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

On Nov 4, 2011, at 6:18 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:

> 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.


IMHO I see no reason to focus only on client-based or network-based solutions. FWIW the DMM solution space:

o is incremental to an existing IETF mobility protocol, be that client-,
  network- or even transport-based.
o or alternatively may not depend on a specific mobility protocol at all
  i.e. non-anchored solution is also in scope.
o solution is backward compatible in a sense that if a host or a network
  does not support DMM, nothing breaks.
o focuses on IPv6 because anything IPv4 is just NAT-games.

- Jouni

> 
> 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
>