Subject: RE: [SeaMoby] Topic #3: Cache contamination

From: Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1 <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 14:03:32 -0600

I am also very interested to hear from other members of WG about the DT
proposal who are not members of the DT and are not affiliated to them.
There were many issues raised about the DT proposal such as cache
contamination and even the fundamental need of the central server.
I have not heard convincing explanations from the DT members as well as any
supporting opinion from non-DT members yet.
I'd appreciate if anyone provides one.

AJOY-> I have indicated in my earlier email that we need 
discuss your so called cache contamination comments 
either offline to during IETF presentation. BTW, 
here a few reasons for having server (e.g., AAA)
based CARD functions: 

1. Server based approach is able to provide seamless 
handoff even if the CAR information is not available in 
the current AR cache. This has been made clear
in previous discussion. 

2. The servers are easier to configure and manage. 

3. Server can be used for inter-AR authorization. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Eunsoo Shim [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 4:39 PM
To: Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [SeaMoby] Topic #3: Cache contamination

> AJOY-> I have already stated this in my earlier email. The DT
> draft also mentions about this. I guess we can discuss this during
> Seamoby presentation. Also, I am very interested to hear from
> other members of WG who are not co-authors of dycard.
>

I am also very interested to hear from other members of WG about the DT
proposal who are not members of the DT and are not affiliated to them.
There were many issues raised about the DT proposal such as cache
contamination and even the fundamental need of the central server.
I have not heard convincing explanations from the DT members as well as any
supporting opinion from non-DT members yet.
I'd appreciate if anyone provides one.

Eunsoo
_______________________________________________
Seamoby mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby

---

From: "Eunsoo Shim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 15:26:23 -0800

> the current AR cache. This has been made clear
[eunsoo] This is about initial population of the cache. We had lots of
discussion about this. There were arguements about whether we need initial
population of the cache. However it was clear that any existing management
tool can be used for the initial population from the discussion. It tells us
that we don't need to invenet the wheel for initial router configuration.

> 2. The servers are easier to configure and manage.
[eunsoo] It is arguable. If you have to figure out proper scope-ids for
every AR whenever there is a change in the network, it is not a really dummy
job.
Also we have to pay attention to the price of having a central server. In
general it is easier to manage one entity than many entities but you have to
pay the price of reliability (single point of failure) and scalability. I
don't think the price is smaller than the benefit of easiness.

> 3. Server can be used for inter-AR authorization.
[eunsoo] Again, if we need a AAA server, we use it. We don't have to
introduce a new type of server functionality.

An important point is that there is alternative requiring no central server.
Why should we bother ourselves with the server? We need compelling reasons
such as something that should/can be provided only by the central server and
that is not feasible in a solution without the server. Certainly it should
not be the case where there is already the wheel or the price is much larger
than the benefit.

Eunsoo

---

From: "Eunsoo Shim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 15:26:23 -0800

Eunsoo