Subject: [Mip6] RE: [netlmm] Network-based mobility - NETLMM DT Solution Vs A solutionbased on MIP6

From: "Kent Leung \(kleung\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 09:51:18 -0700

Hi Vidya.  I don't see why running NetLMM signaling over IPv4 should be
precluded by design?  Having such flexibility is a valuable asset for a
standards based network-control mobility management protocol, IMHO.

Kent 

-----Original Message-----
From: Narayanan, Vidya [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 8:24 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [netlmm] Network-based mobility - NETLMM DT Solution Vs A
solutionbased on MIP6 

<snip>
What does the NETLMM DT Solution bring, by being totally different from
MIP6?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------ 

1. The protocol can be evolved to using a reliable transport protocol
like SCTP at some point. 
2. The protocol can run over IPv4 without changes. 

While these seem like good goals, what is the practical need for the
above goals? For instance, is IPv4 signaling a necessity for a NETLMM
solution? 

<snip>

_______________________________________________
Mip6 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6

---

From: "Narayanan, Vidya" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:41:30 -0700

Hi Kent,
If there is a need for IPv4 signaling usage, I agree with you. But, I'm
not so sure that there is a need for that, practically speaking. I think
many of those who want v4-signaled network-based mobility have gone a
non-standard PMIPv4 route already - is that not true? 

If we have a real need for IPv4 signaling, then we could potentially say
that there is a need for two different standards in this space - one
that allows for running over IPv4 and another that allows maximum re-use
of already defined mobility options. 

But, if the industry adopted the latter solution today for sake of
re-use, do we ever expect the former one being deployed? Or, would the
world simply do v6-in-v4 tunneling or the non-standard PMIPv4 when a
solution over v4 is needed? 

I don't know the answer :) 

Vidya

> From: Kent Leung (kleung) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 9:51 AM
> To: Narayanan, Vidya; [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [netlmm] Network-based mobility - NETLMM DT 
> Solution Vs A solutionbased on MIP6 
> 
> Hi Vidya.  I don't see why running NetLMM signaling over IPv4 
> should be precluded by design?  Having such flexibility is a 
> valuable asset for a standards based network-control mobility 
> management protocol, IMHO.
> 
> Kent 
> 
> Subject: [netlmm] Network-based mobility - NETLMM DT Solution 
> Vs A solutionbased on MIP6 
> 
> 
> <snip>