Rajeev Koodli wrote:
> Hi Vidya,
>
> We have some results on WLAN and EV-DO VoIP handovers
which suggest the need
> for something faster than MIP Binding Update. The paper
is under submission.
>
> The decision to involve a MN in signaling is
deployment-specific (which
> includes "market dynamics", case in point
PMIP). I am okay with taking the
> base FMIP protocol and adapting it as such. It would
not be desirable to go
> off and spend many months (or years) re-designing a
"new protocol" under the
> pretext of network-based signaling. If you think
through it, you will
> perhaps realize that there is not much more to do from
a protocol design
> standpoint. So, I hope we pool our energies together to
standardize one good
> design and let the industry take its own course on
deployment.
>
> I agree that the messages in network-controlled
signaling in draft-3gfh need
> to be harmonized with FMIP signaling; I don't
understand why they are not HI
> and HAck.
>
> Finally, we should work on IP-based protocols here,
acknowledging and even
> adapting such protocols over some specific link layers
of interest. That's
> what we are doing here in MIPSHOP (bis, fmip-over-XX).
That's what we in an
> IETF WG are arguably capable of doing. Deployments are
another thing and
> while they clearly matter to us, the parameters there
are far broader than
> we can effectively address here. So, I would not want
to be all carried away
> by that. Let's stick to good protocol design, making
use of meaningful
> input.
strongly agree.
Vijay
_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
Mipshop ietf.org
https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop
|