Re: [MEXT] The first proposal for the DMM charter

Hi Jouni, 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jouni [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 10:21 AM
> To: Templin, Fred L
> Cc: [email protected] Laganier; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [MEXT] The first proposal for the DMM charter
> 
> 
> Fred,
> 
> 
> On Jan 9, 2012, at 6:52 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
> 
> > Hi Jouni, 
> > 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: jouni korhonen [mailto:[email protected]] 
> >> Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 2:44 AM
> >> To: Templin, Fred L
> >> Cc: [email protected] Laganier; [email protected]
> >> Subject: Re: [MEXT] The first proposal for the DMM charter
> >> 
> >> Fred,
> >> 
> >> On Jan 3, 2012, at 7:42 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>> The protocol solutions should be based on existing IP mobility
> >>>> protocols, either host- or network-based, such as Mobile IPv6
> >>>> [RFC6275, 5555], Proxy Mobile IPv6 [RFC5213, 5844] and NEMO 
> >>>> [RFC3963].
> >>> 
> >>> I don't understand the "should be based on existing IP
> >>> mobility protocols". IRON for example provides an
> >>> alternative mobility management solution which I believe
> >>> has significant advantages over other approaches:
> >>> 
> >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-ironbis-10
> >>> 
> >>> Thanks - Fred
> >>> [email protected]
> >> 
> >> 
> >> I admit I have not followed much of the IRON work. However, the 
> >> overal idea is that if your solution needs specific bindings to
> >> existing mobility providing protocol(s), then your choices more
> >> or less are listed above (or some existing flavor/variation of
> >> those). If your solution does not depend on any specific mobility
> >> protocol i.e., does not require specification of protocol specific
> >> bindings, then you are free to deploy it on top of anything,
> >> including IRON.
> > 
> 
> In the above "solution" being a solution for distributed mobility
> management.

I'm still not exactly sure what you are tring to say.
Please have a look at IRON and let me know why or why
not you think it addresses DMM and we can go from there.

Thanks - Fred
[email protected]

> Hope that clarifies.
> 
> - Jouni
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure I fully understand what you are trying to
> > say, but what I am trying to say is that IRON provides
> > an alternative mobility management scheme that does not
> > depend on any of the *MIP mechanisms and is, IMHO, a
> > better mobility management system. Hence, I recommend
> > a closer look at IRON:
> > 
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-ironbis
> > 
> > Thanks - Fred
> > [email protected]
> > 
> >> - Jouni
> >> 
> 
>