Le 29/10/2014 18:03, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) a écrit :
Alex:
The maintenance work does include mobile router based deployments; The
work that we did in NETEXT, MEXT, MIP4 comes under that maintenance scope.
But NETEXT, MEXT and MIP4 are all closed. So where is the maintenance
happenning now?
We don't have to split the hair in analyzing what is in the charter text.
If MIPv6 and PMIPv6 is included, why would NEMO be excluded ? Its the same
protocol.
First, PMIPv6 does not include neither NEMO nor Network Mobility, it
includes Prefix Delegation. We discussed this extensively at the time
and that's what we concluded.
NEMO (i.e. NEtwork MObility, check spelling) is an extension to Mobile
IPv6 and Mobile IPv4 to realize network mobility. This comes with a
design requirement on the address architecture where one considers
Prefixes in addition to Addresses.
One can tweak it in any way one wants, but still is that network
mobility is an additional extension to the MIP6 space - does DMM do the
same?
Network mobility questions to each of the groups:
Is Mobility Exposure happening in a Terminal about its own mobility? Or
is it exposing the states of each other terminals attached to a Mobile
Router? From the start or an afterthought?
Forwarding Path and Signalling Management: are the route updates
concerning an address or a prefix?
Enhanced Anchor is anchoring a prefix or an address?
Unless we work on some totally unrelated stuff, I don't see a reason as
why a given extension will not be allowed. If the deployments need it and
the WG agrees, we better do that work here; IETF cannot just pull the
plug. General mobility and mobile networks related work is all in scope.
At least that's how I interpret the text.
Well, one particular maintenance aspect of Mobile IPv6 is the "never
delete tunnel" of a particular Mobile IPv6 implementation. This is not
a new feature, not a new protocol, it is a bug.
Should the bug be corrected? Should implementations tweak around it?
Should the spec be updated? Because currently it does not work.
Alex
Sri
On 10/29/14 9:55 AM, "Alexandru Petrescu" <[email protected]>
wrote:
Le 29/10/2014 17:42, Jouni a écrit :
On Oct 29, 2014, at 4:56 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
My remarks to the Charter proposal got rejected in this respect.
Because NEMO was already part of the existing charter text.
The Charter currently does not say NEMO.
The charter does mention mobile routers. That is nemo enough at least
for me.
Yes, no, sorry.
Network mobility is a concept where groups of endnodes move together. A
Mobile Router implementing Mobile IPv6 could be in charge of that
router, conceptually.
In practical deployments, this MR ranges from a small pc to whole racks
of blades in charge of that mobility. Using or not using Mobile IP at
all.
Network mobility is involving more than Mobile Routers, and some times
no Mobile Routers at all.
Besides, the first revision of the charter text was put into git on Mar
5, 2014.
You have had enough time to build more consensus to include "explicit
NEMO
wording" than the last minute when everybody is rather reserved to do
any
changes if just possible.
I agree with you. I am sorry for too late expression.
I am as happy to know that Network mobility is _not_ considered by DMM
(where should it then?) than it _is_.
Alex
- Jouni
_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
