Re: [multimob] Fast Handover Solutions

[Stig Venaas <[e-mail]>]

On 11/27/2012 10:19 AM, Rajeev Koodli (rkoodli) wrote:
>
> Thanks for checking.
>
> To avoid the confusion, kindly rename the draft appropriately.
> The draft title and the draft name should be consistent, and not mislead,
> as it does now.

It's a bit misleading, but the name does not matter much. The RFC won't
have the draft name mentioned anywhere.

Can't we rather discuss how the two real fast handover drafts meet
the requirements?

Stig

>
> -Rajeev
>
>
> On 11/27/12 9:24 AM, "Behcet Sarikaya" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Rajeev,
>>
>> I checked again.
>> The charter item is about PMIPv6 handover optimizations, not on fast
>> handover.
>>
>> The draft name should have been handover-optimizations not fast-handover.
>>
>> Sorry about that because I had suggested this draft name.
>>
>> Without realizing that it would cause so much trouble.
>>
>> I repeat here again, the draft title did not change and the draft
>> content is reflected in the title. This is the most important thing.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Behcet
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 6:07 PM, Rajeev Koodli (rkoodli)
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Behcet,
>>>
>>> On 11/26/12 1:46 PM, "Behcet Sarikaya" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Thomas C. Schmidt
>>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Behcet,
>>>>>
>>>>> these requirements are for a fast handover solution, i.e., a protocol
>>>>> that
>>>>> operates a *handover* in a *fast* manner.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree that draft-ietf-multimob-fast-handover does not meet the
>>>>> requirements, but had written earlier on the list that the name of
>>>>> this
>>>>> draft is misleading in two ways: (i) draft-ietf-multimob-fast-handover
>>>>> is
>>>>> not a fast handover solution, and (ii) the name "fast handover" is
>>>>> tied
>>>>> to
>>>>> RFC5568/RFC5949-like schemes for good reasons.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The draft title contains ... handover optimization ... and it reflects
>>>> its content.
>>>> We asked for this WG draft name because of the charter item to which
>>>> it corresponds.
>>>
>>> Sorry, which charter item has "fast-handover"?
>>> Could you clarify?
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> -Rajeev
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think this clarifies your confusion.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Behcet
>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thomas
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 20.11.2012 00:09, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Thomas,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems that these requirements are for
>>>>>>
>>>>>> draft-schmidt-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and not for
>>>>>> draft-ietf-multimob-fast-handover.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Behcet
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Thomas C. Schmidt
>>>>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> after the - somewhat uninformed discussion at IETF85 - chairs asked
>>>>>>> me to
>>>>>>> restate requirements of a "fast handover solution" for Multicast
>>>>>>> Mobility.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here they are:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    (i) Handover should be fast (this is only true for a direct
>>>>>>> pMAG/AR
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> nMAG/AR solution such as
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schmidt-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-mult
>>>>>>> ic
>>>>>>> ast).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    (ii) Multicast handover should be fully synchronized with unicast
>>>>>>> handover
>>>>>>> (otherwise unicast and multicast states diverge as is a well-known
>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> the RAMS-approach, i.e.,
>>>>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-multimob-fast-handover).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    (iii) Multicast handover solutions should tightly integrate with
>>>>>>> unicast
>>>>>>> handover (only
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schmidt-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-mult
>>>>>>> ic
>>>>>>> ast
>>>>>>> integrates with PFMIPv6 and FMIPv6).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    (iv) Handover management should reuse standard mobility and
>>>>>>> multicast
>>>>>>> protocol operations for easy implementation and deployment
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schmidt-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-mul
>>>>>>> ti
>>>>>>> cast
>>>>>>> introduced the use of standard IGMP/MLD records for context
>>>>>>> description
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> transfer, which has been copied several times).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    (v) Multicast handover management should integrate ASM and SSM, as
>>>>>>> well
>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>> IPv4 (IGMP) and IPv6 (MLD), which is only provided by
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schmidt-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-mult
>>>>>>> ic
>>>>>>> ast.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Based on these facts, chairs and AD proclaimed to re-decide on
>>>>>>> future
>>>>>>> paths
>>>>>>> for Multimob fast handover solutions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thomas
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Prof. Dr. Thomas C. Schmidt
>>>>>>> ° Hamburg University of Applied Sciences                   Berliner
>>>>>>> Tor 7
>>>>>>> °
>>>>>>> ° Dept. Informatik, Internet Technologies Group    20099 Hamburg,
>>>>>>> Germany
>>>>>>> °
>>>>>>> ° http://www.haw-hamburg.de/inet                   Fon:
>>>>>>> [phone]
>>>>>>> °
>>>>>>> ° http://www.informatik.haw-hamburg.de/~schmidt    Fax:
>>>>>>> [phone]
>>>>>>> °
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> multimob mailing list
>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> Prof. Dr. Thomas C. Schmidt
>>>>> ° Hamburg University of Applied Sciences                   Berliner
>>>>> Tor
>>>>> 7 °
>>>>> ° Dept. Informatik, Internet Technologies Group    20099 Hamburg,
>>>>> Germany °
>>>>> ° http://www.haw-hamburg.de/inet                   Fon:
>>>>> [phone] °
>>>>> ° http://www.informatik.haw-hamburg.de/~schmidt    Fax:
>>>>> [phone] °
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> multimob mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob
>>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> multimob mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob
>