Subject: Re: [DMM] regarding the re-charter
;To: Charlie Perkins; Marco Liebsch; dmm@ietf.org
>Cc: Vijay Devarapalli
>Subject: Re: [DMM] regarding the re-chartering..
>
>Hello Charlie,
>
>Agree with that. MN-Id as its defined today is a logical identifier. It does
>not
>require the identifier to be bound to a physi
>>>IDs,
>>> e.g. MAC, as well as subscriber IDs, which is the IMSI.
>>> There may be value in adding the IMEI to the list of possible types of
>>> node-specific IDs.
>>>
>>> marco
>>>
>>>> -Original Message-
>>>&g
-specific IDs.
marco
-Original Message-
From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli
(sgundave)
Sent: Dienstag, 9. September 2014 23:30
To: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave); Charlie Perkins; dmm@ietf.org
Cc: Vijay Devarapalli
Subject: Re: [DMM] regarding the re-chartering..
elli
>>(sgundave)
>>Sent: Dienstag, 9. September 2014 23:30
>>To: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave); Charlie Perkins; dmm@ietf.org
>>Cc: Vijay Devarapalli
>>Subject: Re: [DMM] regarding the re-chartering..
>>
>>Two more comments.
>>
>>
>>
>>4
tf.org] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli
>(sgundave)
>Sent: Dienstag, 9. September 2014 23:30
>To: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave); Charlie Perkins; dmm@ietf.org
>Cc: Vijay Devarapalli
>Subject: Re: [DMM] regarding the re-chartering..
>
>Two more comments.
>
>
>
>4.) I'd a
Two more comments.
4.) I'd also use sub-type value of (2) for IMSI. Just to align with the
sub-types defined for MN Id defined for ICMP. I suspect there are some
implementations already using sub-type (2). Please see the other thread.
5.) For each of the sub-types, we need text including examp
Hi Charlie,
This is good. Thanks.
1.) If EUI-48 and EUI-64 addresses are derived of a 48-bit IEEE 802.2
address, why do we need to two sub-types ? Why not have just one sub-type
for mac based identifiers ?
2.) Sub type value (1) is currently used. Its currently overloaded for
IMSI-NAI (3GPP spe
ptembre 2014 19:50
À : MONGAZON-CAZAVET, BRUNO (BRUNO); dmm@ietf.org
Objet : Re: [DMM] regarding the re-chartering..
Hello folks,
I'll go look for the link(s). But in the meantime, as part of the ongoing
maintenance work, I'd be happy to see the following:
- Additional tunnel types (in
Hi Brian,
It might worth adding a note in the IANA page. I will send a request to
IANA.
We refer to the "Mobile Node Identifier option" in all MIP/PMIP specs and
the search from IANA page ends in the Mobile Node Identifier option
defined for ICMP.
Regards
Sri
On 9/9/14 11:48 AM, "Brian
Sri,
On 9/9/14 2:09 PM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote:
> Hi Suresh,
>
> Thanks. That makes sense. Now, I remember that spec/update.
>
> The option name conflict and my search not finding 4283 references threw
> me off. Thanks.
>
If this is *really* confusing, it may be worth updating the nam
Hi Suresh,
Thanks. That makes sense. Now, I remember that spec/update.
The option name conflict and my search not finding 4283 references threw
me off. Thanks.
> No comments on that one :-)
:)
Regards
Sri
On 9/9/14 10:39 AM, "Suresh Krishnan" wrote:
>Hi Sri,
>
>On 09/09/2014 10:11 AM,
On 09/09/2014 10:06 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote:
I support the extension to MN Id type. I talked to few people
(Yokota-san, Jouni ..) on this in the past and below is the
explanation. Currently, the NAI that is carried in the PBU does not
distinguish a IMSI based NAI, generic-NAI and a M
Hi Sri,
On 09/09/2014 10:11 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote:
This is bit strange. Some thing changed in the IANA Mobile Node
Identifier pages. I assumed the MN Id was defined in RFC4283. How come
I see a definition in 5271 as well.
