Hi Satoru,
Thanks a lot for the feedback. I think exploring SRv6 as user plane
protocol is a very valid point.
Regarding the white paper Kalyani leads, I'm definitely interested.
Thanks,
Carlos
On Tue, 2018-03-20 at 15:02 +, Satoru Matsushima wrote:
> Thanks authors,
>
> Actually this
Thanks authors,
Actually this draft sounds interesting for me. Some points for that are
following:
1. Utilizing existing control plane for distributed mobility functions.
2. Those mobility functions could be programmed through some interface, i.e: FPC
3. I’d see some similarity with MFA ideas.
> in
> > > which node the "software construct" of the DLIF is located. And
> > > also, not clear currently why a node internal software construct
> > > needs to be discussed in a protocol document. So probably just
> > > my
> > > lack
;
> Carlos
>
>>
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Akbar
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) [mailto:sgund...@cisco.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 7, 2018 10:21 AM
>> To: c...@it.uc3m.es; dm
[mailto:sgund...@cisco.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 7, 2018 10:21 AM
> To: c...@it.uc3m.es; dmm@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [DMM] [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-bernardos-dmm-pmipv6-dlif-
> 01.txt]
>
> Thanks Carlos.
>
> Folks - Please review the document and post your feedback.
>
ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DMM] [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-bernardos-dmm-pmipv6-dlif-01.txt]
Thanks Carlos.
Folks - Please review the document and post your feedback.
https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-bernardos-dmm-pmipv6-dlif-01.txt
At IETF100, we polled the WG feedback for adopting this document and the
Hi Alex,
On Mon, 2018-03-12 at 11:06 +0100, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
>
> Le 12/03/2018 à 00:58, Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano a écrit :
> [...]
> > > However, I have difficulty to grasp the term 'distributed
> > > logical
> > > interface'. It sounds as if the same interface name, e.g.
> > >
Le 12/03/2018 à 00:58, Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano a écrit :
[...]
However, I have difficulty to grasp the term 'distributed logical
interface'. It sounds as if the same interface name, e.g.
'mn1mar1', was present on both MAAR1 and MAAR2. In reality, only
the triplet 'MAC address',
Hi Alex,
Thanks a lot for your review. Comments inline below.
On Fri, 2018-03-09 at 18:29 +0100, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
>
> Le 06/03/2018 à 23:17, Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano a écrit :
> > Hi,
> >
> > We have submitted a revised version of our draft addressing the
> > comments we got in
Le 06/03/2018 à 23:17, Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano a écrit :
Hi,
We have submitted a revised version of our draft addressing the
comments we got in Singapore:
- Added some statements about which model from draft-ietf-dmm-
deployment-models our solution follows (addressing a comment
Hi Xinpeng,
thanks a lot for the review. Please see inline below.
On Thu, 2018-03-08 at 03:59 +, Weixinpeng (Jackie) wrote:
> Hi Carlos,
> Thanks for the improvement of the document, I think the document is
> well structured and provide a good solution for distributed mobility
> management.
Hi Dirk,
Thanks a lot for the feedback. Please see inline below.
On Wed, 2018-03-07 at 12:54 +, dirk.von-h...@telekom.de wrote:
> Dear Carlos and co-authors, all,
> thanks for the improvements!
> I think the draft is quite well written and provides a good approach
> to real distribution of
Thanks Carlos.
Folks - Please review the document and post your feedback.
https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-bernardos-dmm-pmipv6-dlif-01.txt
At IETF100, we polled the WG feedback for adopting this document and there
was consensus for adopting this document. However, we chose not to adopt
the
Dear Carlos and co-authors, all,
thanks for the improvements!
I think the draft is quite well written and provides a good approach to real
distribution of functionalities in DMM. What might be made clearer is the
difference between partially and fully DMM you have introduced.
See also as
14 matches
Mail list logo
