Subject: Re: [netlmm] Shared link support for PMIPv6?

From: "Mohana Jeyatharan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 17:03:35 +0800

Hi Julien,

I agree that we need not restrict work in IETF based on p2p link support
only that is appicable to 3GPP, 3GPP2 and WiMAX technologies. But,
currently from mn-ar-if draft it seems that per-MN unique prefix model
and shared link model interaction has some problem. I mean the problem
statement is already there in this mn-ar-if draft. Or is there any
specific problem pertaining to shared links you are highlighting that is
related to hand-offs? It is not very clear why you are tying
inter-technology handoffs and this shared link issue together. 

It seems we need to look at some scenarios already discussed in the
mn-ar-if draft for the shared link issue. The reason PMIP adopted the
per-MN unique prefix model is alrady explained in the mn-ar-if draft and
it is due to the multi-link subnet issue and to prevent DAD to be done
at local mobility agent for address configuration. Thus if per Mn unique
prefix is used then obviously the link model will be a point to point
model. I think the problem you are trying to highlight is the
interaction between PMIP per MN prefix and the shared link model. Am I
right to say that?

Mohana 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Julien Laganier
> Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 5:04 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [netlmm] Shared link support for PMIPv6?
> 
> Frank,
> 
> On Friday 16 May 2008, Frank Xia wrote:
> >
> > I DO think it is relevant.
> >
> > When we talk about p2p link model PMIPv6 , IMO, we are saying that 
> > home link is based on p2p link model.
> >
> > From my understanding, 3GPP/3GPP2/WiMAX now only support p2p home 
> > link.
> 
> While the fact that 3GPP/3GPP2/WiMAX endorse the technologies 
> developed in the IETF is of course a good thing, IMO the IETF 
> shouldn't limit itself to developing technologies for 
> 3GPP/3GPP2/WiMAX.
> 
> There are some quite popular shared link technologies out there, e.g. 
> IEEE 802.11.
> 
> --julien
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netlmm mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm
> 
_______________________________________________
netlmm mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm

---

From: Julien Laganier <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 12:59:02 +0200

Hi Mohana,

On Wednesday 21 May 2008, Mohana Jeyatharan wrote:
>
> I agree that we need not restrict work in IETF based on p2p link
> support only that is appicable to 3GPP, 3GPP2 and WiMAX technologies.

Good.

> But, currently from mn-ar-if draft it seems that per-MN unique prefix
> model and shared link model interaction has some problem. 

And the solution to these problems would constitute a shared link 
support for PMIPv6.

> I mean the 
> problem statement is already there in this mn-ar-if draft. Or is
> there any specific problem pertaining to shared links you are
> highlighting that is related to hand-offs? It is not very clear why
> you are tying inter-technology handoffs and this shared link issue
> together.

I haven't been tying together inter-technology handoffs and shared link 
support. 

I simply said that in case we want to do inter-technology handoffs 
between shared links and PtP links, we'd need to support the same 
addressing model on shared links and PtP links, that is, the per-MN 
prefix model.

> per-MN unique prefix model is alrady explained in the mn-ar-if draft
> and it is due to the multi-link subnet issue and to prevent DAD to be
> done at local mobility agent for address configuration. 

I am well aware of the explanation in the mn-ar-if draft since I wrote 
it :)

The mn-ar-if explains the problem and says that using a per-MN prefix 
solves the issue. It doesn't say that's the only solution.

> Thus if per Mn unique prefix is used then obviously the link model
> will be a point to point model. 

Not necessarily...

> I think the problem you are trying to highlight 
> is the interaction between PMIP per MN prefix and the shared link
> model. Am I right to say that?

Yes.

--julien