Perkins; Marco Liebsch; dmm@ietf.org
Cc: Vijay Devarapalli
Subject: Re: [DMM] regarding the re-chartering..
Hello Charlie,
Agree with that. MN-Id as its defined today is a logical identifier. It does
not
require the identifier to be bound to a physical device or a interface
identity.
But, we have
...@cisco.com]
Sent: Donnerstag, 11. September 2014 00:42
To: Charlie Perkins; Marco Liebsch; dmm@ietf.org
Cc: Vijay Devarapalli
Subject: Re: [DMM] regarding the re-chartering..
Hello Charlie,
Agree with that. MN-Id as its defined today is a logical identifier. It
does not
require the identifier to be bound
] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli
(sgundave)
Sent: Dienstag, 9. September 2014 23:30
To: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave); Charlie Perkins; dmm@ietf.org
Cc: Vijay Devarapalli
Subject: Re: [DMM] regarding the re-chartering..
Two more comments.
4.) I'd also use sub-type value of (2) for IMSI. Just to align
, 9. September 2014 23:30
To: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave); Charlie Perkins; dmm@ietf.org
Cc: Vijay Devarapalli
Subject: Re: [DMM] regarding the re-chartering..
Two more comments.
4.) I'd also use sub-type value of (2) for IMSI. Just to align with the
sub-types
defined for MN Id defined for ICMP. I
Hi Suresh,
Thanks. That makes sense. Now, I remember that spec/update.
The option name conflict and my search not finding 4283 references threw
me off. Thanks.
No comments on that one :-)
:)
Regards
Sri
On 9/9/14 10:39 AM, Suresh Krishnan suresh.krish...@ericsson.com wrote:
Hi Sri,
Hi Brian,
It might worth adding a note in the IANA page. I will send a request to
IANA.
We refer to the Mobile Node Identifier option in all MIP/PMIP specs and
the search from IANA page ends in the Mobile Node Identifier option
defined for ICMP.
Regards
Sri
On 9/9/14 11:48 AM, Brian
:50
À : MONGAZON-CAZAVET, BRUNO (BRUNO); dmm@ietf.org
Objet : Re: [DMM] regarding the re-chartering..
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
Hi Charlie,
This is good. Thanks.
1.) If EUI-48 and EUI-64 addresses are derived of a 48-bit IEEE 802.2
address, why do we need to two sub-types ? Why not have just one sub-type
for mac based identifiers ?
2.) Sub type value (1) is currently used. Its currently overloaded for
IMSI-NAI (3GPP
Two more comments.
4.) I'd also use sub-type value of (2) for IMSI. Just to align with the
sub-types defined for MN Id defined for ICMP. I suspect there are some
implementations already using sub-type (2). Please see the other thread.
5.) For each of the sub-types, we need text including
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
Alex,
The most robust way is to let the application tell the IP stack.
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-yegin-dmm-ondemand-mobility-02.txt
Sounds reasonable.
A complimentary means is to look at this as a source address selection
problem: given two addresses configured on an interface
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
From meeting minutes:
(Jouni) I suggest that we left the bullet as a work item and we do not have
explicit milestone
for it. we can add this milestone when we actually see that there is something
meaningful
forming for that document.
The decision at the meeting was to leave the work item in
Hi Alex,
On Sep 5, 2014, at 3:32 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Le 05/09/2014 10:48, Alper Yegin a écrit :
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
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?
Regards,
Charlie P.
On 9/5/2014 1:48 AM,
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
Hello folks,
I have asked this same question many times, in different words...
Namely, if we design a solution that fits the requirements, and bridges
the gaps as analyzed in the gap analysis document, have we succeeded?
Or, is there a requirement for the work to be adopted by 3GPP?
What if
On Sep 4, 2014, at 1:31 PM, Charles E. Perkins wrote:
Hello folks,
I have asked this same question many times, in different words...
Namely, if we design a solution that fits the requirements, and bridges
the gaps as analyzed in the gap analysis document, have we succeeded?
Or, is
Le 04/09/2014 12:31, Jouni a écrit :
[...]
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
Hi Charlie,
Check this out:
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-sarikaya-dmm-for-wifi-00.txt
Regards,
Behcet
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 5:31 AM, Charles E. Perkins
charl...@computer.org wrote:
Hello folks,
I have asked this same question many times, in different words...
Namely, if we design a
Hi Alex,
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 6:36 AM, Alexandru Petrescu
alexandru.petre...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 04/09/2014 12:31, Charles E. Perkins a écrit :
Hello folks,
I have asked this same question many times, in different words...
