[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [netlmm] Dual Stack Moving Internet (DSMI)
- To: James Kempf <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com>
- Subject: Re: [netlmm] Dual Stack Moving Internet (DSMI)
- From: Myung-Ki Shin <myungki.shin@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 21:31:37 +0900
- Cc: netlmm@ietf.org, mip6@ietf.org, v6ops@ops.ietf.org, sjjeong@etri.re.kr, yhhan@kut.ac.kr, euna@kt.co.kr, jinchoe@samsung.com, dsmi@icl.kut.ac.kr, heejin.jang@samsung.com, townsley@cisco.com, psavola@funet.fi
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:organization:user-agent:x-accept-language:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=cHuuzPDC6yxokUb/ut2Qo6Qxm3kVS0Oz4DCRTp1eQXuOKVxlhpnPYN/NFQQg0uz3dpslTMxY5H0kwb756XON26dHfc+h3nygy+xxMjAqj81246zd6iEfobEZPYvTSARUMTU21ZSFq9Nco7FE2hAlDoMm5VtDyDJcgiwo4mYPQEY=
- In-reply-to: <012f01c6d391$a487f510$646015ac@dcml.docomolabsusa.com>
- Organization: ETRI
- References: <4500ECD1.6080103@gmail.com> <012f01c6d391$a487f510$646015ac@dcml.docomolabsusa.com>
- Reply-to: myungki.shin@gmail.com
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax)
Hi James,
I thought the NetLMM WG had gone further to achieve it's basic aims
(network-based *localized* mobility protocol).
This issue with IPv4-IPv6 roaming in federated NetLMM domains might
be kind of issues on handover between localized mobility management
domains or one of goals for network-based *global* moblity protocols
which should be considered some day.
As Pekka pointed out, this problem can be also solved by IPv6 transition
mechanisms, but we'd prefer *network-based* solutions without any host-
side signaling or upgrade, rather than using transition mechanisms.
If NetLMM can support this (*seamless*), then there is of benefit to
deployment.
This problem is a kind of deployment one, not an original
problem of NetLMM, as you already know.
I believe this is not trivial.
Of course, there isn't even a WG draft on NETLMM protocol yet, and if
everything is subject to change, there will be a change to look at it.
If the NetLMM WG can cover all the issue above, it will seem to be
fine with me, but I am hoping we can continue to discuss about it
and go further in NetLMM WG or any other place.
Thanks,
Myung-Ki,
James Kempf wrote:
Myung-Ki,
The discussion on your proposal seems to have gotten a bit of hand, so I
won't say much more.
Basically, having a BOF to extend NETLMM before the actual protocol is
complete seems like it might not be such a good idea. That doesn't mean
that the extensions you have proposed should not be considered, its just
that the timing is a bit awkward.
I'd consul patience right now until the WG has completed the current
charter. We expect to have the protocol complete and be ready for
rechartering early 2007, at that time we can add your proposal to the
list of items to consider. In the meantime, there's nothing preventing
you from continuing to work on your idea with other interested folks,
have an informal bar BOF, and refine it, so that, when the time comes,
you have the strongest possible case to present to the WG for accepting
it into the charter.
jak