Subject: RE: [DNA] Re: [Mipshop] RE: [Mobopts] Interest in protocols forIEEE802.21IS,CS, ES

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 00:18:46 -0700

Eunsoo,

IEEE 802.21 WG has been considering use cases where a mobile node could
use the MI Information Service via an unsecure port via L2 before IP is
allowed. Now that we have a brand new working document with IEEE line
numbers (available in the July 2005 folder for now on the IEEE 802.21
website), I can refer to it for help in discussion ;^) See 5.4.3, around
line 14. Would this use case be possible via IP? 

Please don't get me wrong, for many reasons, L3 or above are needed to
deliver the services being designed. I was reminded by Stefano that
rapid deployment is possible with an IP approach, another important
reason.

BR,
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of ext Eunsoo
Shim
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 12:15 PM
To: Williams Michael.G (Nokia-ES/MtView)
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; Patil
Basavaraj (Nokia-NET/Dallas); [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [DNA] Re: [Mipshop] RE: [Mobopts] Interest in protocols
forIEEE802.21IS,CS, ES

Hi, Michael,

If there is a IP-based protocol, it will solve the problem at once for
all L2 technologies.
Nowadays, all wireless network technologies are moving forward to IP.
In particular, 802.11 and 802.16 support IP from the beginning.
Furthermore, if you want to allow any location of the information
service entity in the network side, there is no other choice but to take
IP as transport.
If 802.21 WG develops MAC-specific protocols in parallel with an
IP-based protocol, there will be lots duplicate and unnecessary effort.
 From the implementation point of view, a mobile node might have to
contain multiple protocol entities for the same function (eg. IS over
802.11 MAC, IS over 802.16 MAC and IS over IP). 

Why do you want to do that?
Regards,

Eunsoo

[email-masked] wrote:

> 
>Hi Eunsoo,
>
>Despite the opinion that it will be a long and open-ended process to 
>modify IEEE 802 MAC layers to adopt IEEE 802.21, that is the plan 
>(well, not that it will be necessarily long and open ended ;^). Within 
>the IEEE
>802.11 and 802.16 working groups there are already groups assigned to 
>this task.
>
>Even so, there is still the need for the MIH IS (and potentially ES and
>CS)  to be available between entities that cannot communicate directly 
>via MAC services.
>
>Best Regards,
>Michael
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked]
>[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of ext Eunsoo 
>Shim
>Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 11:01 AM
>To: [email-masked]
>Cc: Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1; [email-masked]'; [email-masked]'; 
>[email-masked]'; 'Marco Liebsch'; [email-masked]'; 
>[email-masked]'; [email-masked]'; Patil 
>Basavaraj (Nokia-NET/Dallas); [email-masked]'
>Subject: [DNA] Re: [Mipshop] RE: [Mobopts] Interest in protocols for 
>IEEE802.21IS, CS, ES
>
>Hi, Soohong,
>
>Please let me add a comment in this discussion.
>
>
>  
>
>>CARD is an IETF stuff. 802.21 framework runs under IP layer.
>>
>>    
>>
>This is generally the case. But the requirement of 802.21 IS 
>(Information Service) "to be Media Indepent" makes a different case.
>If the contact point for a mobile talking 802.21 IS is a function 
>separated from (or independent of) any specific L2 entity or L2 
>technology, then it should be IP transport. If L2 protocol entities 
>such as the Access Point talk 802.21 IS, this adds a lot of overhead to

>each
>L2 protocol and its entity such as Access Points, in particular if they

>have to learn about the environment (maybe beyond the scope of its own
>technology?) such as IP layer information.
>
>It would be a long and open-ended process to modify/extend every single
>L2 to adopt 802.21 IS. To be "Media Independent", using IP as transport

>is a logical and quickest way. So I'd say 802.21 framework will be 
>designed in IEEE 802.21 but the protocol for 802.21 IS should come from

>IETF. If a protocol comes from IETF, CARD is the primary candidate 
>because it was designed for the functions IEEE 802.21 IS is meant to
do.
>What do you think?
>Regards,
>Eunsoo