Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group

Behcet Sarikaya <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.nemo
Message-ID <CAC8QAcc85DKuerWsZC9S_C7bUzhdgSr9Z5yMFNngjtTcaoZv+g__34814.0705995776$1320423500$gmane$org@mail.gmail.com>
Hi all,

I am confused about all these very high level, intelligent looking
comments, and I must say I am fed up with them :-).

Non-tunneled communications is already there in DMM. You connect to the
nearest HA and all new communications is non-tunneled.

Do we agree that we should differentiate client-based and network based
protocols and discuss them in different places? or even there is no issue
for one.

I think this is what we should decide now.

Regards,

Behcet

On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 3:19 AM, jouni korhonen <[email protected]>wrote:

> 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]
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MEXT mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>

_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.