Subject: [netlmm] PMIP6-MIP6 interactions

From: "Soininen Jonne (NSN FI/Espoo)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:34:50 +0300

Hello everybody,
<chair hat on>
I'm been following the discussion now for about a week. First of all, it
seems that there is heated debate about an individual draft that has
expired. If my memory serves me right, the document should have been already
published as a WG doc. Though I admire the energy used in the debate, I hope
the editors could get the document back to life.

I would like to address the comments about 3GPP: 3GPP is an important
customer for our protocols and we should listen to them carefully. However,
that does not mean we have to follow their request to the letter. We should
try to accommodate their wishes, but if we think they don't make technical
sense, we should try to tell them that. I think this was what Jari said
during the last meeting as well. We can also try to find out what they
really want by sending an official question, if needed.
<chair hat off>

On the technical matter, I think the scenario of using the PMIP link as a
home link probably makes sense in some situations. However, the important
thing is that though the network can probably use the extra information
available the LMA and HA being either the same entity or close to each
other, the client shouldn't be changed. Whatever is done in a combined
LMA/HA entity is an implementation detail, but shouldn't be seen from the
outside. So, I'm wondering if the discussion about one or multiple BCEs
really makes sense.

Cheers,

Jonne.
-- 
Jonne Soininen
Nokia Siemens Networks

Tel: +358 40 527 46 34
E-mail: [email-masked]

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

---

From: Hesham Soliman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 15:12:31 +1000

Hi Jonne,

You're absolutely right about everything below. I do have one comment
though.

> outside. So, I'm wondering if the discussion about one or multiple BCEs

=> That's right. Bottom line is it's a deployment decision that shouldn't
have protocol impacts. What I've been trying to highlight in the discussion
was the danger of that deployment decision. I suspect that once these
dangers are highlighted to 3GPP they might say "We don't mind if the LMA
doesn't manage the home address, as long as the address allocated remains
the same across movement". That would make a lot more sense. I'm guessing
they just called it the home address because they want a stable address, but
not necessarily THE home address. There is a subtle difference.

The decision might be a deployment one, but the consequences of not telling
people about the implications of that decision can be bad. That's why I'm in
favour of highlighting the problems of scenario C. And as I said in previous
emails, if the discussion is restricted to one BCE Vs 2, I'll stick with 2.
But the discussion should really be about the core issue: The validity of
scenario C.

Hesham