RE: [802.21] Comments on 21-06-0698-01-0000_IP_configuration_methods_IE.doc
Qiaobing,
>Have we requested the same for POA Location IE, or POA Address IE (just
pick a couple as examples)? Do you know the "latency benefits" of having
POA Location IE, or POA Address IE?
>I don't mind to discuss with you about these issues and actually there
are already several contributions in the 802.21 document tree discussing
the scenarios and use cases. However, I'd hate to see a double standard
being applied to a particular IE proposal. Please see my response to
Yoshi earlier for more on this.
The problem we have now is because the contributions are either
incomplete or not well understood. Some IE are obvious how they are used
and the benefits they bring. As a matter of fact, there are comments in
LB requesting for more usage information on certain specified IE. I
encourage you to question the usability or lack there-of on any IE
currently specified. If there is no justification or use cases, I fully
support getting it out. The fact they are in the specification only
means that the WG has good undestanding of their usability (including
you and I). On the same note, any proposed IE should be discussed and
understood of its use cases before adopting. There is no double standard
here.
>You've just answered your own question. If the upper layer does not
have FMIP, then this IE become useful and needed. Remember, it's only an
IE and the upper layer can decide whether to use it or not. If the upper
layer has already had its own way of doing the same thing, it simply
won't query/use this IE.
It is not about FMIP, it is about FMIP or "equivalent" signaling. But I
got the answer that these IE are used when there is NO handover
signaling. The use of handover signaling is to reduce IP latency. Now,
if you are proposing a new way to reduce latency, we need the protocol
information and numbers. Assuming that IETF will evolve based on this IE
is not an acceptable justification, IMO.
Regards,
Srini
-----Original Message-----
From: ext Qiaobing Xie [mailto:Qiaobing.Xie@motorola.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 12:46 PM
To: Sreemanthula Srinivas (Nokia-SIR/Dallas)
Cc: STDS-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802.21] Comments on
21-06-0698-01-0000_IP_configuration_methods_IE.doc
Hi, Srini,
Srinivas.Sreemanthula@nokia.com wrote:
> 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.
Have we requested the same for POA Location IE, or POA Address IE (just
pick a couple as examples)? Do you know the "latency benefits" of having
POA Location IE, or POA Address IE?
I don't mind to discuss with you about these issues and actually there
are already several contributions in the 802.21 document tree discussing
the scenarios and use cases. However, I'd hate to see a double standard
being applied to a particular IE proposal. Please see my response to
Yoshi earlier for more on this.
>
>>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?
You've just answered your own question. If the upper layer does not have
FMIP, then this IE become useful and needed. Remember, it's only an IE
and the upper layer can decide whether to use it or not. If the upper
layer has already had its own way of doing the same thing, it simply
won't query/use this IE.
regards,
-Qiaobing
>
>
>>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
>
>
>