RE: Network-based Mobility in the IETF (was RE: Draft agenda for WG meeting at IETF65)

Vidya,

Yes, having discussion at this stage through MIP4 or MIP6 is not
wasting time, I believe. 
Let's first see and then decide through more investigation on this.

Thanks,
-Junghoon

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Narayanan, Vidya [mailto:vidyan@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 6:32 AM
> To: Junghoon Jee; Chowdhury, Kuntal; Vijay Devarapallli
> Cc: mip6@xxxxxxxx; Basavaraj Patil; mip4@xxxxxxxx; netlmm@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Network-based Mobility in the IETF (was RE: [Mip6] 
> Draft agenda for WG meeting at IETF65)
> 
> 
> (Cross-posting this to multiple mailing lists - apologies in 
> advance if you receive multiple copies as a result). 
> 
> Hi Junghoon,
> I am fine with discussing this in the MIP6 WG. We definitely 
> need to discuss the pros and cons of each way of doing 
> network-based mobility.
> My point was this - at some point of time, we (IETF) need to 
> have a discussion on the preferred approach and (hopefully) 
> have only one protocol to do this. 
> 
> So far, I haven't seen any compelling reason to define 
> multiple ways of doing network-based mobility. NETLMM, given 
> that it is a WG dealing with this topic, may be the place to 
> talk about the various approaches (including MIP6-based or 
> MIP4-based), have technical discussions on the merits and 
> disadvantages of each approach and pick one. I have no 
> problem with spending time in MIP4 or MIP6 to talk about this 
> as long as we agree that parallel duplicate efforts in 
> multiple WGs must not be done. 
> 
> OTOH, if there is a difference in requirements among the 
> various efforts, lets discuss those and see if multiple 
> efforts are actually warranted. 
> 
> Thanks,
> Vidya
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Junghoon Jee [mailto:jhjee@xxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 12:59 AM
> > To: Narayanan, Vidya; 'Chowdhury, Kuntal'; 'Vijay Devarapallli'
> > Cc: mip6@xxxxxxxx; 'Basavaraj Patil'
> > Subject: RE: [Mip6] Draft agenda for WG meeting at IETF65
> > 
> > Hi Vidya,
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Narayanan, Vidya [mailto:vidyan@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 5:27 PM
> > > To: Junghoon Jee; Chowdhury, Kuntal; Vijay Devarapallli
> > > Cc: mip6@xxxxxxxx; Basavaraj Patil
> > > Subject: RE: [Mip6] Draft agenda for WG meeting at IETF65
> > > 
> > > 
> > > While the draft doesn't specifically apply to "LMM", we 
> have to ask 
> > > ourselves about how many different ways we are going to do 
> > > network-based mobility in the IETF?
> > 
> > Yes, this a good point we need to think about.
> > By the way, we cannot decide _one_ way in this stage.
> > The obvious fact is that we need to identify the feasibility and 
> > effectiveness of the emerging _network_ based MM ways.
> > IMO, seeing and having the discussion about this I-D through
> > MIP6 WG would be helpful to achieve our eternal objective.
> > One hint from Kuntal is that "this I-D leverages MIP6 
> protocol as is".
> > 
> > Isn't it an interesting point for MIP6 folks can discuss?
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Junghoon
> > 
> > > Also, is the intent of this draft to use network-based 
> mobility for 
> > > global mobility? If so, it would be good to see an
> > explanation of why
> > > that is needed.
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > Vidya
> > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Junghoon Jee [mailto:jhjee@xxxxxxxxxx]
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 10:46 PM
> > > > To: 'Chowdhury, Kuntal'; 'Vijay Devarapallli'
> > > > Cc: mip6@xxxxxxxx; 'Basavaraj Patil'
> > > > Subject: RE: [Mip6] Draft agenda for WG meeting at IETF65
> > > > 
> > > >  
> > > > > > >
> > > > 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-chowdhury-netmip6-00.txt
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It shows a way to provide mobility service for IPv6
> > > using a MIP6
> > > > > Client
> > > > > > > in the network. Note that the proposal re-uses 
> MIP6 protocol
> > > > with
> > > > > some
> > > > > > > inters access router signals. The proposed method will
be
> > > > > useful to
> > > > > > > provide IPv6 mobility service in operator's networks
> > > > > where majority
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > the handsets are not MIP6 capable.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > doesnt this belong in NETLMM?
> > > > > [KC>] I don't think it applies to NETLMM directly. The
> > > > reason is that
> > > > > "NET" part perhaps is applicable, but the "LMM" part is
> > > not. Another
> > > > > difference: this I-D leverages MIP6 protocol as is.  
> > > > 
> > > > Yes, I agree that this I-D is not tightly related with
> > > "Localized" MM.
> > > > 
> > > > I would like to have a chance to see the off-line
> > > presentation about
> > > > this I-D through the upcoming MIP6 WG
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Junghoon
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Mip6 mailing list
> > > > Mip6@xxxxxxxx
> > > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6
> > > > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Mip6 mailing list
> > Mip6@xxxxxxxx
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6
> >