Re: [Seamoby] RE: [NSIS] Re: draft-westphal-nsis-qos-mobileip-00.txt

["James Kempf" <[e-mail]>]

Could CT be viewed as an optimization of NSIS signaling?

            jak

----- Original Message -----
From: <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 9:20 AM
Subject: [Seamoby] RE: [NSIS] Re: draft-westphal-nsis-qos-mobileip-00.txt


> Hi Gary:
>
> Some comments inline:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Gary Kenward [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: 08. July 2002 12:00
> To: '[e-mail]'; 'NSIS'
> Subject: [NSIS] Re: draft-westphal-nsis-qos-mobileip-00.txt
> Sensitivity: Confidential
>
>
> I finally managed to find time to read through Cedric's and Hemant's draft.
> Overally, I think it is a good description of one possible integrated
> approach.
>
> [Hemant] Please note that the Edge Signaling (MN-AR and AR-AR) and Data Path Signaling (e2e if you will) are not "tightly
integrated", i.e., they help each other but do not rely on each other (though I admit that the current writeup makes that
impression). In other words, Data Path Signaling can work (at handoff time) even if Edge Signaling fails.
>
> The one general comment I would like to offer up at this time, is that while
>
> the draft does a good job of integrating MIP, CT and NSIS concepts, the
> proposed solutions for QoS negotiation between MN and AN (e.g. the use of
> the
> CIN message) is NSIS not CT.
>
> [Hemant] Point well taken.
>
> CT is concerned with the transfer of forwarding service context between
> ANRs.
> NSIS is concerned with the signalling of service requirements. Thus, the
> issue
> is not how to interwork the "CT" CIN, for example, with NSIS signalling, but
> how
> the CIN, etc., form part of the NSIS solution.
>
> [Hemant] I agree. The basic idea is that if CT can help avoid MN-new AR NSIS signaling at handoff time, it is a good proposition.
Note that context can be constructed at old AR using the information supplied to it by NSIS MN-old AR message at session initiation,
which can be transported to new AR in CT. If CT fails, one should use MN-new AR NSIS signaling at handoff time, albeit at certain
loss of seamlessness.
>
> [Hemant] Thanks, Hemant
>
> This is not simply an issue of adherence to Seamoby/NSIS models or charters.
> The intention has always been that CT work as a context transfer mechanism
> with a variety of mobility and service signalling solutions. There is a
> significant
> benefit in the real world to be realized in keeping the context transfer
> solution
> (CT) independent from the service signalling solution (NSIS) (and the
> mobility
> solution - MIP or whatever). I would think that there is also a benefit to
> keeping
> the MN to AR service signalling independent of CT.
>
> Stated a different way, do we really need two separate solutions for over
> the air
> (MN to AN) service signalling?
>
> Regards,
> Gary Kenward
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nsis mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis
>
> _______________________________________________
> Seamoby mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby
>


_______________________________________________
Seamoby mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby