Hi Ahmad:
On 5/11/10 9:38 PM, "Ahmad Muhanna" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Sri, > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli >> Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 6:26 PM >> To: Joel M. Halpern >> Cc: [email protected]; BINET David NCPI/NAD/TIP >> Subject: Re: [Softwires] GI-DS-lite as working group item? >> >> Hi Joel, >> >> >> On 5/11/10 3:25 PM, "Joel M. Halpern" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I am somewhat confused by this description. >>> You seem to be saying that the primary need for gi-ds-lite >> is mobile. >>> But the MIP related working groups don't seem to be asking for it. >>> And while 3GPP expressed interest in DS-Lite, from what I >> can gather >>> they have not expressed particular interest in gi-ds-lite. >>> >> >> The primary consumer for Mobile IP protocols is 3GPP. There >> are various interfaces that 3GPP architecture supports, that >> includes GTP, MIPv6 and Proxy Mobile IPv6 based protocol >> interfaces. > [Ahmad] > Not to question the future of MIP6 and PMIP6 in 3GPP, but may be you can > explain what value add this draft has that is not currently addressed by IETF > MIP6/PMIP6 suite protocols? > I've explained the points in my earlier mail to Mohamed. This approach is independent of the protocol adopted on the access layer. The access layer can be running GTP, MIPv6 or PMIPv6. The approach allows the applicability of Dual-stack lite solution to the mobile architectures. The migration issue issue is not specific to a given mobility protocol and the solution is not specific to a given protocol either. > It seems to me that on one hand, we complain why some SDO's do not adopt IETF > mobility protocols. While on the other hand, we come with solutions that > basically defeat that same purpose. > How does this solution defeat the adoption of IETF based mobility protocols ? May be I'm missing your point. This is a draft adoption call, if you disagree with the need for this, or on the outcome of the 3GPP/3GPP-IETF workshop, its perfectly fine. But, there are folks who support this approach. Regards Sri _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
