Subject: FW: [MIPSHOP-MIH-DT] Discovery thread

From: Sam Xia <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 11:58:05 +0800

hi all,
 
Since we have a piece of working group draft "mis-ps", why not to use some
concepts from this draft? My question is that since MIHF is a whole concept
whicch includes MIH services, MIH Protocol(including MSTP) and SAP and so
on, maybe mobility service signalling layer(MSSL) is a better concept to be
discussed. And if we do so, we can clarify questions more clear.

 Best Regards, Sam Xia 

Dear all,

We had some off-line discussions with Subir and JC about the discovery
thread.
Here is some input for the folks attending the .21 sessions. Please comment.

Slide 2

Comment 1:
Question: Not clear what do we mean by this. Do we mean that MIHF only knows
MIHFID? 
If so that is not correct. MIH user will also know the MIHF ID. Also the
arrow is not very clear to me.
Answer: the key issue we have to clear up is what information the MSTP
knows. 
Can the MSTP do the binding between MIHFID and IP address?

Comment 2:
Question: Why are we descfribing the solution in the consideration slide?
Answer: the aim is not to describe a solution, rather say why such a
solution does not work. The key issue is that the IP configuration functions
cannot be assumed to be always co-located with MoS services. 

Slide 3

Comment 3:
Question: Do we mean that MIHF at the MN knows the IP address of MOSh?
Answer: Yes, I think it is a fair assumption. 

Comment 4:
Question: Do we assume that MIHF of MN does not know the IP address of MOSh?
Answer: Yes it could be also possible if the info is not hard-coded in the
MN. 
 
SAM> I absolutely agree that MIHF can know IP address of peer MIHF. But
which part of MIHF in MN should know IP address of peer MIHF? And which part
of MIHF in MN should do the binding between MIHFID and IP address? If we
divide MIHF into 4 sub-parts, MIH Service, MIH Service Signaling&Management,
MIH Transport Protocol and MIH discovery(I intentionally take it out from
MSTP), what is the best choice to do the mapping? If we have to merge MIH
discovery into another part, what is the best destination part?

SAM> If MIHF in MN has known IP address of peer MIHF, what's the goal of
further discovery? Just for capability discovery, MIHF ID discovery, or
else?

Comment 5:
Question: I assume we mean subnet broadcast.
Answer: I was more thinking in the use of relay agents. I realize now that
the slide is not clear.

Slide 4

Comment 6:
Question: Why not response is through relay? The broader question would be
what is the role of the relay? 
Answer: This was one of the scenarios suggested by Robert. I guess they were
doing something similar for Partly-Decoupled
Signalling.(draft-hancock-nsis-pds-problem)

Slide 6
Comment 7:
Question: Are we saying separate relay or MoSv is a relay?
Answer: Would be fair to assume MoS to be a relay? 
 
SAM>dependent of what is working fashion of MoS.

Slide 7
Comment 9:
Question: If it is true why MOSv is optional? If there is a MOSs and the
roaming relation exists, why it is going to MoSh. Then what is the
difference between a  relay and an MOSv?
Answer: Optional was referring to the MIHF. 
 
SAM> I don't understand "Optional was referring to the MIHF" .
 Relay model has broad implicication. I can try to list them:
1: simple relay: Just for MoS discovery; any entity can serve as this kind
of relay. The relay has to identify the discovery requestion, and to forward
the discovery requestion to others based on some user information.
2: Service Relay:  not for MoS discovery. The MIHF in MN establishes service
session with relay which talks with MIHF entity in MN's homenetwork. The
MIHF in MN doesn't know that it is talking with peer entity in homenetwork.
 
What's our choice?  
 
For option 2, i don't think it is a relay. Views? 

tele

_______________________________________________
MIPSHOP-MIH-DT mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop-mih-dt

---

From: Heejin Jang <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:07:19 +0000 (GMT)

Hi, Tele.

Some question for ppt.

1. In page 5, maybe
- "Assumption The  MIHF does NOT know the IP address of the MOSh" -> ~ MOSv". Is that right?
 
- I agree that RA can be used to announce MoS availability, I think that simply some flag can be used for it 
 (instead of option).  This is the same with 'M' flag in RA for announcing DHCP availability.
 
2. Regarding a6 in page 4, most of the case, doesn't the response from MOSh always go through the relay 
because the relay is a AR? Are you assuming that multiple ARs may exisit ?

- Regards, 
Heejin. 

------- Original Message -------
Sender : Telemaco Melia<[email-masked]>
Date   : 2007-07-16 21:44
Title  : [MIPSHOP-MIH-DT] Discovery thread

  Dear all,

We had some off-line discussions with Subir and JC about the discoverythread.
Here is some input for the folks attending the .21 sessions. Pleasecomment.

Slide 2

Comment 1:
Question: Not clear what do we mean by this. Do we mean that MIHF onlyknows MIHFID? 
If so that is not correct. MIH user will also know the MIHF ID. Alsothe arrow is not very clear to me.
Answer: the key issue we have to clear up is what information the MSTPknows. 
Can the MSTP do the binding between MIHFID and IP address?

Comment 2:
Question: Why are we descfribing the solution in the considerationslide?
Answer: the aim is not to describe a solution, rather say why such asolution does not work. The key issue is that the IP configurationfunctions cannot be assumed to be always co-located with MoS services. 

Slide 3

Comment 3:

Comment 4:
Question: Do we assume that MIHF of MN does not know the IP address ofMOSh?
Answer: Yes it could be also possible if the info is not hard-coded inthe MN.

Comment 5:
Question: I assume we mean subnet broadcast.
Answer: I was more thinking in the use of relay agents. I realize nowthat the slide is not clear.

Slide 4

Comment 6:
Question: Why not response is through relay? The broader question wouldbe what is the role of the relay? 
Answer: This was one of the scenarios suggested by Robert. I guess theywere doing something similar for Partly-Decoupled Signalling.(draft-hancock-nsis-pds-problem)

Slide 6
Comment 7:

Slide 7
Comment 9:
Question: If it is true why MOSv is optional? If there is a MOSs andthe roaming relation exists, why it is going to MoSh. Then what is thedifference between a  relay and an MOSv?
Answer: Optional was referring to the MIHF.

tele