Subject: Re: [DMM] [dmm] #16: Clarifications

From: Jouni Korhonen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 14:28:37 +0300

I would like to see a note that states why MIP RO or PMIP LR are not adequate.
Just for the completeness.. Is it because a single HA/LMA is still maintained?

- Jouni.

On Apr 15, 2013, at 11:35 PM, dmm issue tracker <[email-masked]> wrote:

> #16: Clarifications
> 
> 14) Section 4.1
> 
>   REQ1:  Distributed deployment
> 
> o This requirement must imho state why route optimization (MIPv6) or
>  localized routing (PMIPv6) as of today are not adequate/enough. The
>  requirement text itself is OK but the question above needs an answer.
> 
> -- 
> ------------------------------------+------------------------------------
> Reporter:  [email-masked]  |      Owner:  [email-masked]
>     Type:  defect                  |     Status:  new
> Priority:  major                   |  Milestone:
> Component:  requirements            |    Version:
> Severity:  In WG Last Call         |   Keywords:
> ------------------------------------+------------------------------------
> 
> Ticket URL: <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/wg/dmm/trac/ticket/16>
> dmm <http://tools.ietf.org/dmm/>
>