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

Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 26 August 2011 20:10 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 E61CC21F8C6B for <mext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 13:10:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.484
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.484 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.115, 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 3EyfuzgDDN-u for <mext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 13:10:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 317FE21F8C69 for <mext@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 13:10:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wwf5 with SMTP id 5so2607281wwf.13 for <mext@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 13:11:34 -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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=qf6GlyuRpILNPVKd1oe8WarqcAZhPTchuP1mAqmc2B8=; b=BcWc5m7b1S3Or9OCh8SE8RwmjNTmLsz3zjSmGjrM2ZlLzSVtTzJq97qZhN9xtiMK+9 dXmA/g/fpjrMMaQKbYJ0jnqmJ8MlyRzVUdd7KPlWaYA393xP57ZQ0ZhDcJsGPymc1tCw cbDL6WidHvFBHr5xkXF1UaulRihdJUFD+4n8A=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.227.28.4 with SMTP id k4mr1343974wbc.21.1314389494323; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 13:11:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.227.141.79 with HTTP; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 13:11:34 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA7D667E.FAF8%basavaraj.patil@nokia.com>
References: <CAE_dhjvEBg+AH5cLazfeQRxBwj7Njenp_rFoLZ9Uw=Zs7WyO1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CA7D667E.FAF8%basavaraj.patil@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 13:11:34 -0700
Message-ID: <CAE_dhjsiLedb+CNwvxp6OS85vHp7XuEh3sYeht1WD0byfeRYNA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: charliep@computer.org, mccap@petoni.org, mext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [MEXT] Well-known problem with authentication/etc. in wirelessnetworks
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 20:10:31 -0000

Hi Raj,

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 1:09 PM,  <Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Julien,
>
> On 8/26/11 3:00 PM, "ext Julien Laganier" <julien.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Hi Raj,
>>
>>On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 12:01 PM,  <Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Charlie,
>>>
>>> On 8/26/11 1:38 PM, "ext Charles E. Perkins" <charliep@computer.org>
>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Thus I am still not sure what the problem is.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The problem is that they can't do very effective handovers.
>>>>Worse, they are designing _per-application_ handover systems.
>>>>This is wrong by most reasonable engineering standards,
>>>>regardless on the positive effect it might have for
>>>>standards junkies and permanent employment for engineers.
>>>
>>> Effective handovers between what networks? Handovers within the scope of
>>> an HSPA or LTE access for example work fine.
>>> If you are referring to handovers between 3G accesses and wifi (non-3GPP
>>> access) then yes.
>>> But the handover performance in such a scenario is hampered by other
>>> factors such as latency in connectivity and authentication etc.
>>
>>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.
>
> You mean the impact (in terms of lower performance) of handovers across
> 3GPP and non-3GPP handovers does not really matter because those
> applications that rely on high performing handovers will anyway not rely
> on such?

No I meant that because the MN has different radio systems, it can
turn one on and send a BU while still receiving/sending data via the
old one, and thus MIP handover performance isn't in a critical path in
that situation. For single radio the situation is obviously different.

--julien