Subject: RE: [Seamoby] Examples of CAR discovery

From: Nakhjiri Madjid-MNAKHJI1 <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 18:16:24 -0600

Bingo, Hemant,

you hit it right in the bulls eye. CAR discovery is
about finding the destination, CT will happen after you found
the destination. QoS CT will only help maintaining QoS after 
(or during) the handoff, but it cannot be used to determine
where to handoff to.

Madjid

-----Original Message-----
From: Hemant Chaskar [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 10:45 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Seamoby] Examples of CAR discovery

Hi James:

Pardon my ignorance here, but isn't CT about *transferring* context rather 
than negotiating capabilities. In other words, doesn't CT protocol take 
source and dest. of CT as input? Now, source is obvious, we still need to 
work on finding dest. which is target AR of handoff.

BR,
Hemant

>From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
>To: "Charlie Perkins" <[email-masked]>
>CC: "Hemant Chaskar" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
>Subject: Re: [Seamoby] Examples of CAR discovery
>Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 08:16:02 -0800
>
>Hi Charlie,
>
>
> > Lastly, we have already some evidence that handing QoS from one
> > access router to another access router is about the same as handing
> > any other context between routers -- again, under the assumption that
> > the basic authorization has already been negotiated at some time in
> > the past.  There is no need to have two protocols where one is better,
> > regardless of political divisions within the IETF.
> >
>
>This sounds like context transfer, not CAR discovery. QoS was one of the
>intended applications of context transfer, so I believe it is in scope.
>
>             jak
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Seamoby mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

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

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

---

From: "Satish Jamadagni" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 11:09:01 +0530

Hi All,
I feel that CT and CAR should go hand in hand. The reasons are as follows
(taking a Bottom - Up approach trying to arrive at a CAR protocol from a
final TAR selection perspective assuming that this is what CAR discovery is
supposed to assist in)

Combining CT and CAR -
1. Saves signaling time (Time is one of the main factors for deciding
seamless ness)
2. Makes sense as during a seamless HO "Context" preservation is what every
mobile terminal aims at (we are not considering application adaptation and
such kind of stuff)
3. Typical TAR selection would be based on a "MATCH" of the MN context and
the AR context support capabilities (any other policies and user fancies can
also be brougnt under the "Context" perspective (I assume that "context"
reflects a desired QoS feel at the MT so for all practical purposes
"Context" and QoS are the same).

For a TAR selection the MT would send in his present "Context" list to find
a match. This I guess would be sent to all CARs (with all the signaling
overheads)

So for all practical purposes by the time I would have done a TAR selection
I would have at least achieved a partial CT if the new AR can preserve the
messages that I use for initial inquiry for TAR selection. All other CARs
where the MT would have sent a message with a wish list ( its present
context) can release the context list if the MT finally does not choose them
based on a timer.

So I feel a CAR discovery protocol SHOULD identify and standardize "an
ABSTRACT Context" notion for initial CAR selection and finally should
provide for classes of Contexts to ease the TAR selection process. The exact
match algorithms  can be left to implementations. Such classes of contexts
helps in either a partial or a full CT under TAR selection itself.

Combining CT and CAR has signaling advantages and this can prove critical
for a seamless handover where the "objective is Zero latency handover"

Regards,
Satish Jamadagni.

---

From: "Satish Jamadagni" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 11:09:01 +0530

Hi All,

Combining CT and CAR -

Regards,
Satish Jamadagni.