Re: [802.21] Comments on 21-06-0698-01-0000_IP_configuration_methods_IE.doc
Hi, Srini,
Srinivas.Sreemanthula@nokia.com wrote:
...
> On the same note, any proposed IE should be discussed and
> understood of its use cases before adopting.
This is surely reasonable to me - each IE proposal should come with some
example use cases. But what puzzled me was your previous suggestion for
me "to show all the relevant scenarios". Unless I misinterpreted you,
that request (show *all* ...) sounds pretty unreasonable to me since
truely useful IEs could be potentially used by many different upper
layers in a variety of ways.
>>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.
Why without "FMIP or equivalent signaling" there would be no "handover
signaling"? Is "FMIP or equivalent signaling" the only handover
mechanism in your view?
> 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.
Why does this have to be a IETF thing? Why cannot this IE be used by an
application (a generic MIH user) to perform its own handover
optimization? An IE provide a piece of relevent information about a
neibghoring network, and an application can get the information from the
MIIS and make its own use of its. We are not designing the application
itself but we can speculate many application will use a piece of
relevent information in many innovative ways. And we don't want get into
the business of picking right or wrong applications, do we? This is the
spirit of 802.21 MIIS, at least in my mind.
regards,
-Qiaobing
>
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
>