Re: [MEXT] One vs. Two BCEs per MN for PMIPv6-MIPv6 handovers

[Hesham Soliman <[e-mail]>]

Please take mext out of this thread. This is a NETLMM draft.


On 26/03/2008, at 3:05 AM, Kilian Weniger wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> there has been little progress on the topic of interworking between  
> MIPv6 and PMIPv6 recently. One reason is that the authors of draft- 
> giaretta-netlmm-mip-interactions so far couldn't agree on the  
> general approach to solve the interworking scenario, where the HA  
> and LMA are co-located and the MN's mobility management scheme  
> changes between PMIPv6 and MIPv6 during a session (i.e., MIPv6 HoA  
> == PMIPv6 HoA). This scenario is called "scenario C" and is  
> described in detail in draft-giaretta-netlmm-mip-interactions-02.
>
> There are currently two approaches on the table to solve scenario C:
>
>  1) One BCE per MN for PMIPv6-MIPv6 handovers (see draft-giaretta- 
> netlmm-mip-interactions-02)
>
>       BCE is equally shared by PMIPv6 and MIPv6, i.e.,
>       MN and MAG change the same BCE. Neither of the
>       mobility schemes is prioritized over the other.
>
>  2) Two BCEs per MN for PMIPv6-MIPv6 handovers (see draft-tsirtsis- 
> logically-separate-lmaha-00.txt)
>
>       One BCE for PMIPv6 and one BCE for MIPv6.
>       The HA/LMA always prefers the MIPv6 BCE over the
>       PMIPv6 BCE for forwarding data packets, i.e.,
>       PMIPv6 BCE is only used if the MIPv6 BCE is emtpy.
>
> The current interactions draft draft-giaretta-netlmm-mip- 
> interactions-02 assumes approach 1), whereas draft-tsirtsis- 
> logically-separate-lmaha-00.txt proposes approach 2).
>
> We would like to hear the WG's comments and opinions about both  
> approaches.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Kilian
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
>> Behalf Of George Tsirtsis
>> Sent: Dienstag, 25. März 2008 11:49
>> To: Netlmm
>> Cc: [e-mail]
>> Subject: [MEXT] Fwd:
>> I-DAction:draft-tsirtsis-logically-separate-lmaha-00.txt
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Krishnan and I put together a draft describing what the expected
>> behavior of a combined LMA/HA implementation should be. This should
>> help the discussions around the so called scenario C of the PMIP- 
>> MIPv6
>> interactions draft (draft-giaretta-netlmm-mip-interactions).
>>
>> I hope you find the discussion in this draft useful.
>> Please let us know if you have any comments/questions.
>>
>> Regards
>> George
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From:  <[e-mail]>
>> Date: 2008/3/25
>> Subject: I-D Action:draft-tsirtsis-logically-separate-lmaha-00.txt
>> To: [e-mail]
>>
>>
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line
>> Internet-Drafts directories.
>>
>>        Title           : Behavior of Collocated HA/LMA
>>        Author(s)       : G. Tsirtsis, S. Krishnan
>>        Filename        :
>> draft-tsirtsis-logically-separate-lmaha-00.txt
>>        Pages           : 9
>>        Date            : 2008-03-25
>>
>> In discussions about PMIPv6-MIPv6 interactions in NETLMM WG, scenario
>> C describes the case of collocation of LMA and HA function.  In this
>> case a PMIP network emulates the "home link" for MNs using MIPv6.
>> This document argues that even when LMA and HA functions are
>> Collocated they MUST be treated as logically separate entities.  In
>> particular this draft argues that PMIP BCEs MUST NOT overwrite MIPv6
>> BCEs and vice versa.
>>
>> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
>>
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-tsirtsis-logically-s
>> eparate-lmaha-00.txt
>>
>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>>
>> Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
>> implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
>> Internet-Draft.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> I-D-Announce mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
>> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
>> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
>> _______________________________________________
>> MEXT mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>
>>
>
>
> Panasonic R&D Center Germany GmbH
> 63225 Langen, Hessen, Germany
> Reg: AG Offenbach (Hessen) HRB 33974
> Managing Director: Thomas Micke
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MEXT mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext

_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext