RE: [Mip4] Request to consider FMIPv4 as a working group document

[Narayanan Vidya-CVN065 <[e-mail]>]

All,
Does anyone know what happened to the draft on post-MIT? A few years ago, I thought it was being considered to be part of the low latency handoff spec - but, obviously it has not made it. 

James' draft on Post-MIT was trying to solve the issue of L2 dependency. Essentially, I see this as a major deployment issue to have a fast handoff solution exclusively dependent on receiving an L2 trigger (e.g. the L2 Target Trigger at the nFA). 

I think an approach like FMIPv4 is essential in light of this. Ideally, I think post-MIT should have been a part of LLH - that way, we won't have the need to have 2 specifications that are somewhat close with only minor differences. 

Vidya

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Espen Klovning
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 4:30 PM
To: 'Charles E.Perkins'; 'Mobile IPv4 Mailing List'
Cc: 'Rajeev Koodli'
Subject: RE: [Mip4] Request to consider FMIPv4 as a working group document


Hi Charlie

I support making this draft a WG item.

I do have some concerns that more or less reflect what Kent Leung has voiced in previous mails on the list. 
- AR == FA 
- IP address management

An additional issue is how the MN-PAR auth extension is handled. I take it this will reuse MN-FA auth extension. It will require key distribution of some kind that could jeopardize the performance benefits. What am I missing?

regards
espen
Espen Klovning
Birdstep Technology


In addition, 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf 
> Of Charles E.Perkins
> Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 10:53 PM
> To: Mobile IPv4 Mailing List
> Cc: Rajeev Koodli
> Subject: [Mip4] Request to consider FMIPv4 as a working group document
> 
> 
> 
> Hello folks,
> 
> We made a presentation at IETF 61 about a way to do
> fast handovers with Mobile IPv4.  Our method is adapted
> from the protocol for Mobile IPv6,
>      draft-ietf-mipshop-fast-mipv6-03.txt
> 
> The Mobile IPv6 protocol has been approved for
> publication and is currently in the RFC editor's
> queue.
> 
> The discussion at IETF 61 can be reviewed from the
> minutes, located at: 
> http://www1.ietf.org/proceedings_new/04nov/toc.html#int
> 
> As part of this discussion, I showed some results which indicate very 
> good performance for FMIPv4, suitable for handling interactive voice 
> applications.  I probably have the PowerPoint presentation around 
> somewhere if needed.
> 
> The protocol specification for the Mobile IPv4 fast
> handovers is documented in the Internet Draft:
>      draft-koodli-fmipv4-00.txt
> which is available in the standard IETF draft
> directories.
> 
> Thanks in advance for your consideration of our
> request.
> 
> Regards,
> Charlie P.
> 
> --
> Mip4 mailing list: [e-mail]
>     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/


-- 
Mip4 mailing list: [e-mail]
    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/

-- 
Mip4 mailing list: [e-mail]
    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/