Hello folks,
I'll go look for the link(s). But in the meantime, as part of the ongoing
maintenance work, I'd be happy to see the following:
- Additional tunnel types (including GTP)
- Additional mobile node identifier types (including IMSI, MAC, ...)
- Additional security mechanisms
If there is a sliver of a chance that we could go down any one or more
of these paths, I will resurrect the old Internet drafts as well. If people
are interested, I will re-submit them for the November meeting.
There are two or three other things that Mobile IP needs also,
that take more words to express, but not necessarily directly
related to distributed mobility management. Much of my development
had to do with trying to provide an easier / incremental path for the
deployment of Mobile IP by SDO partners in 3GPP, which would
necessitate inclusion in their standards, which (for instance) seems
to necessitate GTP as a tunneling protocol, etc.
Regards,
Charlie P.
On 9/7/2014 11:57 PM, MONGAZON-CAZAVET, BRUNO (BRUNO) wrote:
On 05/09/2014 19:10, Charlie Perkins wrote:
Hello folks,
I have made various presentations at IETF, some from many years
ago, proposing that Mobile IP enable use of GTP as a tunneling
option. I still think that would be a good idea. Should I re-re-revive
a draft stating this in more detail?
I would be interested to look at this draft.
Thanks.
Bruno
Regards,
Charlie P.
On 9/5/2014 1:48 AM, Alper Yegin wrote:
Alex,
DMM is not meant to be only about a bunch of MIP-based solutions.
There are various components in DMM solution space that'd also work
with GTP-based architectures.
For example, identifying the mobility needs of flows.
Or, conveying the mobility characteristic of a prefix to the UE.
Alper
On Sep 4, 2014, at 1:14 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Le 03/09/2014 20:53, Brian Haberman a écrit :
Behcet,
On 9/3/14 2:33 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
You don't seem to understand my points.
That is quite possible. Your comment on the list was I am
against any
deployment work before we decide on a solution...
I read that as an objection to having the deployment models work
item on
the agenda. Please do tell me what I am missing.
Regards,
Brian
Hi,
I am following the discussion and me too I do not quite understand
what is the complain.
I am happy to learn that a if a WG is to be formed then it would be
around a solution rather than just requirements or architecture.
That said, I would like to express a worry along similar lines.
In DMM, precedents and the keen NETEXT, there seems to be a
hard-rooted disconnect between the product developped - (P)Mobile
IP - and the deployments. We know for a fact that 3GPP deployments
(2G/3G/4G) do not use (P)Mobile IP. We also know that 3GPP specs
do mention Mobile IP. To such a point that I wonder whether 3GPP
has not the same disconnect as here.
On another hand, we do have indications of where (P)Mobile IP is
used - the trials, the projects, the kernel code, and not least the
slideware attracting real customers.
The worry: develop DMM protocol while continuing the disconnect.
Alex
___
dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
___
dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
___
dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
___
dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
___
dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
___
dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
