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

[Jari Arkko <[e-mail]>]

OK

Marco Liebsch kirjoitti:
>  Hi Jari,
>
> Am 14.09.2010 08:30, schrieb Jari Arkko:
>> Will the text that we added about the network only doing this if it 
>> knows that the mobile node is BCE-PMIP capable still stay?
>
> I guess you refer to the new text in 4.3.1, which came in since 
> version 7. Yes. I think it
> will stay and Vijay requested an addition section where to describe 
> *what* the
> MN actually needs to support to be tBCE capable.
>
> So, we keep the current text in 4.3.1 and refer to section 4.7 in this 
> context.
>
> Is that ok?
>
> marco
>
>
>>
>> Jari
>>
>> Vijay Devarapalli kirjoitti:
>>> 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].
>>>
>>>> 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).
>>>
>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>