Re: [MEXT] Well-known problem with authentication/etc. inwirelessnetworks

Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 26 August 2011 20:23 UTC

Return-Path: <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A87D921F8C09 for <mext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 13:23:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.494
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.494 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.105, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5JkWSI9mAhGI for <mext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 13:23:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0190E21F8BE5 for <mext@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 13:23:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wyg8 with SMTP id 8so3117614wyg.31 for <mext@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 13:24:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=9/gs+FnGPMZjce/lpqVInD7v3agWy0rVjbZXysplLO4=; b=aV2mPLaibM3w1aCYMxDLFqf95Vj7Q1oaNwZHgNHZZIOz79ChQKOgx3njtk+f8E5Ag6 cXbhsRi34lDVtaiINsodWpX3GHUYBEcGE0wrC8UUM8C14SICI771k+DqrE76P9irkAsg E5cs+KvHPZIh976syq5WCRureMxHMZEZGRmXs=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.227.13.130 with SMTP id c2mr1345701wba.6.1314390289469; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 13:24:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.227.141.79 with HTTP; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 13:24:49 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4E57FDF3.9040904@computer.org>
References: <4E57E814.4020607@computer.org> <CA7D5704.FADF%basavaraj.patil@nokia.com> <CAE_dhjvEBg+AH5cLazfeQRxBwj7Njenp_rFoLZ9Uw=Zs7WyO1Q@mail.gmail.com> <4E57FDF3.9040904@computer.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 13:24:49 -0700
Message-ID: <CAE_dhjuqmz2s1gaU0Tub-vm0XVigw-Psb+W6D-gBHnzeLj4EEA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
To: charliep@computer.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: mext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [MEXT] Well-known problem with authentication/etc. inwirelessnetworks
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 20:23:33 -0000

Hello Charlie,

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Charles E. Perkins
<charliep@computer.org> wrote:
> Hello Julien,
>
>
> On 8/26/2011 1:00 PM, Julien Laganier wrote:
>
>> In the latter (handover between 3GPP and non-3GPP), given that the
>> source and target system are accessed by different radio systems, I do
>> not see handover performance has a factor hampering the usability or
>> desirability of the inter-system handover scheme in use.
>
> It is definitely true that a handset with two different
> radio interfaces, given proper infrastructure support and
> software, can maintain excellent user experience as the
> application session is maintained seamlessly while the handset
> changes its care-of address to reflect its new point of
> attachment to the Internet from a new radio interface.
>
> Is this what you meant?

Yes.

> But the way in which authentication is carried out during
> handovers has a crucial impact on the handover performance.
> Do you not agree?

As above, I've been saying that Mobile IP handover performance does
not seem to be a factor in how desirable it is for use in a 3GPP
system.

--julien