Confused. Jouni / Brian – Any ideas ? Unless, I've been s
>"
mailto:pierrick.se...@orange.com>>, Charlie Perkins
mailto:charles.perk...@earthlink.net>>,
"dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>" mailto:dmm@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [DMM] regarding the re-chartering..
I support the extension to MN Id type. I talked to few people (Yoko
ypes. 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 septembre 2014 19:50
À : MONGAZON-CAZAVET, BRUNO (BRUNO); dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>
O
voyé : lundi 8 septembre 2014 19:50
>À : MONGAZON-CAZAVET, BRUNO (BRUNO); dmm@ietf.org
>Objet : Re: [DMM] regarding the re-chartering..
>
>
>Hello folks,
>
>I'll go look for the link(s). But in the meantime, as part of the ongoing
>maintenance work, I'd be happy to
Hello folks,
I'll go look for the link(s). But in the meantime, as part of the ongoing
maintenance work, I'd be happy to see the following:
- Additional tunnel types (including GTP)
- Additional mobile node identifier types (including IMSI, MAC, ...)
- Additional security mechanisms
If there
On 05/09/2014 19:10, Charlie Perkins wrote:
Hello folks,
I have made various presentations at IETF, some from many years
ago, proposing that Mobile IP enable use of GTP as a tunneling
option. I still think that would be a good idea. Should I re-re-revive
a draft stating this in more detail?
Alex,
>>
>> The most robust way is to let the application tell the IP stack.
>>
>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-yegin-dmm-ondemand-mobility-02.txt
>
> Sounds reasonable.
>
> A complimentary means is to look at this as a source address selection
> problem: given two addresses configured on an
Hello folks,
I have made various presentations at IETF, some from many years
ago, proposing that Mobile IP enable use of GTP as a tunneling
option. I still think that would be a good idea. Should I re-re-revive
a draft stating this in more detail?
Regards,
Charlie P.
On 9/5/2014 1:48 AM, Al
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 work wit
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 work with
>> GTP-based architectures.
>>
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 work with
GTP-based architectures.
For example, identifying the mobility needs of flows.
Or, conveying the mobility c
From meeting minutes:
(Jouni) "I suggest that we left the bullet as a work item and we do not have
explicit milestone
for it. we can add this milestone when we actually see that there is something
meaningful
forming for that document. "
The decision at the meeting was to leave the work item in
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 work with
GTP-based architectures.
For example, identifying the mobility needs of flows.
Or, conveying the mobility characteristic of a prefix to the UE.
Alper
Hi Charlie,
Success is when we see the protocols we design are deployed and used.
Whether it's over 3GPP, WiFi, or something else.
The more the merrier.
I don't think anyone is preventing use of DMM over WiFi.
Alper
On Sep 4, 2014, at 1:31 PM, Charles E. Perkins wrote:
>
> Hello folks,
>
> -Original Message-
> From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jouni
> Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 6:36 AM
> To: Charles E. Perkins
> Cc: dmm@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [DMM] regarding the re-chartering..
>
>
> On Sep 4, 2014, at 1:31 P
Hi Alex,
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 6:36 AM, Alexandru Petrescu
wrote:
> Le 04/09/2014 12:31, Charles E. Perkins a écrit :
>
>>
>> Hello folks,
>>
>> I have asked this same question many times, in different words...
>>
>> Namely, if we design a solution that fits the requirements, and bridges
>> the
Hi Charlie,
Check this out:
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-sarikaya-dmm-for-wifi-00.txt
Regards,
Behcet
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 5:31 AM, Charles E. Perkins
wrote:
>
> Hello folks,
>
> I have asked this same question many times, in different words...
>
> Namely, if we design a solution that fit
Le 04/09/2014 12:31, Charles E. Perkins a écrit :
Hello folks,
I have asked this same question many times, in different words...
Namely, if we design a solution that fits the requirements, and bridges
the gaps as analyzed in the gap analysis document, have we succeeded?
My answer is no. As
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
On Sep 4, 2014, at 1:31 PM, Charles E. Perkins wrote:
>
> Hello folks,
>
> I have asked this same question many times, in different words...
>
> Namely, if we design a solution that fits the requirements, and bridges
> the gaps as analyzed in the gap analysis document, have we succeeded?
