On May 7, 2012, at 9:04 PM, h chan wrote: > REQ-4: compatibility > The DMM solutions SHALL support existing network deployment with IPv6 (e.g. > existing IPv6 address assignment), be compatible with other mobility > protocols, and be interoperable with the network or the mobile hosts/routers > that do not support the DMM enabling protocol so that the existing network > deployments are unaffected. > > REQ-4M (Motivation for REQ-4) > Motivation: The motivation of this requirement is to be able to work with > network architectures of both hierarchical networks and flattened networks, > so that the mobility management protocol possesses enough flexibility to > support different networks, and so that the existing networks and hosts are > not affected and do not break.
Isn't the motivation just "SHALL not break existing network deployments and end hosts" ? Either the network or the host may not have any idea of the solutions developed in DMM. - JOuni > > OTHER related problem > O-PS3: Complicated deployment with too many variants and extensions of MIP > Deployment is complicated with many variants and extensions of MIP. When > introducing new functions which may add to the complicity, existing solutions > are more vulnerable to break. > > (The above has been drafted with contributions, inputs and discussions from > various people. Additional contributions and comments are most welcome.) > > H Anthony Chan > > > _______________________________________________ > dmm mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
