Subject: [Mipshop] I-D Action:draft-ietf-mipshop-pfmipv6-00.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 11:30:01 -0700 (PDT)

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Mobility for IP: Performance, Signaling and Handoff Optimization Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Fast Handovers for Proxy Mobile IPv6
	Author(s)       : H. Yokota, et al.
	Filename        : draft-ietf-mipshop-pfmipv6-00.txt
	Pages           : 37
	Date            : 2008-10-27

This document specifies the usage of Fast Mobile IPv6 (FMIPv6) when
Proxy Mobile IPv6 is used as the mobility management protocol.
Necessary extensions are specified for FMIPv6 to support the scenario
when the mobile node does not have IP mobility functionality and
hence is not involved with either MIPv6 or FMIPv6 operations.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mipshop-pfmipv6-00.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.
_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop

---

From: David Cypher <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 10:54:38 -0400

Would someone please explain to me how the FPMIP handover can work 
when it is the reactive case?

As shown in Figure 3 (page 12)
If the mobile node (MN) is not involved in the PMIP and therefore not 
involved in the FMIP part of FPMIP,
how does the NMAG know the PMAG  that the MN was attached to in order 
for the NMAG to send an HI (or Hack) to the PMAG?
It looks like a case of "catch 22"  The NMAG must already have some 
context for the MN so it knows the PMAG of the MN.
However if the NMAG already has this information, why is a context 
switch needed?  Why cannot the same place the provided the 
association with MN and PMAG also contain the MN-HNP?

For FMIP the MN knew the PAR, but the MN is not involved in PMIP

There seems to be two purposes for the HI/HAck exchange
a) context information exchange
b) setting up the bi-directional tunnel

In the predictive state both purposes are used.  However in the 
reactive state only b) is used.  Some of a) was obtained already, but 
how?   The NAR has not sent a PBU to the LMA at this time, so it 
cannot have learnt of the PMAG from the LMA.  Is it being proposed 
that the MN policy profile contain the additional information (e.g., 
previous MAG and MN-HNP) of its current MAG?

David Cypher
===============================
At 02:30 PM 10/27/2008, you wrote:
>Warning: This message has had one or more attachments removed
>Warning: (not named).
>Warning: Please read the following for more information.
>
>This draft is a work item of the Mobility for IP: Performance, 
>Signaling and Handoff Optimization Working Group of the IETF.
>
>
>This is a message from the MailScanner E-Mail Virus Protection Service
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>The original e-mail attachment "not named"
>was believed to be infected by a virus and has been replaced by this warning
>message.
>
>If you wish to receive a copy of the *infected* attachment, please
>e-mail [email-masked] and include the whole of this message
>in your request. Alternatively, you can call them on x5375, with
>the contents of this message at hand when you call.
>
>At Mon Oct 27 14:31:37 2008 the virus scanner said:
>    External message bodies cannot be scanned and are removed
>
>Note to iTAC: Look on the NIST MailScanner3 in 
>/var/spool/MailScanner/quarantine/20081027 (message m9RIVa6s012608).
>--
>Postmaster
>National Institute of Standards and Technology
>