Subject: [mobile-ip] Ext. for FMIPv6 - comments

From: George Tsirtsis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 07:25:43 -0400

Hi Kempf et. al.

First of all I want to say that this is good work and introduces a mode of
operation (using oCOA at nAR + no L3 messages over the air) that in the
FMIPv6 draft is only covered partially as an error case...I guess Gopal
might have already told you that we discussed this before and we did want to
support it in FMIPv6 but run out of time and... steam :(...so your extension
draft is very welcome indeed!

I do have some disagreements/comments regarding the comparison section 2 but
I am not going to get into nit picking mode..there isn't much point ;-)
since I agree with the essence of the proposal.

Instead I have one observation to make and more may follow after further
digestion of the new draft...

I think the time has come to create a mobility aware "L2 API" for IP...and
yes, I know the IETF does not usually do APIs but I know enough people in
this and other WGs that KNOW this is needed and are willing to make it
happen. I actually wonder if there is anything done in this direction
already and I am not aware of it...I do not have much time to follow IETF
gossip these days due to an increasingly demanding day job...

I think the draft already describes a number of triggers but we should work
on their meaning so they are abstract enough to be applicable in different
technologies and maybe add more as needed (hopefully not too many)...BTW, I
am not suggesting you should do anything different in this draft...just that
we discuss this issue independently of this draft as well.

Regards
George

---

From: James Kempf <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 21:34:40 -0700

Hi George,

>since I agree with the essence of the proposal.

OK. Ultimately, I think it would be beneficial to have both drafts merged into
a single fast handoff protocol. Actually, I even think it would be worthwhile
to have the IPv6 fast handoff work merged into the MIPv6 draft itself, but
that is probably impractical at the moment because the base MIPv6 draft
is much further along. Perhaps an item for moving to Draft Standard. At
that point, the comparison material can be dropped. It is only there as
motivation for why we feel the alternative is necessary.

>we discuss this issue independently of this draft as well.

In fact, I am preparing just such a draft as we speak. The intent is to take
the material from the BETH draft and from the FMIPv4 draft and perhaps
add something on the link with Seamoby context transfer.

                 jak