Subject: RE: [Mipshop] new charter

From: "Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 16:20:25 -0400

CARD is not a requirement for FMIP. None of the today's implementations 
need it for it to function.

Ajoy-> I strongly disagree with you here. Can you site any example where
FMIP is deployed? This may be your view but this is not the view of IETF
community including IESG otherwise FMIP, CARD and CTP would have been
approved as fast handoff mobility solution. Being an implementer,
personally I do believe we will need mechanism a such as CARD and CTP
along with FMIPv6 if we really want to use FMIP for any meaningful
purpose. This becomes even more interesting if you want to do
heterogeneous handoff using FMIPv6 or MIPv6. For heterogeneous handoff,
it is essential for handover decision entity to know the capability of
neighbors before it can make handoff decision.  FMIPv6 is a signaling
protocol to proactively or reactively fix routing table so that packets
can be delivered to mobile node when it changes network point of
attachment. FMIPv6 does not provide mechanism that can be used to
exchange information for network selection. 

As I have pointed out previously, FMIPv6 only needs to know [L2-ID, 
AR-Info] tuple of the NAR. I question the usefulness of CARD if that's 
what it is trying to provide; PrRt* messages in FMIP, which have existed

long before CARD was conceived, are just fine.

Ajoy-> CARD provides generic query mechanism that can be used by mobile
node to query various mobility related information required for proper
network selection. In my view, L2->L3 is nothing but one example of
information query.  IMHO, this does not belong to FMIP and better left
to protocol such as CARD. 

If CARD provides target AR selection or router - router neoighborhood 
map population, that could be useful.

Ajoy-> CARD provides a mechanism for information query that can be used
by network selection purpose. Target network selection itself is
implementation.  

Regards,

-Rajeev

> 
> Regards,
> Ajoy 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rajeev Koodli [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 2:31 PM
> To: Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1
> Cc: Petrescu Alexandru-AAP021; [email-masked]; James Kempf;
> [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Mipshop] new charter
> 
> 
> 
> Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1 wrote:
> 
> 
>>Ajoy-> I am confused why FMIPv6 needs to define Information Service
>>protocol. 
> 
> 
> It does not.
> It continues to use the PrRt* messages, perhaps with a harmonized 
> message structure defined by the "handover information exchange"
> protocol.
> 
> -Rajeev
> 
> 
> 
>>I guess FMIPv6 was defined to take care of routing aspect of 
>>Fast Mobile/IP. CARD was deigned for Information Query Response and
>>Context Transfer protocol was defined to transfer context from one AR
> 
> to
> 
>>other. 
>>
>>
>>

_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop

---

From: Yoshihiro Ohba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 21:52:45 -0400

> to protocol such as CARD. 

I am not sure what is the definition of "generic" in the above text.
As far as I understand, a more generic query mechanism (than CARD) is
based on an information schema language together with a query language
that works for querying information defined using the schema language.

Yoshihiro Ohba