Re: [netext] NETEXT2 BOF conclusion

["Mohana Jeyatharan" <Mohana.Jeyatharan at sg.panasonic.com>]

Hi Jari,

Thanks for your reply.

I understand your intention is to explore whether inter RAT handoff and
multhoming in PMIP can be done in L2 and identify the requirements.
Also explore whether we can do it without any changes to L3.  Consider
virtual interfaces or any other minor host fixes to achieve the goal.  

Also as many other folks feel, I too think that aproach 3 is also a
neater way of doing this and use the MN-MAG interface to indicate MN
state to the MAG.  This is different from appraoch 2 because the MN is
not doing mobility signaling as in approach 2.  It is just indicating
some state/prefernce information for inter RAT handoff and flow
mobility.

Thanks.

BR,
Mohana  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: netext-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:netext-bounces at ietf.org] On
Behalf
> Of Jari Arkko
> Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 6:26 PM
> To: Mohana Jeyatharan
> Cc: netext at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [netext] NETEXT2 BOF conclusion
> 
> 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 link
> layers that hide movements. What the requirements are so that IP layer
> is not affected, what are the difficult points, etc. I think PMIP
> virtual interfaces are one example of these link layer mechanisms. But
I
> am not suggesting a L3 solution for PMIP multihoming to be within the
> scope.
> 
> Jari
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netext mailing list
> netext at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext