Subject: Re: [netlmm] #58: IGP solution problems are not accurate.

From: netlmm <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 16:21:32 -0000

#58: IGP solution problems are not accurate.
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
  Reporter:  [email-masked]     |       Owner:  [email-masked]
      Type:  defect                       |      Status:  reopened                
  Priority:  major                        |   Milestone:  milestone2              
 Component:  draft-ietf-netlmm-nohost-ps  |     Version:  1.0                     
Resolution:                               |    Keywords:  PS draft                
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
Changes (by [email-masked]):

  * resolution:  fixed =>
  * status:  closed => reopened

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/netlmm/trac/ticket/58>
netlmm <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/netlmm/>
_______________________________________________
netlmm mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm

---

From: netlmm <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 16:22:18 -0000

#58: IGP solution problems are not accurate.
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
  Reporter:  [email-masked]     |       Owner:  [email-masked]
      Type:  defect                       |      Status:  closed                  
  Priority:  major                        |   Milestone:  milestone2              
 Component:  draft-ietf-netlmm-nohost-ps  |     Version:  1.0                     
Resolution:  fixed                        |    Keywords:  PS draft                
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
Changes (by [email-masked]):

  * resolution:  => fixed
  * status:  reopened => closed

Comment:

 While the Cisco web page gives a more detailed description of how
 to do IGP-based mobility management than the IP Unplugged document, the
 age
 of the Web page (more than 10 years old) suggests that it may have been
 offered as a solution prior to the widespread deployment of DHCP, when
 IPv4
 addresses were statically configured. Nowadays, if an enterprise has
 nomadic
 clients, the cients typically would reaquire a new DHCP-assigned address
 when moving to a new subnet. If the clients are truely mobile and need
 session continuity, then the proprietary WLAN IP mobility solutions, which
 are discussed under Solution 2 in the PS draft, would be used. Since the
 described IGP-based mobility management solution does not seem to be
 widely
 deployed, it makes sense to remove it from the PS and REQ drafts. Most
 enterprises that want IP mobility today deploy one of the proprietary WLAN
 IP mobility solutions.