Re: [Mipshop] Re: [16NG] FW: Call for Review on FMIP6 over IEEE802.16e Networks

[Rajeev Koodli <[e-mail]>]

HI Frank,


On 6/4/07 11:29 AM, "ext Frank Xia" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>  
> 1 "(AP-ID, AR-Info) tuple Contains an access router's L2 and IP addresses, and
>   prefix valid on the interface to which the Access Point (identified by
> AP-ID) is attached.
>  The triplet [Router's  L2 address, Router's IP address and Prefix] is called
> "AR-Info"".
>  
> => Here, prefix is AR's physical interface prefix is used for NCoA
> formulation.
>   As you know, this prefix is useless for P-to-P link model.
> 
> Rajeev:> you could interpret it that way, but you don¹t have to. The point I
> am trying to make is that the current model works for the scenario you are
> enumerating.
> 
> An AR may use per-mobile prefix and an aggregate prefix on the interface. As I
> said, aggregate prefix could be what is advertised in PrRtAdv. The MN can
> formulate a prospective NCoA using that, but receive a different NCoA from
> NAR, based on the per-mobile prefix.
>  
> I can imagine other ways to manage the prefix.
> 
> 
> 2 " Through the RtSolPr and PrRtAdv messages, the MN also formulates a
>     prospective new CoA (NCoA), when it is still present on the PAR's
>     link.  Hence, the latency due to new prefix discovery subsequent to
>     handover is eliminated.  Furthermore, this prospective address can
>     be used immediately after attaching to the new subnet link (i.e.,
>     NAR's link) when the MN has received a "Fast Binding Acknowledgment
>     (FBack)" message prior to its movement.  In the event it moves
>     without receiving an FBack, the MN can still start using NCoA
>     after announcing its attachment through an unsolicited Neighbor
>     Advertisement message (with the 'O' bit set to zero) message [8];
>     NAR responds to to this UNA message in case the tentative address is
>     already in use.  In this way, NCoA configuration latency is reduced"
> 
> =>is it meaningful for P-to-P?
> 
> Rajeev:> If your question is will it work with per-mobile prefix, yes. Either
> FBack or NAACK can provide the NCoA that the NAR wants the MN to use.
> 
> ...
>  
> In fact any parts related to the prefix is not proper for p-to-p link model.
>  
> Rajeev:> That¹s a pretty broad statement. You should separate prefix
> management from the address formulation. If an address is formulated using an
> aggregate prefix (which NAR exchanges with PAR), then that address can be
> overridden from the NAR using a per-mobile prefix. RFC 4068 provides means to
> do this. 
> 
>  
> BTW, From my understanding, your propsal is that the only way for MN getting
> it's CoA
> MUST be requesting it from NAR for P-to-P link.
>  
> Rajeev:> I am just pointing out how the current model in 4068 can work for
> your scenario. 
> 
> -Rajeev
> 
>  
>  
> BR
> Frank
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>>  
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>  
>> From:  Rajeev  Koodli <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>  
>> To: [e-mail] ; Frank  Xia <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>  
>> Cc: [e-mail] ; [e-mail] ; ??? <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>  
>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:56 PM
>>  
>> Subject: Re: [Mipshop] Re: [16NG] FW: Call  for Review on FMIP6 over
>> IEEE802.16e Networks
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> As far as I see, there is no problem  here!
>> 
>> It does not matter what you call the prefix advertised in  PrRtAdv. RFC 4068
>> does not make assumptions about how the prefixes are  assigned and managed on
>> an AR¹s link. So, it is inaccurate to say as such in
>> draft-xia-mipshop-fmip-ptp-00.txt.
>> 
>> So, if prefix A is advertised in  PrRtAdv, and a MN formulates a prospective
>> address IP-A and sends FBU, IP-A  can be overridden by NAR in HAck.
>> 
>> Section  6.2.2
>> 
>>               Code         3: Handover Accepted, NCoA  assigned
>>                              (used  in Assigned addressing)
>> 
>> 
>> The supplied NCoA is provided in FBack or  NAACK option.
>> 
>> This is the way I understood the problem and the solution  for ptp links.
>> 
>> What am I missing?
>> 
>> -Rajeev
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On  6/3/07 9:44 PM, "ext Heejin Jang" <[e-mail]>  wrote:
>> 
>>  
>>> Hi, Frank & Daniel.
>>> 
>>> RFC4068 describes  fast HO procedure based on prediction, including NCoA
>>> formulation in  advance.
>>> However, how to allocate the prefix to MN in NAR (before actual  HO) is out
>>> of scope in this document
>>> as mentioned in Section  4.
>>> 
>>> "The method by which Access Routers exchange information about  their
>>> neighbors, and thereby allow
>>>   construction of Proxy  Router  Advertisements with information about
>>> neighboring subnets is  outside
>>>   the scope of this document."
>>> 
>>> Furthermore, the  problem you mentioned in draft-xia-mipshop-fmip-ptp-00 is
>>> not limited only  to 802.16 networks
>>> but happens all networks which have point-to-point  link such as 3GPP2.
>>> I think that it is proper to handle this problem  separately.
>>> 
>>> Thanks for your opinion.
>>> 
>>> -  Regards,
>>> Heejin
>>> 
>>> ------- Original Message -------
>>> Sender : Frank  Xia<[e-mail]>
>>> Date   : 2007-06-01  06:50
>>> Title  : [Mipshop] Re: [16NG] FW: Call for Review on FMIP6  over IEEE
>>> 802.16e    Networks
>>> 
>>> Hi Daniel
>>> 
>>> Here is  my two cents.
>>> 
>>> The draft is based on RFC4068, and point-to-point link  model is also
>>> recommended .
>>> RFC4068 is based on shared link model, and is  not applicable for
>>> point-to-point link model without modification.
>>> So,   there are some basic conflicts in the draft.
>>> 
>>> Formulation of   a prospective NCoA  is a main idea of  RFC4068.
>>> But in  Point-to-Point link model, it is impossible to formulate the  NCoA
>>> according to  RFC4068 because there is no proper  prefix.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> BR
>>> Frank
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ----- Original Message  -----
>>> From: "Daniel Park" <[e-mail]>
>>> To:  <[e-mail]>
>>> Cc: <[e-mail]>
>>> Sent: Sunday, May  27, 2007 9:34 PM
>>> Subject: [16NG] FW: Call for Review on FMIP6 over IEEE  802.16e Networks
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> > To MIPSHOP WG,
>>>> >
>>>> > Here is  another expert review on "draft-ietf-mipshop-fh80216e-01",
>>>> >  particularly, IEEE 802.21 relevant texts in this draft.
>>>> >
>>>> >  Reviewer (Yoshihiro Ohba) is a IETF official liaison from IEEE  802.21
>>>> >
>>>> > Thanks Yoshihiro and hope this  helps...
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > ----
>>>> >
>>>> > Daniel Park &  Gabriel Montenegro
>>>> > Chairs, 16NG Working  Group
>>>> >
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> ----
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> >  _______________________________________________
>>>> > 16NG mailing  list
>>>> > [e-mail]
>>>> >  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng
>>>> >
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Mipshop  mailing  list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --  
>> http://people.nokia.net/~rajeev
>> 
>> 
> 


-- 
http://people.nokia.net/~rajeev

_______________________________________________
16NG mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng