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

Dear Sri,

you are right, the evaluation results depend a lot on the criteria. However,
a carefully created criteria set could help in accomplishing objective
analysis, and that is what we tried to achieve. Our results can be used for
locating possible weaknesses and bottlenecks of both PMIP and HIP in flat
environments, but of course there are potential ways for enhancements in the
application of our scheme.

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

2011/7/17 Sri Gundavelli <sgundave@cisco.com>

>  > 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
>
>