Re: [Mipshop] Section 4.3.1 of draft-ietf-mipshop-transient-bce-pmipv6

[Marco Liebsch <[e-mail]>]

  Hi Julien,

Am 13.09.2010 18:46, schrieb Laganier, Julien:
> Hi Marco,
>
> Marco Liebsch wrote:
>> Hi Vijay,
>>
>> please find some text for a revived section 4.7 MN Operation below.
>> Text in section 4.3.1 could then refer to this new section 4.7 to
>> link context.
>>
>> 4.7.  MN operation
>>
>>    For single-radio handover, this specification does not require any
>>    extended mode of operation on the MN when compared to [RFC5213].
>>
>>    During dual-radio handover, the MN benefits most from the transient
>>    BCE extension to PMIPv6 when it is able to keep communication on the
>>    previous interface while it is setting up its handover target
>>    interface with the configuration context which has been received as a
>>    result of the new interface's attachment to the nMAG.  Various
>>    techniques enable support for such operation, e.g. the use of a
>>    virtual interface on top of physical radio interfaces or
> I suggest:
>
> "logical interface on top of physical radio interfaces [I-D. ietf-netext-logical-interface-support] or"
I am not sure why we should have a reference to NetExt, as the approach 
how to realize this
is not NetExt specific. Examples are given in the text. And: If a 
reference is needed,
why NetExt and not MIF?

marco


>>    implementation specific extensions to the MN's protocol stack.
>>    Details about how to enable such make-before-break support on the MN
>>    are out of scope of this document.
> --julien
>
>> Vijay Devarapalli wrote:
>>> On 9/10/10 3:59 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
>>>> Is some document change needed?
>>> Yes, IMO. Section 4.3.1 talks about the nMAG creating a transient BCE
>>> only if it knows the MN supports transient BCE. Two issues with this.
>>>
>>> 1. If its a single radio handover, nothing needs to be supported on
>>> the MN. Just whatever is needed according to RFC 5213.
>>>
>>> 2. For a dual radio handover, to get the true benefit from transient
>>> BCE, the MN needs to be able to receive packets on two interfaces at
>>> the same time for a short while. If it does not do this, transient
>> BCE
>>> would still work, and the MN does benefit, but there will be some
>>> packet loss.
>>>
>>> This is not really captured in the draft.
>>>
>>> For the actual text changes, it is going to be hard for me to suggest
>>> text changes since its been a year since I read the draft. I have to
>>> go through it again. Marco would probably be able to come up with
>> text
>>> changes much more quickly.
>>>
>>> Perhaps we should add a section on the mobile node support for
>>> transient BCE and explain clearly what needs to be supported on the
>>> mobile node.
>>>
>>> Vijay
>> _______________________________________________
>> Mipshop mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop