RE: [802.21] Question on policy raised today
Greg,
Yes. It might be better to define such a service rather than define and
require it. Especially if there exists a L3 that doesn't happen to
understand .21 event indications. Since we haven't standardized them
yet, that would be all TCP/IP stacks today.
DJ
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
[mailto:owner-stds-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Greg Daley
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 2:12 PM
To: STDS-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802.21] Question on policy raised today
Hi DJ,
----- Original Message -----
From: "Johnston, Dj" <dj.johnston@intel.com>
Date: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 9:40 pm
Subject: RE: [802.21] Question on policy raised today
> Done correctly I would expect this to be an implementation issue.
>
> A policy engine in the MIH sublayer may choose to consume events and
> do some form of port switching or selection.
> Alternatively, such events may be propagated upwards to some L3 entity
> (say FMIPv6?).
> Alternatively some combination of the two might happen.
>
> I can think of product scenarios where all three options would be
> preferable.
>
> Port switching behaviour, the location of any policy engine and event
> forwarding behaviour should remain unconstrained by 802.21. Attempting
> to define this behaviour creates additional text and complexity, while
> lowering the utility of the spec.
Indeed. People may wish to do what
they find easiest though. It may be necessary to require at least a
service which directly passes information straight to L3.
Greg