Re: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53

Hi, Karim,

What kind of L2 triggers provide the IP address(es) of the target
(candidate) access routers?
Would you mind providing some examples?
Thanks.

Eunsoo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Karim El-Malki (ERA)" <Karim.El-Malki@era.ericsson.se>
To: "'Hemant Chaskar'" <hchaskar@hotmail.com>; <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com>;
<seamoby@ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 3:13 AM
Subject: RE: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53

> > >  > In a single interface handoff situation, Layer 2 typically
>  > >  > delivers the
>  > >  > AP or AR L2 identifier to which the MN will be handed over. This
>  > >  > information is required (by the MIP fast handover
>  > algorithms) at the
>  > >  > MN's AR. So the issue is fairly simple: the AR must be
>  > able to do
>  > >  > reverse address translation in order that it can contact the
>  > >  > other AR.
>  > >
>  > >This is not really applicable to Mobile-Initiated MIP Fast Handoff.
>  > >In Mobile-initiated we consider the useful case where the
>  > MN can recover
>  > >the CAR IP address/es from the L2 trigger. The MN then sends a Proxy
>  > >Router Solicitation (RtSolPr) to its curent AR containing
>  > one or more CAR
>  > >IP addresses. This means that the source AR already gets
>  > the CAR addresses.
>  > >So we can do without the AR doing translation or
>  > discovering geographical
>  > >adjacency. The MN can pass these CAR address/es to the
>  > source AR for both
>  > >single and multiple-interface MNs. So I think that the
>  > conclusion from the
>  > >meeting is compatible with MIP Fast Handoffs.
>  > >
>  > >/Karim
>  >
>  > [HC] I am wondering, if this useful case is genral enough.
>  > In other words,
>  > can MN always get IP addresses from AP beacons (or L2
>  > triggers) without
>  > having to acquire connectivity with AP. More so, in single NIC case.
>
> [KEM] If you get a trigger at the MN you are somehow told
> that you have to move and this could contain the network's desired
> place where you should move (if it's multi-technology then one network
> may not know all that is possible). Here it is assumed that these are
> IP addresses or that the IP addresses can be easily recovered. The MN
> collects the full list of CAR addresses and decides. At least that's
> what I understood people wanted at the last meeting. Do you think it
> is not generic enough since it relies on IP addresses recovered from
> triggers?
>
>  >
>  > Also, could you please say what conclusion you are referring to.
>
> [KEM] I'm referring to the discussion about mobile-centric vs
network-centric
> approaches related to Steve's presentation. I believe there was a
> consensus on mobile-centric, which favours a CAR discovery solution where
the
> MN is involved and takes the decisions.
>
> /Karim
>
> _______________________________________________
> Seamoby mailing list
> Seamoby@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby
>

_______________________________________________
Seamoby mailing list
Seamoby@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby