Subject: RE: [netlmm] Network-based mobility - NETLMM DT Solution VsAsolutionbased on MIP6

From: "Faccin, Stefano M" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 18:55:27 -0700

Raj, thanks a lot for this e-mail, you described this very well. In
reference to a previous comment on this list, I agree that technical
solutions should be chosen based on technical merit. However, we need to
consider a practical aspect: the interest by various parties and other
fora to adopt IETF solutions. As Raj says, there may be a strong
interest in adopting a solution that allows reuse of the infrastructure
that will be deployed for MIP6. 

Though I am in general against multiple solutions for solving the same
or very similar problems, in this situation we may have to consider the
idea of having both solutions defined, in particular considering the
"localized" flavor of netlmm versus the "global" flavor of MIPv6 and
network-based solutions based on MIPv6. Whether the industry decides to
adopt one of the two or both depending on the scenarios, should be left
to the industry to decide. IMO, it would perhaps be much worst to
denaturalize netlmm to enable support of global mobility.

Stefano

-----Original Message-----
From: Basavaraj Patil [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 8:23 AM
To: ext James Kempf; Phil Roberts; Narayanan, Vidya; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [netlmm] Network-based mobility - NETLMM DT Solution
VsAsolutionbased on MIP6 

James,

I don't think that there is much to be gained by doing a comparison of
the
NETLMM DT protocol solution vs "pure PMIP solution". This is not a
question
of whether one protocol is better suited or superior in terms or
performance
or simple etc. I am not commenting in any way about the use of the
mobility
header to implement the NETLMM protocol here, but rather presenting
another
view about NETLMM and PMIP6.
Given that the IETFs mainstream solution for IPv6 mobility is MIP6 (I
hope
we are not going to get into a debate about this statement :) ), there
is or
may be a desire by either SDOs or operators considering deployment of
MIP6
to also have the capability to use the same infrastructure (HA and
associated AAA) for hosts that do not have MIP6 capability or for
transparently supporting mobility for IPv6 hosts (for whatever reason
such
transparent mobility is needed).

So instead of a prolonged discussion about the (de)merits of NETLMM and
PMIP, we should maybe consider that the IETF standardize both and let
the
industry pick and choose which protocol makes sense in a certain
deployment
environment. I don't think that we can say either NETLMM or PMIP is the
perfect solution for all deployment models and hence maybe having a
choice
would be a reasonable way forward.

-Raj

On 10/27/06 3:12 AM, "ext James Kempf" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Folowing up on Phil's note, we haven't heard much comment on this
thread
> from proponents of a pure PMIP solution. I'd like to distinguish
between
> Vidya's comments and Phil's response which, I assume, are about the
> technical desirability of using the MIP6 Mobiity Header format to
implement
> the NETLMM architecture and the two PMIP drafts that will be presented
in
> the MIP6 WG. I'll let Phil and Vidya and anyone else who cares to
comment
> work through the technical issues on that, I'm more interested in the
two
> PMIP drafts.
> 
> Perhaps one of the authors of the two PMIP drafts that are to be
presented
> in the MIP6 WG meeting would care to comment why they believe that
PMIP is
> technically superior to the DT NETLMM solution? Arguments about
probability
> of deployment or other such are interesting, but most decisions about
> alternatives in IETF are premised intitially on technical arguments.
> References to the WG's problem statement and goals drafts
> (draft-ietf-netlmm-nohost-ps-05.txt and
draft-ietf-netlmm-nohost-req-05.txt,
> now with the IESG for publication approval) pointing out the
superiority of
> PMIP for satisfying the goals that the WG has agreed to are likely to
be
> especially convincing. The only comment I've heard so far is that the
DT
> draft introduces unnecessary new terminology.
> 
>             jak 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netlmm mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm

_______________________________________________
netlmm mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm

_______________________________________________
netlmm mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm