Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] New I-D in L3 trigger based MIPv4

From: "Hesham Soliman (ERA)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 18:20:20 +0100

> > Please give us comments and critiques.
> 
> I think it would actually make alot of sense to define a standard L3
> signalling method to do this, but wonder whether this really belongs in *this*
> WG, as opposed to, say, Seamoby.
> 
	=> There is one already, it is called the router/agent advertisement.

	Hesham

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 13:12:18 -0600

Yes,  I would tend to concur with Pat on this one.  There is a LOT of prior
history on this in the IETF.  IAPP (inter access point protocol) was as
submitted as a draft to the IETF a few yrs ago and largely ignored.  IAPP has
been  implemented by a few 802.11 AP vendors.  The IEEE 802.11 TG F is
currently working on  a rejuvination of IAPP and I am attempting to get some
coordination between them and SeaMoby.  I think that a more appropriate
venue for this work would indeed be the SeaMoby context transfer and
perhaps the micro-mobility design team.  I will review the draft with great
interest since some work I was involved with in the past incorporated such
concepts.

Thanks,

Phil

Please respond to [email-masked]

Sent by:  Pat Calhoun <[email-masked]>

To:   [email-masked]
cc:    (Phil Neumiller/MW/US/3Com)
Subject:  Re: [mobile-ip] New I-D in L3 trigger based MIPv4

> While some low latency handoff methods assume the use of "L2 trigger",
> this I-D shows that the trigger can be L3-based.

well, this isn't exactly something that we didn't know about. CDMA2000 does in
fact use Layer 3 messages to "extend" the L2 signals to the foreign agents.
This is necessary because the L2 termination point and the FA are not
colocated.

I believe that we've also discussed doing something similar for non colocated
802.11 APs and Foreign Agents.

PatC

---

From: "Hesham Soliman (ERA)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 21:55:19 +0100

> IMHO, router/agent adverts aren't handoff co-ordinating signalling, they
> are signalling to alert the mobile node that a new route option is
> available for routing their traffic. There is no specific handoff
> co-ordinating signalling in base MIPv4/v6. 
> 
	=> Well they tell you that you've changed (or about to change
	if you use the low latency draft) subnet. That's what you need 
	to initiate an IP layer handover. That's what you need for 
	IP movement detection.

> Furthermore, if you look at this draft, you will see that there is
> a proposal for an "L3 beacon". Now, as far as I can tell, RFC 2002
> and the MIPv6 draft *already* make provision for an L3 beacon, which,
> as you point out, is a router/agent advert. The only real new contribution
> in this draft that I can detect is Section 6.1, which describes ways
> of doing movement prediction based on measurments at L3 as opposed to L2.
> 
	=> Exactly. Based on my quick read, it provides a way of sending 
	such L3 indication (advertisement).

	Hesham