Subject: [Mip6] Issue 93 situation

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 12:38:01 +0300

All,

The chairs asked me to help with assessing the consensus
and way forward with regards to this issue.

After review the discussion during the last two weeks, I can
see some useful discussion and new technical aspects have
been brought in. Thanks! However, it is apparent that the situation
with regards to consensus has not changed, i.e., there is
no consensus, nor have we heard from too many new people
on this. And I have not seen anyone change their opinion,
which is not a good sign :-(

At this point I would like to ask Hesham to submit the
draft if you have other changes since the previous
submission, and we need to continue discussing issue
93 in a new way.

I would like to note that getting the DSMIP spec out
is very important, and that this discussion is threatening
the completion of the work.

I would suggest we do two things. First, I would like
get some of the main persons in this argument in a
conference call (the chairs and me will send mail to
some of you about this), in an effort to see if we can
agree on a compromise. As one of the preparations
for that I would like to ask Sri to send a detailed
description to the list about why NETLMM needs
encapsulations that are capable of differentiating
between flows or address spaces.

Secondly, I would like to get some additional information
about what people believe about this issue. Please respond
to this query by Thursday, June 28th. We've heard from
people's preferred solutions. I'd like to hear about their
willingness to accept different solutions, even if they are
not preferred:

A) Be willing to accept solution 1, with the option of having
     solution 2-like extension later.
B) Be willing to accept solution 3.

Here "be willing to accept" should be interpreted as in
not seeing a major technical fault or something that prevents
your implementation or business from functioning
properly.

Jari

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

---

From: "Sri Gundavelli" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 00:31:03 -0700

Hi Jari,

I see a dead lock here and I dont see any shift in positions
from either side. Any case, I do not want to delay this
work, atleast from my side. I'm ok with having a seperate
port for GRE when using IPv4-UDP. Also, based on the
discussions with Karen, we are pretty much ending using
different ports, one as per 3948, when using UDP for IPSec ESP
and the usual DSMIP port. We can probably do the same for GRE.
This may not be the best approach, but, atleast some people
will be happy and the DSMIP work can move forward. My 2c.

Also, we will certainly present enough data on the need
for GRE in MIP6 and specifically in PMIP6, the use cases and
the need in SDO's for this work. 

Regards
Sri

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jari Arkko [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 2:38 AM
> To: Mobile IPv6 Mailing List
> Cc: [email-masked]; Sri Gundavelli
> Subject: Issue 93 situation
> 
> All,
>