Subject: [netlmm] draft-giaretta-netlmm-mip-interactions

From: "John.zhao" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 12:52:27 +0800

Hi Julien,

         Just as I have stated that we can deploy a simple model network and
we also can build a simple system. But why we can assume all of the system
is just work as these? The reality network is complicate . Since the PMIP
can co-existence with MIP , then why we can assume that we can only use the
Hierarchical architecture? So if the MN with MIP ability and  come to a
network supported both of PMIP and MIP. Then the choice must be chosen. 

         Best Rgds,

Thanks,

>Message: 3

>Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 15:51:17 +0200

>From: Julien Laganier <[email-masked]>

>Subject: Re: FW: [netlmm] draft-giaretta-netlmm-mip-interactions

>To: [email-masked]

>Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

>Content-Type: text/plain;  charset="iso-8859-1"

>On Friday 27 April 2007 05:37, Hesham Soliman wrote:

> Hi John,

>               Basically, we can assume that the MN is a easy terminal and 

> we put all of the logic need to

>               do for PMIP in network side. But there is some disadvantages
and 

> problems existed in this situation.

>      1)       If a network provide the PMIPv6 support

> and MIPv6 support simultaneously , and the MN also

>      provide both of them, then which one will be choice to support? This 

> is belong to the interaction

>      scope, so if we didn't discuss it in this draft, then where is more 

> perfect? At lease it is not a

>      solution issue. If it depend a solution to resolve, then how can 

> guarantee the compatible  between

>      difference vendors based on the same PMIP protocol?

> => The premise of your statement is what I want to avoid. In the 

> scenario I had in mind there is no such thing as "MN supports PMIP". 

> PMIP would be a transparent technology. If a MN appears in a network 

> that supports PMIP then it gets a CoA,if it supports

> MIPv6 it updates the HA with the CoA and that's the end. If the MN 

> doesn't support MIPv6 then it gets an address and it doesn't need to 

> know anything else.

> The idea of informing the MN is only an issue when you want to choose 

> whether MIPv6 or PMIP should be supported on a per-MN basis. I'm 

> saying we should avoid this scenario altogether and assume that PMIP 

> is the default when it's present. I can't believe I'm saying that :) 

> But this is the easiest way to go. I'm not a fan of PMIP or NETLMM as 

> everyone knows, but if it has to be there, then the hierarchical model 

> (in the draft) is the only one that makes sense to me and it doesn't 

> cause interoperability issues.

FWIW I agree with Hesham.

--julien

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