RE: [802.21] Comments on 21-06-0698-01-0000_IP_configuration_methods_IE.doc
Hi Qiaobing,
Thanks for the responses.
The main issue is lack of understanding of the proposed solution. What
would be good is to show all the relevant scenarios where this is useful
along a flow diagram on how it is used based on current IP configuration
principles showing the overall solution. If you think that some current
IP address config mechanisms or mobility mechanisms are affected with
this proposal, please point out the gaps. Also please highlight the
latency benefits of the proposal.
>but some will not.
The question is, based on what assumption are these IE proposed? If
there is FMIP then the IP address in target network is provided in the
FMIP signaling. Why do we need this configuration methods or DHCP server
address?
>This is actually a policy question.
Agree, the issue is to find such administrators who would set such a
policy and sell our technology. :-)
Regards,
Srini
-----Original Message-----
From: ext Qiaobing Xie [mailto:Qiaobing.Xie@MOTOROLA.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 12:48 AM
To: STDS-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802.21] Comments on
21-06-0698-01-0000_IP_configuration_methods_IE.doc
Hi, Srini,
...
> Are you assuming that there is no IP mobility signaling like FMIPv6 to
> minimize the handover latency?
I assume nothing here. In other words, I assume some upper layers will
involve FMIPv6-like thing to minimize the handover latency, but some
will not.
> Another question, do you think the dhcp servers should provide IP
> address leases for hosts that are not on the link?
This is actually a policy question. We enable the technology here while
trusting the user of the technology will use it wisely under his/her
policy boundaries.
regards,
-Qiaobing
>
> Regards,
> Srini