Re: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53
"James Kempf" <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com> Fri, 19 April 2002 16:30 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA29333 for <seamoby-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 12:30:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA23456; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 12:21:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA23428 for <seamoby@ns.ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 12:21:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from fridge.docomolabs-usa.com (fridge.docomolabs-usa.com [216.98.102.228]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA27810 for <seamoby@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 12:21:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from T23KEMPF (dhcp116.docomolabs-usa.com [172.21.96.116]) by fridge.docomolabs-usa.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with SMTP id g3JGKVI05775; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 09:20:32 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <019d01c1e7bd$e7d00750$746015ac@T23KEMPF>
From: James Kempf <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com>
To: Hemant Chaskar <hchaskar@hotmail.com>, seamoby@ietf.org
References: <F52Dv4tJWFOBNxeWAre00009c23@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 09:18:53 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: seamoby-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: seamoby-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Context Transfer, Handoff Candidate Discovery, and Dormant Mode Host Alerting <seamoby.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: seamoby@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I don't see what L2 beacons has to do with CAR discovery. The issue is what ARs the MN has access to and what are their capabilities. How the MN chooses to use that in the context of a particular L2 is up to the MN. The ARs may be identified by their L2 identifier or by an IP address. jak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hemant Chaskar" <hchaskar@hotmail.com> To: <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com>; <seamoby@ietf.org> Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 8:12 AM Subject: Re: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53 > Hi James, > > TAR is not in scope. I am talking about identifying capabilities of ARs (or > identifying match between capabilities of these ARs and MN's requirements) > that govern these L2 beacons. > > So, is it in scope of CAR discovery or we delegate the matter to IEEE? > > Hemant > > > > >From: "James Kempf" <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com> > >To: "Hemant Chaskar" <hchaskar@hotmail.com>, <seamoby@ietf.org> > >Subject: Re: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53 > >Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 08:33:10 -0700 > > > >Hemant, > > > >Remember, TAR is not in scope. > > > >As a practical matter, I believe the 802.11 standard should provide some > >guidance, currently it doesn't. > > > > jak > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Hemant Chaskar" <hchaskar@hotmail.com> > >To: <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com>; <seamoby@ietf.org> > >Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 2:45 PM > >Subject: Re: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53 > > > > > > > Hi James: > > > > > > If there are more than one L2 beacons available (of comparable signal > > > strength), probably governed by different ARs, how do we choose? I do > >not > > > have problem choosing randomly, but just want to confirm if this is > >the way > > > we want to proceed. > > > > > > There is no doubt that handoff is necessary as old link will fade, but > >you > > > still have choice as to which new beacon to hold on to. > > > > > > Hemant > > > > > > > > > >From: "James Kempf" <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com> > > > >To: "Hemant Chaskar" <hchaskar@hotmail.com>, <seamoby@ietf.org> > > > >Subject: Re: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53 > > > >Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 15:44:48 -0700 > > > > > > > >Right, that's what I'm saying. There is one case where the MN needs > >to > > > >choose, and the other where the MN and AR get an L2 address and don't > > > >have a choice. The handover happens because, if not, the power will > >fade > > > >and the MN loses link connectivity. > > > > > > > >The former case might require capabilities, the latter just requires > > > >cross link ARP. > > > > > > > > jak > > > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > > > >From: "Hemant Chaskar" <hchaskar@hotmail.com> > > > >To: <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com>; <seamoby@ietf.org> > > > >Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 2:17 PM > > > >Subject: Re: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53 > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi James: > > > > > > > > > > What do you mean when you say that hearing multiple L2 is > >equivalent > > > >to > > > > > inter-technology case? I do not get the point. Why can't the MN > >listen > > > >to > > > > > different L2 beacons of the same technology? I guess it can, and > > > >hence, it > > > > > still needs to chose one among them for handoff. Then the issue is > > > >exactly > > > > > the same as Glenn raised for single NIC case: How to get > >capabilities > > > > > without letting go the old connection? Of course, I am assuming > >that > > > >these > > > > > L2's have comparable signal strengths. > > > > > > > > > > Hemant > > > > > > > > > > >From: "James Kempf" <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com> > > > > > >To: "Hemant Chaskar" <hchaskar@hotmail.com>, <seamoby@ietf.org> > > > > > >Subject: Re: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53 > > > > > >Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 10:26:45 -0700 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >[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. > > > > > >Capabilities aren't involved, except to the extent that the MN > >can > > > >hear > > > > > >multiple L2s and make the decision. But this is exactly the same > >as > > > >for > > > > > >the intertechnology case. > > > > > > > > > > > > jak > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > > > Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. > > > > > http://www.hotmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at > >http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. > > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com > > _______________________________________________ Seamoby mailing list Seamoby@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby
- RE: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53 Hemant Chaskar
- [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53 James Kempf
- RE: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53 Glenn Morrow
- RE: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53 Hemant Chaskar
- RE: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53 Glenn Morrow
- Re: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53 James Kempf
- RE: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53 Karim El-Malki (ERA)
- Re: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53 James Kempf
- Re: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53 Hemant Chaskar
- RE: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53 Hemant Chaskar
- Re: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53 James Kempf
- RE: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53 Karim El-Malki (ERA)
- RE: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53 Karim El-Malki (ERA)
- Re: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53 Eunsoo Shim
- RE: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53 Dirk.Trossen
- Re: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53 Hemant Chaskar
- RE: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53 Hemant Chaskar
- RE: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53 Govind Krishnamurthi
- Re: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53 Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53 Eunsoo Shim
- RE: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53 Karim El-Malki (ERA)
- Re: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53 Behcet Sarikaya
- RE: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53 Gary Kenward
- Re: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53 Charles E. Perkins
- RE: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53 Gary Kenward
- Re: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53 Behcet Sarikaya
- RE: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53 Govind Krishnamurthi
- Re: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53 James Kempf
- Re: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53 James Kempf
- Re: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53 James Kempf
- Re: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53 James Kempf
- RE: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53 Karim El-Malki (ERA)
- RE: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53 Karim El-Malki (ERA)
- Re: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53 Hemant Chaskar
- Re: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53 James Kempf
- Re: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53 James Kempf
- Re: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53 James Kempf
- Re: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53 Hemant Chaskar
- Re: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53 Phil Neumiller
- Re: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53 James Kempf
- Re: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53 Eunsoo Shim
- Re: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53 Eunsoo Shim
- Re: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53 James Kempf
- Re: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53 James Kempf
- Re: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53 Eunsoo Shim
- Re: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53 Xiaoming Fu
- Re: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53 Xiaoming Fu
- RE: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53 Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1
- RE: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53 Glenn Morrow
- Re: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53 Eunsoo Shim
- Re: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53 Behcet Sarikaya
- RE: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53 Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1
- Re: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53 Eunsoo Shim