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:

&gt; 

> 

> 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&quot;
and

why?

I just wanted to convey that MIH capable network should include it in its
capability broadcast message(Like WLan becons should show its a MIH capable
n/w).

Regards

Anurag uxa

>; 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

&gt;    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,

&gt;    indications that a handover should take place, and suggestions
for

&gt;    suitable target networks to which to handover.

> 

> Regards,

> Yoshihiro Ohba

>; 

> On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 02:20:26PM +0530, Anurag Uxa wrote:

&gt; > 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.

&gt; > 

> > 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&gt; 

> > 03/13/2007 01:57 AM

> > 

> > To

> > "'Vijay Devarapalli'" <vijay.devarapalliazairenet.com>,
&quot;'Daniel Park'"; 

> 

> > <soohongpgmail.com&gt;

> > 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&quot; document
ever talk about 

> > "solution

> > components"?

&gt; > 

> > 

> > 

> > 

> > _______________________________________________

> > Mipshop mailing list

>; > Mipshopietf.org

> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop

> > 

> > ______________________________________________________________________

>; > 

> > 

> > 

> > ______________________________________________________________________

>; > _______________________________________________

> > Mipshop mailing list

>; > Mipshopietf.org

> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop

> 

> 

> ______________________________________________________________________

>; 

> 

> 

> ______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________
Hi, Anurag

On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 06:52:02PM +0530, Anurag Uxa wrote:
> 
> Yes its certainly a issue regarding a L2 capabilty. Can
we discuss or 
> think if we can take MIH broadcasting after L2
establishment. WLAN AP will 
> work here as a normal L2 Bridge. We can broadcast this
message via L3(Like 
> router adv.).

802.21 allows MIH capability message to be broadcast in both
media
dependent and independent ways.  Said that, use of L3 for
broadcasting
MIH capability message seems to be a valid 802.21 scenario.

Yoshihiro Ohba

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

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

Thread: RE: WG last call on draft-ietf-mipshop-mis-ps