Re: [Mip4] FMIPv4

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@motorola.com> Mon, 22 January 2007 17:50 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H93J7-0004bS-Vk; Mon, 22 Jan 2007 12:50:13 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H93J6-0004bA-NE for mip4@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Jan 2007 12:50:12 -0500
Received: from mail119.messagelabs.com ([216.82.241.179]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H93J5-0001qp-Eh for mip4@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Jan 2007 12:50:12 -0500
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: alexandru.petrescu@motorola.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-6.tower-119.messagelabs.com!1169488210!9753968!1
X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.10.7; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [129.188.136.8]
Received: (qmail 25976 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2007 17:50:10 -0000
Received: from motgate8.mot.com (HELO motgate8.mot.com) (129.188.136.8) by server-6.tower-119.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 22 Jan 2007 17:50:10 -0000
Received: from il06exr03.mot.com (il06exr03.mot.com [129.188.137.133]) by motgate8.mot.com (8.12.11/Motorola) with ESMTP id l0MHo5Gm007730 for <mip4@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Jan 2007 10:50:10 -0700 (MST)
Received: from [10.161.201.117] (zfr01-2117.crm.mot.com [10.161.201.117]) by il06exr03.mot.com (8.13.1/8.13.0) with ESMTP id l0MHo4kt022726; Mon, 22 Jan 2007 11:50:04 -0600 (CST)
Message-ID: <45B4F94B.7080309@motorola.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 18:50:03 +0100
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@motorola.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (Windows/20061025)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: McCann Peter-A001034 <pete.mccann@motorola.com>
Subject: Re: [Mip4] FMIPv4
References: <BE4B07D4197BF34EB3B753DD34EBCD130143FA4C@de01exm67.ds.mot.com>
In-Reply-To: <BE4B07D4197BF34EB3B753DD34EBCD130143FA4C@de01exm67.ds.mot.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 769a46790fb42fbb0b0cc700c82f7081
Cc: mip4@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: mip4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobility for IPv4 <mip4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4>, <mailto:mip4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:mip4@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mip4-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4>, <mailto:mip4-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: mip4-bounces@ietf.org

McCann Peter-A001034 wrote:
> In San Diego at IETF 67 we saw a presentation of the changes in 
> draft-ietf-mip4-fmipv4-02.txt.  However, we have not had any list 
> discussion on whether the changes were adequate.
> 
> Can I ask all those who made comments to review the current draft, 
> available at:
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mip4-fmipv4-02.txt

REviewing it...

BAsically I'm fine with it, here's a few minor editorial.

> Optimizations have been proposed and are being standardized in IEEE 
> however.

... for example IEEE 802.11r (Fast Roaming, Fast BSS Transition) and to
a certain extent 802.21; probably worth mentioning.

> The design of the protocol is the same as for Mobile IPv6 [2]. 
> Readers should consult [2] for details, and here we provide a 
> summary.
[...]
> [2] R. Koodli (Editor).  Fast Handovers for Mobile IPv6 (work in 
> progress).  Internet Draft, Internet Engineering Task Force. 
> draft-ietf-mipshop-fast-mipv6-03.txt, October 2005.

Editing nit.  The draft referred as [2] no longer exists I believe.  I
think there may be plans in the mipshop WG to take RFC4068 on a Stds
Track.  So maybe RFC4068 and RFC3775 should be referred for the moment,
or any other update more up to date.  This '[2]' is cited several times
in the draft.

> 5.3. Router Solicitation for Proxy Advertisement (RtSolPr)

Is this an RS carried as ICMP (RFC1256) or as ICMPv6.  Encoding is 
different.  Remark that existing implementations of ICMPv4 RS could be 
re-used for minimal modifications, or otherwise ICMPv6 could be re-used. 
  It's a choice.  But in a FMIPv4 deployment one wouldn't assume 
availability of ICMPv6... or maybe yes (?).  Also it's strange to use 
Checksum field as computed from rfc1256 but the format from ICMPv6.

Same for Proxy Router Advertisement.

Alex



-- 
Mip4 mailing list: Mip4@ietf.org
    Web interface: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4
     Charter page: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/mip4-charter.html
Supplemental site: http://www.mip4.org/