RE: DHCP

	There have been already proposals using DHCP for 802.21
services 
	discovery.

	The DT is currently considering different scenarios and
associated 
	requirements targeting a single solution.
	This might change if complexity increases too much.


I don't understand why designing one protocol that does
three things (IS,
ES, CS) is better than using an existing protocol (DHCP) for
what it has
used for (configuration [IS]), and designing another
protocol that takes
care of the other two (ES, CS).

I'm not aware of any technical reason that requires all
three
functionalities to be bundled up in single protocol. And in
fact, I see
reason to separate them. It is an accepted scenario that ES
and CS are taken
care of by the L2 in some networks, leaving IS to L3.

Comments?

Alper




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

Hi Alper,

I would suggest to wait for tomorrow's DT presentation.

telemaco

Alper Yegin wrote:
> 	There have been already proposals using DHCP for
802.21 services 
> 	discovery.
>
> 	The DT is currently considering different scenarios
and associated 
> 	requirements targeting a single solution.
> 	This might change if complexity increases too much.
>
>
> I don't understand why designing one protocol that does
three things (IS,
> ES, CS) is better than using an existing protocol
(DHCP) for what it has
> used for (configuration [IS]), and designing another
protocol that takes
> care of the other two (ES, CS).
>
> I'm not aware of any technical reason that requires all
three
> functionalities to be bundled up in single protocol.
And in fact, I see
> reason to separate them. It is an accepted scenario
that ES and CS are taken
> care of by the L2 in some networks, leaving IS to L3.
>
> Comments?
>
> Alper
>
>
>
>   


-- 
Telemaco Melia          	telemaco.melianetlab.nec.de
Research Staff Member		Tel: +49 (0) 6221 4342- 142
Network Laboratories    	Fax: +49 (0) 6221 4342- 155
NEC Europe Ltd.         	Web: http://www.netlab.nec.de

Network Laboratories           
Kurfuersten-Anlage 36       
69115 Heidelberg
GERMANY   


NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1
Victoria Road, bond W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014 


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

You still might want to explain these aspects on the mailing
list given 
that not everyone will be able to see the presentation.

Ciao
Hannes

Telemaco Melia wrote:
> Hi Alper,
>
> I would suggest to wait for tomorrow's DT
presentation.
>
> telemaco
>
> Alper Yegin wrote:
>>     There have been already proposals using DHCP
for 802.21 services 
>>     discovery.
>>
>>     The DT is currently considering different
scenarios and 
>> associated     requirements targeting a single
solution.
>>     This might change if complexity increases too
much.
>>
>>
>> I don't understand why designing one protocol that
does three things 
>> (IS,
>> ES, CS) is better than using an existing protocol
(DHCP) for what it has
>> used for (configuration [IS]), and designing
another protocol that takes
>> care of the other two (ES, CS).
>>
>> I'm not aware of any technical reason that requires
all three
>> functionalities to be bundled up in single
protocol. And in fact, I see
>> reason to separate them. It is an accepted scenario
that ES and CS 
>> are taken
>> care of by the L2 in some networks, leaving IS to
L3.
>>
>> Comments?
>>
>> Alper
>>
>>
>>
>>   
>
>


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

Hi Alper,
MIPSHOP is only aware of a MIH protocol not its
constituents. The
transport characteristics being the same, the requirements
from 802.21
have been for a single transport. This is not to say that
DHCP may not
meet all the MIH protocol requirements. Both L2 and L3 are
suitable for
the entire MIH protocol covering all services. As such, it
is also
acceptable that the MIPSHOP provided transport could be
specifically
used for a certain functionality and a L2 transport can be
used for
others.

Regards,
Srini

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Alper Yegin [mailto:alper.yeginyegin.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 3:25 AM
To: 'Anurag Uxa'; 'Telemaco Melia'
Cc: STDS-802-21listserv.ieee.org; mipshopietf.org;
'Vijay Devarapalli'
Subject: RE: [Mipshop] DHCP

	There have been already proposals using DHCP for 802.21
services

	discovery.

	The DT is currently considering different scenarios and
associated 
	requirements targeting a single solution.
	This might change if complexity increases too much.


I don't understand why designing one protocol that does
three things
(IS, ES, CS) is better than using an existing protocol
(DHCP) for what
it has used for (configuration [IS]), and designing another
protocol
that takes care of the other two (ES, CS).

I'm not aware of any technical reason that requires all
three
functionalities to be bundled up in single protocol. And in
fact, I see
reason to separate them. It is an accepted scenario that ES
and CS are
taken care of by the L2 in some networks, leaving IS to L3.

Comments?

Alper




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

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