>
>
Hello folks,
I have asked this same question many times, in different words...
Namely, if we design a solution that fits the requirements, and bridges
the gaps as analyzed in the gap analysis document, have we succeeded?
Or, is there a requirement for the work to be adopted by 3GPP?
What if w
Alex,
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.
>>
>> That is quite possible. Your comment on the list was "I am against any
>
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
I don't follow this objection either. This discussion just derails
established consensus after months of discussions.
We design protocols to enable deployment/solutions/architectures. Those
solutions/architectures are not unique to a specific SDO or unique to a
specific access. Its a broader frame
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 having the deployment models work item on
the a
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Brian Haberman
wrote:
>
>
> On 9/3/14 12:50 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
>> Hi Brian,
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Brian Haberman
>> wrote:
>>> Just for clarification...
>>>
>>> On 9/3/14 12:22 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
>>>
I am also concerned o
On 9/3/14 12:50 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
> Hi Brian,
>
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Brian Haberman
> wrote:
>> Just for clarification...
>>
>> On 9/3/14 12:22 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I am also concerned on the time DMM is taking on dressing up the
>>> charter text. I remin
Hi Brian,
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Brian Haberman
wrote:
> Just for clarification...
>
> On 9/3/14 12:22 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
>
>>
>> I am also concerned on the time DMM is taking on dressing up the
>> charter text. I remind you on what Jari Arkko who is founding AD for
>> DMM said
Just for clarification...
On 9/3/14 12:22 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
>
> I am also concerned on the time DMM is taking on dressing up the
> charter text. I remind you on what Jari Arkko who is founding AD for
> DMM said in Toronto admin plenary:
> WGs should have solution work from day 1.
Not
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 12:07 AM, Jouni Korhonen wrote:
> We were on this in yesterday's interim call. We have a proposal text now.
> You were also on the call but I did not record you commenting anything
> during the discussion we had on this particular topic.
I had leave early due to doctor's ap
We were on this in yesterday's interim call. We have a proposal text
now. You were also on the call but I did not record you commenting
anything during the discussion we had on this particular topic. Are you
now saying the resolution we have now in the charter text is not adequate?
- JOuni
9/
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Jouni Korhonen wrote:
> Behcet,
>
> Obviously that protocols are known that the intended deployment is going to
> use. The details what goes inside that protocol are not. This holds for my
> example case 3GPP as well.
>
> We do not need to into same level of detail
Behcet,
Obviously that protocols are known that the intended deployment is going
to use. The details what goes inside that protocol are not. This holds
for my example case 3GPP as well.
We do not need to into same level of detail that e.g. 3GPP stage-2 has
detailing all signaling flows and s
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 3:25 AM, Jouni wrote:
>
> Alper,
>
> I hear your concern. Anyway, the division here is similar to (3GPP) stage-2
> and stage-3 work. The ""deployment models and scenarios" are the stage-2
> descriptions and then we also need the protocol level solutions that are in
> sepa
Alper,
I hear your concern. Anyway, the division here is similar to (3GPP) stage-2 and
stage-3 work. The ""deployment models and scenarios" are the stage-2
descriptions and then we also need the protocol level solutions that are in
separate documents.
Makes sense?
- Jouni
On Sep 1, 2014, a
> Okay, we are not going to define how the existing 3FPP system works - that
> knowledge is assumed. What I thought goes into the document, for example, in
> the case of 3GPP system would be identifying the architecture changes or
> modifications needed. If the deployment model assumes all netwo
Alper,
8/13/2014 3:35 PM, Alper Yegin kirjoitti:
Hi Jouni,
o Distributed mobility management deployment models and scenarios:
describe the target high-level network architectures and
deployment models where distributed mobility management
protocol solutions could a
So, in lines 27-30 of the current draft charter, it says:
> 5213, RFC 5844, RFC , RFC 5568, and RFC 6275) as well as new
> approaches which capitalize on other protocols specified by the IETF.
> When extending protocols that are not based on Mobile IP, DMM solutions
> will be have to be rev
OK, I see it now. thanks.
Fred
> -Original Message-
> From: Jouni Korhonen [mailto:jouni.nos...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 10:38 PM
> To: Templin, Fred L
> Cc: dmm@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [DMM] regarding the re-chartering..
