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

[Marco Liebsch <[e-mail]>]

  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
>>>
>>
>>
>