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

[Marco Liebsch <[e-mail]>]

  Am 13.09.2010 23:48, schrieb Vijay Devarapalli:
> On 9/13/10 6:46 AM, 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].
>
> Replace the above with
>
>   For a single-radio handover, this specification does not require
>   any additional functionality on the mobile node, when compared to
>   [RFC 5213].
ok

>
>> 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
>> 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.
>
> Looks ok. BTW, I think its ok to include the reference to the NETEXT 
> draft for the virtual interface (see Julien's email).
ok. Will post a version 8 then with that text and the reference.
marco


>
> Vijay
>
>>
>>
>> marco
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>