Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group
jouni korhonen <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.nemo,gmane.ietf.mext |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Pete, On Nov 4, 2011, at 3:16 AM, Pete McCann wrote: > A good architecture is made not only from deciding what to standardize but > also from what not to standardize. Exactly. [snip] > > Perhaps IETF could take LIPA as a starting point to design a cleaner > mobility management solution. What came out from a certain SDO as a "Local IP Access" did not turn out as the most elegant solution :) But I do agree that from the idea & initial use case point of view, it definitely is something to look at.. even as a basis for a cleaner design. > It isn't clear to me that we should even start with tunnels as a basic building > block. I am along the same lines. See my earlier mail on the charter http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04905.html - Jouni > > -Pete > > On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 8:43 PM, Hesham Soliman <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi Charlie, >> >> I agree completely with you on the problems with the current interfaces in >> LTE, and in 3G before that. >> I don't know what the best way to go about it would be. I say this because >> many people on this list are aware of what's happening in LTE and >> presumably have similar opinions about the complexity of their solutions, >> but it's still there. >> >> Hesham >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: "Charles E. Perkins" <[email protected]> >> Organization: Wichorus Inc. >> Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 10:49:21 -0700 >> To: Jari Arkko <[email protected]> >> Cc: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group >> >>> Hello folks, >>> >>> For several years now, I have been studying 4G wireless [snap]