Hello Alex and all,
Interesting discussion. Here's my take.
On 10/29/2014 10:03 AM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- help with automated portal authentication in WLAN. Hopping on and
off from a WiFi hotspot to another, even without moving physically,
is often obstructed by web portal authentication requiring user
to type to fill forms; this is not only inconvenient, but in some
cases it is impossible, like with vehicular networks where the
driver is forbidden by law to type while behind the wheel.
I would love to work on this. If you have ideas, please describe.
- bugs in an otherwise reliable Mobile IPv6 implementation of
a particular equipment manufacturer (HA never deletes a tunnel,
lifetime: remaining never): should the bugs be corrected or shoudl
the spec modified to reflect what the implementation actually
does? Should protocol workarounds be designed to deal with this
problem?
My answers: (1) no, and (2) not within [dmm].
- future of the maintenance of the linux open source Mobile IPv6
implementation: just for my clarification - is it still ok? Is there
some project behind it? Or is it dying? Currently the email list
seems silent, and the latest software releases date back to more than
one year.
If [dmm] shows itself to be a credible force, the open source problems
will naturally get the proper attention. But it shouldn't be on the
[dmm] charter.
- elimination, or reducing the effect, of the necessity of the 'focal
point' Home Agent: route optimization for the masses and for moving
networks as deployed in vehicles.
Isn't this already on the radar for [dmm]?
- Mobile IPv6 and IPv6 NAT Traversal;
- IPv6 NAT in a moving network;
- bypassing Mobile IPv6 implementation (and use IPv6 NATting) in cases
of particular applications, based on destination IPv6 address and
IPv6-only-when-reversed FQDN name.
- the use of ULAs combined with Global addresses, with Mobile IPv6
(e.g. ULA HoA but GUA CoA, or reverse).
For these four items, it will depend on whether there is a constituency
for action.
And, one more thing:
On 10/29/2014 10:46 AM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Le 29/10/2014 18:40, Brian Haberman a écrit :
On 10/29/14 1:33 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
I agree yes. Are there enhancements that can be made to the Mobile
IPv6
specs in particular RFC6275, RFC3963, RFC4877, RFC6276.
I personally do not know. But as Jouni suggested, write a draft on the
enhancements you want to see and get feedback.
Brian - thank you for the invitation. Maybe I will do.
Now that the deadline passed it's for the next year. I will keep a
mark on these emails.
You don't have to wait! In fact you can submit a draft even on the
first day of the IETF.
For the four topics above, that would be very appropriate, I think.
Regards,
Charlie P.
_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
