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" <heejin.jang@samsung.com> 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<xiayangsong@huawei.com>
> 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" <soohong.park@samsung.com>
> To: <mipshop@ietf.org>
> Cc: <16ng@ietf.org>
> 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
>> > 16NG@ietf.org
>> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng
>> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mipshop mailing list
> Mipshop@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop
> 
> 
> 

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