Subject: [Seamoby] CT and access routers

From: Alper Yegin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 00:54:23 -0800

Regarding one of my comments today at the meeting:

The context transfer draft only talks about "access routers." Readers get
the impression that its applicability is limited to performing context
transfer between routers and nothing more. I'm not sure if the protocol
design limits itself to routers, but I don't see any reason why it could not
be applied to other access network entities, such as access points, home
agents, PANA authentication agents as long as they are IP capable. But I
don't know, I might be missing something.

My recommendation to the authors is to include either one of these texts in
the draft:

This protocol's applicability is limited to access routers, and using it
with other access network entities such as home agents, access points, and
authentication agents is outside the scope.

Or:

Although this protocol is initially designed for transfering context between
access routers, it can also be applied to other access network entities such
as home agents, access points, and authentication agents. Context
information can be transfered from these entities to their peers in the
destination network of a mobile node.

(feel free to reword as needed)

Is there any other possibility? If not, explicitly stating this in the
specification will help people understand where to use this protocol, and
where not to use it.

Cheers,

alper

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

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:15:18 -0800

> destination network of a mobile node.

we dont have a protocol which can aggregate the context at the 
old access router. similarly we dont have a protocol that can
distribute the context received at the new access router. 
ofcourse it is probably not difficult to specify.

people who have such networks where context is distributed across
many network elements can define their own protocols to do this
aggregation and distribution. I dont think that needs to be
specfied by this WG.

Vijay

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:15:18 -0800

Vijay

---

From: Alper Yegin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:25:22 -0800

Hi Vijay,

> aggregation and distribution. I dont think that needs to be

No, no, I'm not talking about "aggregating state on the access routers" at
all. Please see above. It's all about stating whether CT can be used between
an agent of type X on the old access network and same type agent on the new
access network. Just say "yes it can be" or "no it can't be" in the spec,
rather than leaving it open to speculation and abuse.

alper

---

From: Alper Yegin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:25:22 -0800

Hi Vijay,

alper