Subject: [Mip4] Proxy Mobile IPv4 in the WG charter

From: "Kent Leung \(kleung\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 09:51:52 -0800

Hi.  The draft-leung-mip4-proxy-mode-01.txt draft describes using Mobile
IPv4 in proxy mode to provide network-based mobility management.  There
will need to be some more work on the draft.  But wanted to get some
sense of support for Proxy Mobile IPv4 in this WG.  Certainly there are
a few SDOs which have either adopted or interested in such mechanism.
 
Do folks want to take this on as a WG item eventually?
 
Kent
-- 
Mip4 mailing list: [email-masked]
    Web interface: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4
     Charter page: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/mip4-charter.html
Supplemental site: http://www.mip4.org/

---

From: "Tsirtsis, George" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 07:13:03 -0800

Hi Kent,

I think it makes sense for the PMIPv4 protocol to be standardized by
this group. I also think we should separate the way the protocol is used
in the field from what the generic protocol is that might be applicable
in various different systems. I think your draft is mixing the two
issues together. 

IMO we should have a very simple and hopefully sort specification
defining the changes (if any) to MIPv4 required so that the protocol can
run in proxy mode. In addition, if it is deemed necessary/useful, we can
have informational document(s) showing how PMIPv4 is used in various
systems. 

I have some specific comments on the protocol itself but we can talk
about that if/when this becomes a WG document.

Thanks

George 

________________________________

From: Kent Leung (kleung) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 12:52 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Mip4] Proxy Mobile IPv4 in the WG charter

Kent

---

From: "Narayanan, Vidya" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 13:43:52 -0800

Hi Kent,
If NETLMM supported IPv4 endpoints, do we still need a standardized
PMIPv4 solution? Or, is this an effort to document what has been already
deployed? 
 
Regards,
Vidya

	From: Kent Leung (kleung) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
	Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 9:52 AM
	To: [email-masked]
	Subject: [Mip4] Proxy Mobile IPv4 in the WG charter

	Hi.  The draft-leung-mip4-proxy-mode-01.txt draft describes
using Mobile IPv4 in proxy mode to provide network-based mobility
management.  There will need to be some more work on the draft.  But
wanted to get some sense of support for Proxy Mobile IPv4 in this WG.
Certainly there are a few SDOs which have either adopted or interested
in such mechanism.

	Kent

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 18:51:16 +0100

Narayanan, Vidya wrote:
> Hi Kent, If NETLMM supported IPv4 endpoints, do we still need a 
> standardized PMIPv4 solution?

Not sure what NETLMM is, or whether it supported IPv4 endpoints.

The other question is whether the known FA mode of MIP4 can figure as
a candidate for what WiMax nominates as Proxy MIP, and the CCoA mode
as what WiMax nominates Client MIP.

Alex

> Or, is this an effort to document what has been already deployed?
> 
> Regards, Vidya
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  *From:* Kent Leung (kleung) [mailto:[email-masked]] *Sent:* 
> Friday, November 17, 2006 9:52 AM *To:* [email-masked] *Subject:* 
> [Mip4] Proxy Mobile IPv4 in the WG charter
> 
> Hi.  The draft-leung-mip4-proxy-mode-01.txt draft describes using 
> Mobile IPv4 in proxy mode to provide network-based mobility 
> wanted to get some sense of support for Proxy Mobile IPv4 in this
> WG.  Certainly there are a few SDOs which have either adopted or
> interested in such mechanism.
>