Re: [802.21] Comments on 21-06-0698-01-0000_IP_configuration_methods_IE.doc
Hi, Srini,
Srinivas.Sreemanthula@nokia.com wrote:
>>Are you suggesting 802.21 design should always assume FMIPv6 or
> something equivalent deployed in the upper layer? If we design 802.21 in
> that way, what about those scenarios where no FMIPv6 or something
> equivalent is available?
>
> The handover signaling is defined to reduce latency. If they are not
> available or used then the implication is that latency is not an issue.
I was very specific talking about whether or not "FMIPv6 or something
equivalent" is present in the upper layer. Now you changed the term to
"handover signaling"! And you seem to equal "handover signaling" to
"reduce[d] latency".
Any existing mobility management mechanism that I am aware of has
certain form of "handover signaling". Do you mean to say they already
achieved "reduce[d] latency"? Then why are we here to develop 802.21 to
facilitate the existing MM?
> OTH, assuming there is no handover signaling and trying to design a new
> one in 802.21 is not a good approach.
Please stay with "FMIPv6 or something equivalent" in this discussion. I
am still interested in hearing from you why it is not good if we assume
there is no "FMIPv6 or something equivalent" present in the upper layer?
regards,
-Qiaobing
>
>
>>in general designing 802.21 to favor any single L3MP mechanism is IMHO
>
> a bad idea.
> I am 100% with you.
>
>
> Reagrds,
> Srini
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Qiaobing Xie [mailto:Qiaobing.Xie@MOTOROLA.COM]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 12:17 PM
> 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,
>
> Srinivas Sreemanthula wrote:
>
>
>>Not really, the solution for IP configuration methods and DHCP server
>>address assumes there is no FMIPv6 or something equivalent. If
>>handover signaling is assumed the IP address management during
>>handover is done by that protocol and there are no latency issues that
>
>
>>the proposed
>>802.21 solution solves.
>
>
> Are you suggesting 802.21 design should always assume FMIPv6 or
> something equivalent deployed in the upper layer? If we design 802.21 in
> that way, what about those scenarios where no FMIPv6 or something
> equivalent is available?
>
> Not only there are known IPR claims against FMIPv6 in IETF, in general
> designing 802.21 to favor any single L3MP mechanism is IMHO a bad idea.
>
> regards,
> -Qiaobing
>
>
>>Regards,
>>Srini
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: ext Soohong Daniel Park [mailto:soohong.park@SAMSUNG.COM]
>>Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 12:33 AM
>>To: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
>>Subject: Re: [802.21] Comments on
>>21-06-0698-01-0000_IP_configuration_methods_IE.doc
>>
>>Srini,
>>
>>
>>
>>>Are you assuming that there is no IP mobility signaling like FMIPv6 to
>>
>>
>>>minimize the handover latency?
>>
>>
>>You are digressing from point at thread. Remind that FMIPv6 (also
>>other IP mobility protocols) and 21 MUST be a good partner to
>>compensate for each limitations. It is the best way for both.
>>
>>Regards.
>>
>>Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park)
>>Mobile Convergence Laboratory, SAMSUNG Electronics.
>
>
>