Re: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53

Karim,

But it is applicable to network initiated handoff. And there are two
algorithms, one in which the access router sends a PrxyRtAdv to the MN
and one in which the MN is switched (for FMIPv4).

            jak

----- Original Message -----
From: "Karim El-Malki (ERA)" <Karim.El-Malki@era.ericsson.se>
To: "'James Kempf'" <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com>; "Hemant Chaskar"
<hchaskar@hotmail.com>; <seamoby@ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 11:55 AM
Subject: RE: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53

> > > >[The Issue]
>  > > >It seems that the minutes indicate that people have
>  > somehow come to a
>  > > >conclusion that there is no need for access routers to
>  > divulge that
>  > they
>  > > >are
>  > > >geographically adjancent to themselves via the IP
>  > infrastructure. The
>  > > >minutes also seem to indicate that the mobile alone should be
the
>  > only way
>  > > >to pass addresses of CARs to source ARs.
>  > > >
>  > > >[Technical Questions]
>  > > >O.K. If this is true then how will a mobile pass this
>  > information to
>  > their
>  > > >source AR if the mobile only has one NIC and that NIC is
>  > only capable
>  > of
>  > > >listening to one media at once?
>  > >
>  > > [HC] I agree that this is a genuine technical problem. What I
would
>  > really
>  > > like to understand is whether the above is a relevant case for
CAR
>  > discovery
>  > > or we simply neglect it and focus only on two physical interfaces
>  > case. I
>  > > raised this question before, but we have not had much discussion
on
>  > it. In
>  > > any case, address translation part of CARD will be required in
this
>  > case for
>  > > fast handoff support.
>  > >
>  >
>  > 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
>

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