Subject: [netlmm] Multi-interfaces, SDO/operator and IPv6 Addressing Architecture for PMIPv6

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 20:28:17 +0200

I do support solving the multi-interfacing issue. I have three comments
on this.

-if we want to make PMIPv6 Proposed Standard then it's clear a MN with
several interfaces must be supported.  If we want to deliver PMIPv6 as
INFORMATIONAL or EXPERIMENTAL then we probably don't need to support
multi-interfaced MN - it is thus much easier to obtain an RFC number
more quickly.  I think SDO and some operator companies can be happy with
this.  I would specifically ask SDO representatives and operator
representatives whether INFORMATIONAL RFC is fine with them or not.  I
think there may be some confusion among SDO and operator representatives
in this group, with respect to the needed status of an RFC.

-reasons why multiple interfaces for MN should be supported is reflected
in certain SDOs as well: inter-technology handovers.  And not only that,
a moving base station with 2 interfaces is also described in a SDO.

-I think it is necessary to agree on an IPv6 Addressing Architecture for
PMIPv6, together with agreeing on PMIPv6 protocol iteslf.  This is
something that is not agreed on completely by many people.  The
multi-homing issue for MN stems from this lack of clarification.  If
anybody else agrees or needs I can picture an example IPv6 Addressing
Architecture for PMIPv6 and try to get people's opinions on it.

Alexandru Petrescu, at Motorola.

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________

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