Hello Sri, I understand what you are saying. However, I have sincere doubts on this approach being overlayed on top of current IETF mobility protocols without any impact nor interactions, in specific MIP6/PMIP6 suite of protocols. If the draft is trying to offer a solution for networks that deploy mobility architecture (IETF mobility architecture), I strongly believe that we are obligated to understand how this works and solves the issue if there is one before we adopt the draft.
I may be missing something here, but from IETF prospective, I strongly believe that the mobility groups need to look into the claim that this proposal can be overlayed on top of IETF mobility protocols without any negative impact or interaction. On the other hand, for example, if PMIP6 is deployed in a network with the assumptions and pre-conditions that GI DS-Lite highlighted and assumed, do we need this proposal? These questions need answers! Otherwise, we are not putting the cart in front of the horse, we are putting a train:-) Regards, Ahmad > -----Original Message----- > From: Sri Gundavelli [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 12:46 AM > To: Ahmad Muhanna > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Softwires] GI-DS-lite as working group item? > > Hi Ahmad, > > > > > >> > >> 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. > > [Ahmad] > > Thanks for the pointer Sri. > > > > I understand a 3000 feet high view always is rosy:) As you > know, I am > > actually interested in the details. > > Assuming that we have all the assumptions and preconditions as > > documented in GI DS-Lite, why, for example, PMIP6 suite of > protocols NEED this proposal. > > > > I'm not sure, why this is being tied to PMIPv6, or to one > specific protocol. > As stated above, 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. I've > already listed the benefits of this approach in my earlier > mail to Mohamed. > > You can forget about the 3000 feet view, which is rosy, you > can surely ignore the 3GPP-IETF recommendation. We are asking > the WG to measure the approach on the basis of this draft > alone and consider that recommendation only as an input. > > > Regards > Sri > > > > > > > > I appreciate your detailed views. > > > > Regards, > > Ahmad > >> > >> > >>> 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
