Subject: Re: [netlmm] Review of draft-ietf-netlmm-mn-ar-if-02

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 09:44:32 -0700 (PDT)

Hi Alex,

See inline.

Regards,

Behcet

----- Original Message ----
From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
To: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]; McCann Peter-A001034 <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 11:14:40 AM
Subject: Re: [netlmm] Review of draft-ietf-netlmm-mn-ar-if-02

Hi Vijay,

Vijay Devarapalli wrote:
> Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>>>> Can you give me an example of another that is widely deployed?
>>> 
>>> Probably none. But we know for a fact that SDOs that are
>>> considering PMIPv6 either never had PPP or are moving away from
>>> PPP. 802.16e is an example of p2p link when PMIPv6 may be used.
>> 
>> In a MN-AR interface document it is essential to describe what kind
>> of point-to-point implementation is used, right?
> 
> Proxy Mobile IPv6 is intended for use on various kinds of p2p links.
> The MN-AR interface document currently assumes a generic p2p link
> with a few assumptions. I think this is the right approach.

I'm sorry, this is nonsense to me.  It is nonsense to talk about
"generic" p2p links when real p2p links have real characteristics with
real implementations.  There exist indeed several types of such ptp
links (and only some are with ppp).

[behcet] Haven't we discussed this before in 16ng ML? Why are you bringing it up again? Just curious.

This comes to mind at least when we talk handover.  Anyone who tried in
practice to hand-over a ptp link between two anchors has realized that
things apps may not survive.  HEnce that ppp recommendation Pete talked
about, to which I agree.

[behcet] This sounds like tall order to me. Can you provide more info? On IPv4, IPv6, both? 

If we stay with "generic" ptp links then we can not make any particular
recommendation with respect to PMIPv6 protocol and netlmm handovers.

>> There may be some interactions with the 16ng document on this topic
>> as well.
>> 
>> FYI, there exist a wireshark profile displaying 802.16 MN-AR
>> exchanges according to the 802.16 spec.  However, from what I know,
>> that has only been used on emulators, and not on real 802.16
>> systems deployed.  The underlying ptp link was emulated on Ethernet
>> MAC by a well-known 802.16 supporter and on UDP  connection by
>> somebody else.
>> 
>> If you are aware of other MN-AR systems which are not emulated
>> (either by Ethernet MAC, by UDP or by IPsec) - it will be very
>> useful for the netlmm MN-AR interface document.
> 
> Why is this relevant?

What are people going to do with the MN-AR interface document?  Are they
going to implement?  Something generic?

[behcet] I like these questions.

>>> There are some scenarios in 3GPP where an IPsec tunnel provides
>>> the p2p link between the mobile node and the MAG.
>> 
>> Can this be described somehow?
> 
> In the document, why?

Such that people can implement it?

Alex also said: 

I think netlmm pmipv6 protocol is designed for wimax and 3gpp2...

[behcet] 3GPP as well. Also not designed for but applies to.

_______________________________________________
netlmm mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 22:55:51 +0200

Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
[...]
>> Proxy Mobile IPv6 is intended for use on various kinds of p2p
>> links. The MN-AR interface document currently assumes a generic p2p
>> link with a few assumptions. I think this is the right approach.
> 
> "generic" p2p links when real p2p links have real characteristics
> with real implementations.  There exist indeed several types of such
> ptp links (and only some are with ppp).
> 

It just shows up every time we talk 80216-related stuff.

> This comes to mind at least when we talk handover.  Anyone who tried
> in practice to hand-over a ptp link between two anchors has realized
> that things apps may not survive.  HEnce that ppp recommendation Pete
> talked about, to which I agree.
> 

I don't understand tall order, sorry.

More info is like this: take a laptop, connect a umts phone to it, roam,
dial up a foreign provider and then try to connect to another provider,
ie do a handover of the ptp link.  It's IPv4.  The connection is not
resisting.  When you try to dialup another connection the first one
simply goes down.

I'm not saying that the umts ptp link does not resist handovers within
that same operator.  It does resist.  It uses GTP or other non-IETF
non-layer3 things to perform these handovers.  Do we want to do the same
with pmipv6 handovers?

...

Alex