Subject: Re: [mobile-ip] New Draft on FMIPv6 over 802.11

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 09:37:33 -0600

Hi, Pete,
  Your new draft has this paragraph on ESSid:

> The coverage area of a single AP is known as a Basic Service Set
>    (BSS).  Note that both APs in the above description are considered to
>    belong to the same Extended Service Set (ESS).  This is to trigger a
>    re-association (rather than plain association) from the STA, which
>    contains information about both the old and new AP.  All APs should
>    therefore broadcast the same ESSID.  

This sentence and the next seem to contradict each other.

> If two APs belong to different
>    administrative domains, this may require some inter-domain
>    coordination of the ESSID. 

What type of coordination do you mean here?

> Otherwise, there may not be sufficient
>    information to construct the link-layer triggers required by some
>    handover mechanisms.

Also with some of the firmware available in the market it may be 
impossible to reassociate?

On Page 6, you talk about IAPP, I guess you mean it is suggested to use 
IAPP since IAPP standardization is ongoing?

Pete McCann wrote:

Regards,

--behcet

---

From: Pete McCann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 10:24:34 -0600

Hi, Behcet,

 > What type of coordination do you mean here?

I mean that neighboring APs that want to support fast handover should
broadcast the same ESSID.  That is how you get a reassociation rather
than a plain association.

 > impossible to reassociate?

The standards would not require you to reassociate in that case.

 > IAPP since IAPP standardization is ongoing?

Yes, I think IAPP would be the logical place to convey L2 triggers
from one AP to another.

-Pete