Hi Marcelo,
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
so what is the assumption requiremnent here?
Is the requriemnent that the solution must work wihtout requiring any
host support? Or is there some level of host support that is
acceptble? If so, why? (i mena, why some level of host support is
accpetbale and other is not)
The requirement is to have that intelligence on the network for
supporting
these features, while allowing the mobile node to only express
preferences
on network attachment/multihoming or flow mobility.
he participation of
the client will be to minimal proportions. The goal is to have a simple
client, with a minimal software component such as for managing these
aspects and not require an extensive set of protocol stacks.
2. An operator may choose to deploy a network with only network based
mobility protocol support
right, what are the required functions that are provided by a network
based mobility that are lacking in a host based mobility approach?
I'm not sure, if we want to compare the missing features and say they
will be available in host mobility protocols and so we go that route.
We could have said that even before we standardized network-based
mobility approaches. But, there is interest to support network-based
mobility protocols and so we need to ensure we do that job completly.
Industry has accepted network-based mobility approaches in the form of
GTP/PMIPv6. We have to add the missing features and support that
accepted model completly. This is about completing the work.
Regards
Sri
Regards, marcelo
-Raj
_______________________________________________
netext mailing list
netext at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext