[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [netext] NETEXT2 BOF conclusion

From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko at piuha.net>
To: Mohana Jeyatharan <Mohana.Jeyatharan at sg.panasonic.com>
Cc: netext at ietf.org
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:26:00 +0200
In-reply-to: <5F09D220B62F79418461A978CA0921BD03A2C109 at pslexc01.psl.local>
References: <5F09D220B62F79418461A978CA0921BD03A2C109 at pslexc01.psl.local>

Mohana Jeyatharan wrote:

Hello Jari,

Thanks for the mail.

The informational document based on approach 1, is it going to analyze
or identify requirements needed to perform inter RAT handoff and
multihoming(flow mobility) etc for PMIP?  Is that the goal of the
document?

Maybe. My idea of the scope was to provide guidance for creating linklayers that hide movements. What the requirements are so that IP layeris not affected, what are the difficult points, etc. I think PMIPvirtual interfaces are one example of these link layer mechanisms. But Iam not suggesting a L3 solution for PMIP multihoming to be within the scope.


Jari

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [netext] NETEXT2 BOF conclusion
  - From: Mohana Jeyatharan

References:
- Re: [netext] NETEXT2 BOF conclusion
  - From: Mohana Jeyatharan

Prev by Date: [netext] updated draft on requirements imposed by traffic safety applications on network/transport layers
Next by Date: [netext] Agenda for meeting at IETF76
Previous by thread: Re: [netext] NETEXT2 BOF conclusion
Next by thread: Re: [netext] NETEXT2 BOF conclusion
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.