Subject: [netlmm] draft-giaretta-netlmm-mip-interactions

From: "John.zhao" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 18:00:54 +0800

Hi Hesham and gerardo,

         Could you please tell me how to judge a mip type of a MN in this
draft? 

         Best Rgds,

Thanks,

John.zhao

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

---

From: "Hesham Soliman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 20:09:09 +1000

If I understand the question correcty, you meant: How does an AR know if the
MN supports MIPv6? 
The answer to this question is not in the draft and is not supposed to be in
the scope of the draft. It's a solution issue. 
 
My personal opinion is that we don't need to inform the MN that PMIP is used
in the network, nor do we need the AR to know whether the MN supports MIPv6
or not. There is no need for any of that because PMIP is supposed to be a
transparent solution. I don't see any problems in the CoA case, the other
case (HoA) has a lot of problems and it should not be used at all IMO. 
 
Hesham

  _____  

From: John.zhao [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 8:01 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [netlmm] draft-giaretta-netlmm-mip-interactions

Hi Hesham and gerardo,

         Best Rgds,

Thanks,

John.zhao

---

From: "John.zhao" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 10:04:12 +0800

Hi ,Hesham

         Basically, we can assume that the MN is a easy terminal and we put
all of the logic need to do for PMIP in network side. But there is some
disadvantages and problems existed in this situation.

1)       If a network provide the PMIPv6 support and MIPv6 support
simultaneously , and the MN also provide both of them, then which one will
be choice to support? This is belong to the interaction scope, so if we
didn’t discuss it in this draft, then where is more perfect? At lease it is
not a solution issue. If it depend a solution to resolve, then how can
guarantee the compatible  between difference vendors based on the same PMIP
protocol?

2)       If maybe we didn’t need to inform the MN that PMIP is used in the
network, but the network need to confirm which kind of mobile management is
the choose of MN. Only based on profile , that is not enough. Because, we
can’t imagine that a MN change its profile everytime when it roam to a new
network with a difference mobile management . 

So I think this is a important issue need to be defined or resolved . From
terminal eyesight, there are so many different terminal existed, we should
give some smart terminal more powerful ability to do this.

IMHO, without this problem is resolved, the interaction is still can be
deploied in network largely scale.

My two cents. Welcome comments.

Best Rgds,

Thanks,

John.zhao

  _____  

发件人: Hesham Soliman [mailto:[email-masked]] 
发送时间: 2007年4月26日 18:09
收件人: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
抄送: [email-masked]
主题: RE: [netlmm] draft-giaretta-netlmm-mip-interactions

Hesham

  _____  

Hi Hesham and gerardo,

         Best Rgds,

Thanks,

John.zhao