[Nsis-imp] QoS in mobile environments

Bernd Schloer <bschloer@cs.uni-goettingen.de> Wed, 04 October 2006 18:26 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GVBS2-000191-2h; Wed, 04 Oct 2006 14:26:38 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GVBS0-00017Y-JU for nsis-imp@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Oct 2006 14:26:36 -0400
Received: from natsmtp00.rzone.de ([81.169.145.165]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GVBRy-0003uO-74 for nsis-imp@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Oct 2006 14:26:36 -0400
Received: from [192.168.178.200] (p5484B1D2.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.132.177.210]) (authenticated bits=0) by post.webmailer.de (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k94IQ7uE015295; Wed, 4 Oct 2006 20:26:07 +0200 (MEST)
Message-ID: <4523FCA9.6010200@cs.uni-goettingen.de>
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 20:25:45 +0200
From: Bernd Schloer <bschloer@cs.uni-goettingen.de>
User-Agent: Opera/8.51 (Windows NT 5.1; U; en)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Cheng Hong <Hong.Cheng@sg.panasonic.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 93238566e09e6e262849b4f805833007
Cc: jmanner@cs.Helsinki.FI, nsis-imp@ietf.org
Subject: [Nsis-imp] QoS in mobile environments
X-BeenThere: nsis-imp@lists.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: List for implementation questions for NSIS protocols <nsis-imp.lists.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis-imp>, <mailto:nsis-imp-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/nsis-imp>
List-Post: <mailto:nsis-imp@lists.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nsis-imp-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis-imp>, <mailto:nsis-imp-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: nsis-imp-bounces@lists.ietf.org

Hello Hong and all,

FMIPv6 minimizes the Layer-3 handoff delay caused by binding updates and
getting a new ip address. A forwarding path is set up from previous AR (pAR)
to new AR (nAR) to avoid packet loss. Context Transfer, as described e.g. in
draft-fu-cxtp-gist-01.txt, improves the performance by transferring
state context from pAR to nAR.

Before a handoff takes place it has to be ensured that the new AP can
provide the desired QoS. Otherwise a handoff would be useless. Once a
handoff is performed, GIST has to perform rerouting and inform the QoS
NSLP over the API (NetworkNotification) about the route change. The QoS
NSLP has to make a reservation on the new path and tear down reservation
on the old path.

For an experimental implementation to demonstrate a very simple handoff
in a general Internet environment could the Signal Strength be used as
movement detection and as a handoff criteria? Is there anything more to
consider between Link Layer and Layer-3? Performance Enhancing Proxies
(RFC 3135) for example could be used to improve TCP performance in wireless
LAN environments.

Bernd


_______________________________________________
NSIS-imp mailing list
NSIS-imp@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis-imp