Subject: Re: [mobile-ip] I-D ACTION:draft-mccann-mobileip-80211fh-01.txt

From: Pete McCann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 21:55:27 -0600

Hi, Charles,

Charles E. Perkins writes:
 > 
 > Hello Pete,
 > 
 > While on another chase through old e-mail, I found this.
 > I hope it's not too late to respond.

Not at all - I don't think we reached an adequate conclusion on this
issue, either on list or at the meeting.

 > Pete McCann wrote:
 > 
 > > Karim El-Malki (EAB) writes:
 > 
 > >> The FMIPv6 spec without PrRtSol/Adv would be incomplete.
 > 
 > I agree with Karim.

It seems to me that we could have a completely self-contained
specification that defined only F-BU/F-BACK.  Messages like
PrRtSol/Adv could be left for future work, especially because (a)
anticipation seems difficult on 802.11, and (b) the Seamoby CARD
protocol could provide the necessary mapping information.  F-BU and
F-BACK are useful both with and without anticipation.

 > > I could also ask how the old AR gets the mapping table information.
 > 
 > It could use many ways.  For many installations, even static
 > configuration could be useful.
 > 
 > > Without a standardized mechanism, we won't have interoperability.
 > 
 > This is not true, from the standpoint of the mobile node.
 > All the mobile node needs to do is to get the PrRtSol with
 > the information it needs.

I was referring to interoperability of ARs.  Some vendors might
implement a proprietary discovery scheme, which would be a way to
lock-in their products.

 > > That coupled with the fact that anticipated handover seems impossible
 > > without a fairly exotic device driver implementation leads me to
 > > believe that we should defer this sort of signaling until we
 > > understand the issues better, and have talked things through with
 > > people who participate in the IEEE.
 > 
 > I agree that a sophisticated design may be needed, but I don't
 > agree that it needs to depend on something done within the IEEE.
 > Was your comment specifically about language in the 80211fh draft?

No, it is about the applicability of PrRtSol/Adv to 802.11
implementations that exist today.  I think these messages will only be
useful with a very tight coupling between PCMCIA firmware and host
driver/IP stack implementations.  My point is just that we should have
a dialogue with the IEEE before we publish standards that have
implications for 802.11 firmware architecture.

-Pete