Re: [netext] research article about a flat and distributed PMIP scheme

Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net> Sun, 17 July 2011 22:26 UTC

Return-Path: <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>
X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D893421F853A for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 15:26:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_34=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E0E1F7MNTiRJ for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 15:26:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 806EA21F84EE for <netext@ietf.org>; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 15:26:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 17 Jul 2011 22:26:27 -0000
Received: from unknown (EHLO [172.16.1.103]) [12.176.29.2] by mail.gmx.net (mp005) with SMTP; 18 Jul 2011 00:26:27 +0200
X-Authenticated: #29516787
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX193Xth3zhh3BiV/2Suq3z15FiFMouhQi5fw3AnDfo caDZxS17b+qOJV
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>
In-Reply-To: <CA4876C0.212D2%sgundave@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 01:26:24 +0300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3E01EE4F-D96D-4149-A48F-88592F2DC639@gmx.net>
References: <CA4876C0.212D2%sgundave@cisco.com>
To: Sri Gundavelli <sgundave@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Cc: netext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netext] research article about a flat and distributed PMIP scheme
X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " <netext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netext>, <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netext>
List-Post: <mailto:netext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext>, <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 22:26:31 -0000

Thanks. 

One question though: Isn't  SIP+IEEE 802.21+PMIP vs. SIP+IEEE 802.21+HIP a comparison of apples and oranges? 
Wouldn't it be more natural to compare SIP+IEEE 802.21+MIP and SIP+IEEE 802.21+HIP as well as SIP+IEEE 802.21+PMIP and SIP+IEEE 802.21+proxy HIP? 

Ciao
Hannes

PS: Do you know something about the deployment status of IEEE 802.21? 

On Jul 17, 2011, at 9:23 PM, Sri Gundavelli wrote:

> > The main conclusion is that the introduced SIP+IEEE 802.21+PMIP signalling scheme is quite a promising and suitable candidate for future flat mobile architectures.
> 
> Thanks Goodzi for the information and sharing the paper. Very nice to know that.
> 
> > however the HIP-based scheme got slightly better scores under our criteria set due to its stronger security and fewer functional elements to deploy.
> 
> Well ..we need to see the criteria. It appears we need some tweaking there for the HIP :). In PMIP model, clearly there is the access authentication requirement, security between the network elements and the MAG authorization aspect, that should be sufficient for any trusted network model.
> 
> Regards
> Sri
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 7/14/11 8:14 AM, "Bokor Laszlo" <goodzi@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Dear Hannes,
>> 
>> I believe that the PMIP-related results of this paper could be interesting for the NETEXT community. The main conclusion is that the introduced SIP+IEEE 802.21+PMIP signalling scheme is quite a promising and suitable candidate for future flat mobile architectures. We have compared the SIP+IEEE 802.21+PMIP solution with the SIP+IEEE 802.21+HIP scheme in a well defined network modell and found that both proposals have nearly the same performance, however the HIP-based scheme got slightly better scores under our criteria set due to its stronger security and fewer functional elements to deploy.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> goodzi
>> 
>> --
>> László BOKOR
>> Budapest University of Technology and Economics (BME)
>> Department of Telecommunications (HIT) - Mobile Innovation Centre (MIK)
>> Tel: +36-1-463-3420, Fax: +36-1-463-3307
>> web: http://www.hit.bme.hu/~bokorl
>> 
>> 2011/7/14 Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>
>>> Tell us, what is the conclusion with relevance for this group?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Jul 14, 2011, at 1:54 PM, Bokor Laszlo wrote:
>>> 
>>> > Dear Folks,
>>> >
>>> > please let me advertise you a research paper about a flat and distributed PMIP scheme:
>>> >
>>> > Title: Evaluation of two integrated signalling schemes for the Ultra Flat Architecture using SIP, IEEE 802.21, and HIP/PMIP protocols
>>> > ACM link: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1975468
>>> > DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2011.02.005
>>> >
>>> > I hope you will find the above article interesting, and also that you will provide us with feedbacks on our work.
>>> >
>>> > Best regards,
>>> > goodzi
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > László BOKOR
>>> > Budapest University of Technology and Economics (BME)
>>> > Department of Telecommunications (HIT) - Mobile Innovation Centre (MIK)
>>> > Tel: +36-1-463-3420, Fax: +36-1-463-3307
>>> > web: http://www.hit.bme.hu/~bokorl <http://www.hit.bme.hu/%7Ebokorl>  _______________________________________________
>>> > netext mailing list
>>> > netext@ietf.org
>>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> netext mailing list
>> netext@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext