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

From: "Kent Leung \(kleung\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2006 22:26:31 -0800

Hi Lionel.  WiMAX has adopted PMIPv4 and 3GPP2 is interested.  In addition, PMIPv4 is used in some environments where the hosts don't have MIPv4 client software.
 
Kent

________________________________

From: MORAND Lionel RD-CORE-ISS [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 10:27 AM
To: Kent Leung (kleung); [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Mip4] Proxy Mobile IPv4 in the WG charter

Hi, Kent
 
Could it possible to know which SDOs have adopted or are interested in such a solution?
 
BR,
 
Lionel

________________________________

	De : Kent Leung (kleung) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
	Envoyé : vendredi 17 novembre 2006 18:52
	À : [email-masked]
	Objet : [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.
	 
	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: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 11:19:08 +0100

Kent Leung (kleung) wrote:
> Hi Lionel.  WiMAX has adopted PMIPv4 and 3GPP2 is interested.

In general, I don't think that adoption of a particular protocol by a
particular SDO makes it enough of a case for adopting it at IETF too.
  If one SDO already adopted a protocol then it's supposedly known how
it works, how it's deployed, what are its needs.

On another hand, I think it can benefit the SDO to have feedback from
this working group about this particular protocol, driven by a
consensus procedure.

Some aspects may be unclear when taking on a particular protocol at
IETF after being developped at SDO.  For example, if consensusing
PMIPv4 here finds out that PMIPv4 needs some enhancements (for
example: co-locate the AAA server with the HA) - will that particular
SDO accept this new IETF version of the PMIPv4 protocol.

> In addition, PMIPv4 is used in some environments where the hosts 
> don't have MIPv4 client software.

That is more plausible.  Can we picture an idea what do those
environments (non-WiMax, non-3Gx) look like.

Alex