>
> https://gi
https://github.com/jounikor/dmm-re-charter
8/14/2014 1:44 AM, Templin, Fred L kirjoitti:
Hi Jouni,
Is the draft charter under some sort of version control, or are
the previous versions gone for good?
Thanks - Fred
fred.l.temp...@boeing.com
___
dm
Hi Jouni,
Is the draft charter under some sort of version control, or are
the previous versions gone for good?
Thanks - Fred
fred.l.temp...@boeing.com
___
dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
Hi Jouni,
>>>
>>>
>>> o Distributed mobility management deployment models and scenarios:
>>>describe the target high-level network architectures and
>>>deployment models where distributed mobility management
>>>protocol solutions could apply.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Can som
Alper, all,
8/5/2014 11:43 AM, Alper Yegin kirjoitti:
Hello,
Thank you Kostas for this rewrite. The charter reads better now.
Please see below for few comments.
On Jul 30, 2014, at 11:20 AM, Jouni Korhonen wrote:
Folks,
A major rewrite of the charter is in github (and below). Thanks to K
Hello,
Thank you Kostas for this rewrite. The charter reads better now.
Please see below for few comments.
On Jul 30, 2014, at 11:20 AM, Jouni Korhonen wrote:
> Folks,
>
> A major rewrite of the charter is in github (and below). Thanks to Kostas
> providing excellent feedbask on the text. Co
Folks,
A major rewrite of the charter is in github (and below). Thanks to
Kostas providing excellent feedbask on the text. Comments are welcome.
Description of Working Group:
Mobility management solutions lie at the center
The webex sessions have been cancelled in accordance of better IETF
process compliancy. New dates will be announced rougghly two weeks ahead
of tomorrow.
You can (and should) still actively send edits to the list and I'll
update the text accordingly. Maybe we manage to get ready even without a
nt: Friday, July 25, 2014 5:50 AM
To: dmm@ietf.org
Subject: [DMM] regarding the re-chartering..
Folks,
The latest charter draft can be found here:
https://github.com/jounikor/dmm-re-charter/blob/master/recharter_draft.tx
t
The deadline for the text chnges are 31st July. I'll setup a call for nex
de the IGP
routing domain? Is there any specific consideration on this?
Thanks.
BR,
Xinpeng
>-Original Message-
>From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jouni Korhonen
>Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 5:50 AM
>To: dmm@ietf.org
>Subject: [DMM] regarding the re-char
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Brian Haberman
wrote:
>
>
> On 7/24/14 6:01 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
>> Hi Jouni,
>>
>> Regarding
>>
>> Distributed mobility management deployment models and scenarios:
>>
>> As I said in the session today I am having trouble understanding the
>> deployment model
>> I may be interpreting the charter incorrectly, but I think there may be
>> a disconnect. I interpreted the the charter text as describing
>> deployment models like:
>>
>> - Wi-Fi-based mobility management
>>
>> - Cellular (e.g., 3GPP) mobility management
>>
>> - Mixed technology mobility man
7/25/2014 1:17 AM, Brian Haberman kirjoitti:
On 7/24/14 6:01 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
Hi Jouni,
Regarding
Distributed mobility management deployment models and scenarios:
As I said in the session today I am having trouble understanding the
deployment models.
To me it sounds like doing
On 7/24/14 6:01 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
> Hi Jouni,
>
> Regarding
>
> Distributed mobility management deployment models and scenarios:
>
> As I said in the session today I am having trouble understanding the
> deployment models.
>
> To me it sounds like doing the last thing first, i.e. aft
Hi Jouni,
Regarding
Distributed mobility management deployment models and scenarios:
As I said in the session today I am having trouble understanding the
deployment models.
To me it sounds like doing the last thing first, i.e. after we get the
dmm solution we work on how to deploy it (of course
Folks,
The latest charter draft can be found here:
https://github.com/jounikor/dmm-re-charter/blob/master/recharter_draft.txt
The deadline for the text chnges are 31st July. I'll setup a call for
next week so that those who want to dial in and have verbal commenting
can do that. In a meanwhile
69 matches
Mail list logo
