Hi Sri. > -----Original Message----- > From: Sri Gundavelli [mailto:sgund...@cisco.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 12:11 AM > To: Ahmad Muhanna; Joel M. Halpern > Cc: softwires@ietf.org; BINET David NCPI/NAD/TIP > Subject: Re: [Softwires] GI-DS-lite as working group item? > > Hi Ahmad: > > > On 5/11/10 9:38 PM, "Ahmad Muhanna" > <ahmad.muha...@ericsson.com> wrote: > > > Hi Sri, > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: softwires-boun...@ietf.org > >> [mailto:softwires-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli > >> Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 6:26 PM > >> To: Joel M. Halpern > >> Cc: softwires@ietf.org; BINET David NCPI/NAD/TIP > >> Subject: Re: [Softwires] GI-DS-lite as working group item? > >> > >> Hi Joel, > >> > >> > >> On 5/11/10 3:25 PM, "Joel M. Halpern" <j...@joelhalpern.com> wrote: > >> > >>> I am somewhat confused by this description. > >>> You seem to be saying that the primary need for gi-ds-lite > >> is mobile. > >>> But the MIP related working groups don't seem to be asking for it. > >>> And while 3GPP expressed interest in DS-Lite, from what I > >> can gather > >>> they have not expressed particular interest in gi-ds-lite. > >>> > >> > >> The primary consumer for Mobile IP protocols is 3GPP. There are > >> various interfaces that 3GPP architecture supports, that includes > >> GTP, MIPv6 and Proxy Mobile IPv6 based protocol interfaces. > > [Ahmad] > > Not to question the future of MIP6 and PMIP6 in 3GPP, but > may be you > > can explain what value add this draft has that is not currently > > addressed by IETF > > MIP6/PMIP6 suite protocols? > > > > I've explained the points in my earlier mail to Mohamed. This > approach is independent of the protocol adopted on the access > layer. The access layer can be running GTP, MIPv6 or PMIPv6. > The approach allows the applicability of Dual-stack lite > solution to the mobile architectures. The migration issue > issue is not specific to a given mobility protocol and the > solution is not specific to a given protocol either. [Ahmad] Thanks for the pointer Sri.
I understand a 3000 feet high view always is rosy:) As you know, I am actually interested in the details. Assuming that we have all the assumptions and preconditions as documented in GI DS-Lite, why, for example, PMIP6 suite of protocols NEED this proposal. I appreciate your detailed views. Regards, Ahmad > > > > It seems to me that on one hand, we complain why some SDO's do not > > adopt IETF mobility protocols. While on the other hand, we > come with > > solutions that basically defeat that same purpose. > > > > How does this solution defeat the adoption of IETF based > mobility protocols ? May be I'm missing your point. > > This is a draft adoption call, if you disagree with the need > for this, or on the outcome of the 3GPP/3GPP-IETF workshop, > its perfectly fine. But, there are folks who support this approach. > > > Regards > Sri > > > _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
