Re: WG last call on draft-ietf-mipshop-mis-ps

Hi Anurag,

On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 11:12:46AM +0530, Anurag Uxa wrote:
> 
> 
> Neighborhood discovery for heterogeneous networks is
being defined as
> an 802.21 service (i.e., Information Service).
> True. If MIH protocol is running and PSS information is
relayed to IS 
> services via ACR or AR. 
> There are conditions 
> 1. All network should have MIH support and then IS
Server can populate its 
> database based on information by sending
MIH_get_informatin.request.

How IS server constructs its database is out of scope of
802.21.
Also, what do you mean by "all network should have MIH
support" and
why?

> 2.Its a costly as well as time consuming opration for a
PSS(MN) to get 
> information from IS Server where It wants the pre
indication for 
> FMIPv6(MIH User).MN can cash the information prior but
IS Server's 
> updation is periodically so MN need to confirm before
sending FBU.

In 802.21, the IS server is not supposed to support
dynamically
changing information which requires periodical update.

> BUT your draft abstract says IP handover mechanisms
between heterogeneous
>    wired and wireless access systems including, but not
limited to, IEEE
>    802.21.  Intelligent access selection, taking into
account link layer
>    attributes, requires the delivery of a variety of
different
>    information types to the terminal from different
sources within the
>    network and vice-versa.

Sure.  My comment was mostly from IEEE 802.21 perspective.

> 
> FMIPv6(MIH user) specification talks about policy based
handover too. with 
> or without MIH. Edge router any way are having the
information about the 
> PoA to extend the RS/RA or via Routing protocols we can
think of getting 
> QoS related parameters(information). The same thing is
described by your 
> draft also in brief too.

I think this level of details is a bit too specific for PS
draft.  I
don't think the current draft precludes your scenario.

Regards,
Yoshihiro Ohba

> This Internet Draft provides a problem statement for
the exchange of
>    information to support handover in heterogeneous
link environments.
>    This mobility support service allows more
sophisticated handover
>    operations by making available information about
network
>    characteristics, neighboring networks and associated
characteristics,
>    indications that a handover should take place, and
suggestions for
>    suitable target networks to which to handover.
> 
> Regards,
> Yoshihiro Ohba
> 
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 02:20:26PM +0530, Anurag Uxa
wrote:
> > I have reviewed the draft-ietf-mipshop-mis-ps. I
didn't find convincing 
> > solution for the neighbor-hood discovery for
heterogeneous networks. I 
> > still feel the discovery should not be the job of
light weight 
> router(Like 
> > Access Router). There is no need to have
information about peer-hood 
> ACRs 
> > or ARs . I feel this job should be more related to
Edge Routers which 
> > should be or might be(future for IP) connected to
IP Banck bone.
> > 
> > Regards
> >
------------------------------------------------------------
----------
> > Anurag Uxa
> > 
>
------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
> > ( ) L&T Infotech Proprietary &
Confidential
> > (+) L&T Infotech Confidential
> > ( ) L&T Infotech Internal Use only
> > ( ) General Business Information
> > 
>
------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > "Alper Yegin" <alper.yeginyegin.org> 
> > 03/13/2007 01:57 AM
> > 
> > To
> > "'Vijay Devarapalli'"
<vijay.devarapalliazairenet.com>, "'Daniel
Park'" 
> 
> > <soohongpgmail.com>
> > cc
> > mipshopietf.org
> > Subject
> > RE: [Mipshop] WG last call on
draft-ietf-mipshop-mis-ps
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > This last call is on a problem statement
document. The
> > > document provides a problem definition,
deployment scenarios
> > > and the required solution components. It does
not tie us
> > > to a particular solution.
> > 
> > 
> > Why would a so-called "problem
statement" document ever talk about 
> > "solution
> > components"?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Mipshop mailing list
> > Mipshopietf.org
> > https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop
> > 
> >
____________________________________________________________
__________
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >
____________________________________________________________
__________
> > _______________________________________________
> > Mipshop mailing list
> > Mipshopietf.org
> > https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop
> 
> 
>
____________________________________________________________
__________
> 
> 
> 
>
____________________________________________________________
__________

_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
Mipshopietf.org
https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop