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

Hi Frank,

May be we are going in circles here.. I have not seen why the current model
cannot work for the scenario you have in mind. If there is an issue, the WG
process is to bring it up and propose text. It¹s more productive that way. I
am willing to clarify in the bis version. Some more replies below..

>>> 
>>> 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.
>>>  
>>> Frank=> don't you think the concept of the  perfix is too flexible that
>>> different people can have their own different  understanding?  In your
>>> draft, the prefix is definitely the prefix of  AR physical interface. I
>>> think there is not ambiguous.
>>> 
>>> Rajeev/2/:> First, it is not my draft; it is the WG document. Second, it is
>>> not clear to me why you would equate the prefix to physical interface. 4068
>>> only says it is the prefix valid on the interface the MN is attaching to,
>>> and I am unable to see what¹s the problem.
>>> 
>>> If you are trying to map it to ptp model, that¹s fine. But, please don¹t
>>> make assumptions which not intended, nor are necessary.
>>>  
>>>  
>>> 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.
>>>  
>>> Frank =>In fact,  this is not big different from our propsoal  in
>>> draft-xia-mipshop-fmip-ptp-00
>>> 
>>> Rajeev:/2/> I am not proposing a new model above. Just showing how the
>>> existing model can be used.
>>> 
>>> I can imagine other ways to manage  the prefix.
>>>  
>>> Frank => I  also have a revised document  which elaborating other
>>> alternatives, and we can cooperate  .
>>> 
>>> 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. 
>>>    
>>> Frank => The exchange of RtSolPr and PrRtAdv is to formulate a new CoA while
>>> is useless  in p-t-p model.  It is a waste of air interface  resource.
>>> 
>>> Rajeev:/2/> That¹s debatable, and is up to each technology that implements
>>> FMIP. 
>>>  
>>>  
>>> Frank => P-to-P scenario is adopted by  WiMAX/3GPP2, while I have little
>>> idea about promising  deployment of shared link model.
>>> 
>>> Rajeev:/2/> Good.  RFC 4068 is not about shared link only. It¹s your
>>> interpretation.
>>>  
>>> IMHO, your simplified proposal can't solve the  proplem very well.
>  
>                Rajeev:/2/> You have not shown why my explanation on how the
> current model can work will not  work. As I suggested earlier, if there is any
> specific issue that needs to be addressed, it is productive to propose the
> issue and text. 
> 
> -Rajeev
> 
>>  
>> 
-- 
http://people.nokia.net/~rajeev