Subject: RE: nsis mobility interactions (was: RE: [NSIS] Some comments on draft-ietf-nsis-req-04.txt)

From: Bob Braden <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 16:50:50 GMT

*> 
  *> Whenever i think about this, i have to admit i get confused. (One of
  *> the reasons i like the thomas seamoby draft is the abstract, which
  *> starts "IP Mobility along with RSVP makes my head hurt".)
  *> 
  *> But in the hard handover (break-before-make situation), the sort of
  *> reasoning is:  *) if you send the tear before the handover, you will
  *> lose the whole e2e path (can't find the crossover point without
  *> signaling via the new router); *) if you wait until after the handover,
  *> you no longer have the ability to signal via the old router and you
  *> can't tear the dead branch down.  So, what would be nice is if you
  *> could send some message after the handover which had a reference to the
  *> old reservation in a way which allowed the dead branch to be removed.
  *> (NB this path tear problem is only one of the problems, of course. the
  *> analysis documents contain several others.)

Robert,

OK, you win, now my head hurts too ;-)  The problem, I guess, is that
mobile IP breaks the Internet architecture in a fundamental way, so to
understand how QoS signaling will work you have to look at the details
of how mobile IP works.  That's just philosophy, but it does suggest
that we need to put the bandage where the wound is -- we probably
need a solution that is local to the mobile region, not E2E.

Bob

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

---

From: "PIECHOCINSKI, MACIEJ" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 13:32:51 -0400

draft-shen-rsvp-mobileipv6-interop-00.txt addressed some of the issues
with RSVP & MIP:
-using Home Address as a constant flow/reservation identification
-localizing reservation updates
-explicit teardown of old path after handoff

Maciej