Namely, if we design a solution that fits the requirements, and
-Original Message-
From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jouni
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 6:36 AM
To: Charles E. Perkins
Cc: dmm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DMM] regarding the re-chartering..
On Sep 4, 2014, at 1:31 PM, Charles E. Perkins wrote:
Hello
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 12:07 AM, Jouni Korhonen jouni.nos...@gmail.com wrote:
We were on this in yesterday's interim call. We have a proposal text now.
You were also on the call but I did not record you commenting anything
during the discussion we had on this particular topic.
I had leave
Just for clarification...
On 9/3/14 12:22 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
I am also concerned on the time DMM is taking on dressing up the
charter text. I remind you on what Jari Arkko who is founding AD for
DMM said in Toronto admin plenary:
WGs should have solution work from day 1.
Not
Hi Brian,
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Brian Haberman
br...@innovationslab.net wrote:
Just for clarification...
On 9/3/14 12:22 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
I am also concerned on the time DMM is taking on dressing up the
charter text. I remind you on what Jari Arkko who is founding AD
On 9/3/14 12:50 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
Hi Brian,
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Brian Haberman
br...@innovationslab.net wrote:
Just for clarification...
On 9/3/14 12:22 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
I am also concerned on the time DMM is taking on dressing up the
charter text. I
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
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Jouni Korhonen jouni.nos...@gmail.com wrote:
Behcet,
Obviously that protocols are known that the intended deployment is going to
use. The details what goes inside that protocol are not. This holds for my
example case 3GPP as well.
We do not need to into same
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 3:25 AM, Jouni jouni.nos...@gmail.com wrote:
Alper,
I hear your concern. Anyway, the division here is similar to (3GPP) stage-2
and stage-3 work. The deployment models and scenarios are the stage-2
descriptions and then we also need the protocol level solutions that
OK, I see it now. thanks.
Fred
-Original Message-
From: Jouni Korhonen [mailto:jouni.nos...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 10:38 PM
To: Templin, Fred L
Cc: dmm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DMM] regarding the re-chartering..
https://github.com/jounikor/dmm-re-charter
8
So, in lines 27-30 of the current draft charter, it says:
5213, RFC 5844, RFC , RFC 5568, and RFC 6275) as well as new
approaches which capitalize on other protocols specified by the IETF.
When extending protocols that are not based on Mobile IP, DMM solutions
will be have to be
Alper, all,
8/5/2014 11:43 AM, Alper Yegin kirjoitti:
Hello,
Thank you Kostas for this rewrite. The charter reads better now.
Please see below for few comments.
On Jul 30, 2014, at 11:20 AM, Jouni Korhonen wrote:
Folks,
A major rewrite of the charter is in github (and below). Thanks to
Hi Jouni,
Is the draft charter under some sort of version control, or are
the previous versions gone for good?
Thanks - Fred
fred.l.temp...@boeing.com
___
dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
Hello,
Thank you Kostas for this rewrite. The charter reads better now.
Please see below for few comments.
On Jul 30, 2014, at 11:20 AM, Jouni Korhonen wrote:
Folks,
A major rewrite of the charter is in github (and below). Thanks to Kostas
providing excellent feedbask on the text.
Folks,
A major rewrite of the charter is in github (and below). Thanks to
Kostas providing excellent feedbask on the text. Comments are welcome.
Description of Working Group:
Mobility management solutions lie at the center
7/25/2014 1:17 AM, Brian Haberman kirjoitti:
On 7/24/14 6:01 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
Hi Jouni,
Regarding
Distributed mobility management deployment models and scenarios:
As I said in the session today I am having trouble understanding the
deployment models.
To me it sounds like doing
I may be interpreting the charter incorrectly, but I think there may be
a disconnect. I interpreted the the charter text as describing
deployment models like:
- Wi-Fi-based mobility management
- Cellular (e.g., 3GPP) mobility management
- Mixed technology mobility management
- etc.
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Brian Haberman
br...@innovationslab.net wrote:
On 7/24/14 6:01 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
Hi Jouni,
Regarding
Distributed mobility management deployment models and scenarios:
As I said in the session today I am having trouble understanding the
deployment
Folks,
The latest charter draft can be found here:
https://github.com/jounikor/dmm-re-charter/blob/master/recharter_draft.txt
The deadline for the text chnges are 31st July. I'll setup a call for
next week so that those who want to dial in and have verbal commenting
can do that. In a
Hi Jouni,
Regarding
Distributed mobility management deployment models and scenarios:
As I said in the session today I am having trouble understanding the
deployment models.
To me it sounds like doing the last thing first, i.e. after we get the
dmm solution we work on how to deploy it (of
40 matches
Mail list logo
