Hi Alper, draft-sarikaya-dmm-for-wifi- 00.txt does not use anchoring, I don't know how many times I should tell?
It simply extends vEPC, so it should be classified wherever vEPC is classified, and I don't care where. Regards, Behcet On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 2:45 PM, Alper Yegin <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jul 17, 2014, at 9:11 PM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote: > > I'm in favor of this approach. This was my suggestion as well in the past > (when we presented prefix coloring spec) to move forward some documents. > But, those should be documents which are considered common across multiple > solution approaches. > > > Obviously. And that's the case in this particular instance. > > Recapping the DMM solution space analysis below. > > > Per-flow IP address configuration according to mobility needs > > Apps indicating their mobility needs to the IP stack on the MN, and > associated IP configuration signaling between the MN and the network. > > draft-bhandari-dhc-class-based-prefix-03 > draft-korhonen-dmm-prefix-properties-00.txt > draft-yegin-dmm-ondemand-mobility-02 > > Mobility solution selection > > MN determining the type of mobility solution(s) it'd apply to a given flow. > > draft-yegin-ip-mobility-orchestrator-00 > > IP anchor selection > > MN selecting the IP anchor node after it decides to use IP anchoring > (whether in the access network or the core network). > > draft-aliahmad-dmm-anchor-selection-00.txt > > > Access network anchoring > > Anchoring IP address within the access network using IP-in-IP tunneling. > > draft-bernardos-dmm-cmip-01 > draft-bernardos-dmm-pmip-03 > draft-bernardos-dmm-distributed-anchoring-04 > draft-chan-dmm-enhanced-mobility-anchoring-00 > draft-sarikaya-dmm-for-wifi-00.txt > draft-seite-dmm-dma-07.txt > draft-xuan-dmm-nemo-dmm-02.txt > > > Corresponding node/network anchoring > > Anchoring IP address on the Corresponding Node or Corresponding Network. > > Mobile IPv6 route optimization > draft-yegin-dmm-cnet-homing-02 > draft-xiong-dmm-ip-reachability-01 > > Host-route based intra-domain solutions > > Non-tunneling solutions. > > draft-chan-dmm-enhanced-mobility-anchoring-00 > draft-matsushima-stateless-uplane-vepc-02 > draft-mccann-dmm-flatarch-00 > > > > > Alper > > > > The issue seems to be charter approval. > > > > > Sri > > > On 7/17/14 11:04 AM, "Alper Yegin" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Why? Why not make technical progress at every opportunity? > > This extreme serialization and every step overly stretchingŠ. am I the > > only one having issue with the slow progress? > > > Alper > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > dmm mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm > _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
