Subject: RE: Multiple Levels of LMM agents (was: RE: [mobile-ip] Revised L ocalized Mobility Management Requirement s)

From: "Glenn Morrow" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 15:01:18 -0500

Theo,

Some excellent insights. Actually with IPv6, people might find that
subnetting site locals would afford a natural method of developing such a
topological routing that could be disjunct from the global subnetting.

-----Original Message-----
From: Theo Pagtzis [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 10:50 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Multiple Levels of LMM agents (was: RE: [mobile-ip] Revised
L ocalized Mobility Management Requirement s)

Hi again Erik,

Erik Nordmark wrote:

> Theo,
>
> > I must say that this is far from truth... by the moment you have the
notion
> > of "next possible candates" you have already established a hierarchy
> > structure of "previous -> next"
>
> Now I'm really confused.
> I've been assuming that the hierarchy that we've been discussing is
> common for a number of MNs (perhaps all) in some particular part of
> the network.
>
> But your previous->next relationship is a function of the individual
movement
> patterns of a particular MN thus it might be different for all MNs (at
least
> if you track enough of their history using a chain of prev->next
> relationships).
>
> That sounds like the "update the previous FA" scheme in MIPv4 which
> doesn't look like a (shared) hierarchy at all.
>
>    Erik

Ok,

   the hierarchy implied by the "previous->next" relationship can either be
generic...ie all mobile nodes that are participating in a admin domain ...or
it
can be specific that is per MN by refering specifically to generic
relationship.
It is only the per-MN behaviour that is instantiated on the second.

In your understanding (above) you happen to see the second. The first though
is
ALREADY there.

In the first you refer to a packet that goes from the previous LMM-aware
routing
element to the next..

In the second you refer to a packet for a _particular_ MN that goes for the
last
hop previous LMM-aware routing element to the next..

So you have correctly assumed a common hierarchy for all MNs here..you just
pick
a snapshot for the individual MN...

It is like the analogy...I can see the map of the roads...but at the same
time I
can see my route on that map.

Multicast has said it in a different ..perhaps clearer way...incoming and
outgoing interfaces...but it is the same thing...stil hierarchy..

I only wanted to show that the building blocks for a hierarchy are in
principle
there...it is just a matter of tying them together...in an admin domain

So I am definetely refering to a shared hierarchy...one which an LMM scheme
could instantiate differently than another depending on how it wants to see
it...

Theo

UCL/ Mobile Systems

---

From: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 00:23:59 -0400 (EDT)

I agree.  It is definitely possible.  By definition all proposals have MTs
with global CoAs for communications out of the site.  So thats one battle
that won't rage.  I am not a fan of anything private but this is actually
a good use of site-local addresses besides RAN communications before IP as
we move to ALMOST-IP (I can't call the 3G logic model currently ALL-IP
anymore as it ain't true:----)).  I do await FULL-IP for 3G's though as
end user who likes to tcpdump all packets to see where they go :---)

/jim