Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] WG Feedback Requested

From: George Tsirtsis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 11:41:46 -0500

Hi Karim

Comments inline...

-----Original Message-----
From: Karim El-Malki (ERA) [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 3:17 PM
To: [email-masked]'
Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] WG Feedback Requested

IMO unless we finish the work off people won't have a chance
to see if it fits their requirements. Until we have an RFC we
can't really say IETF has a stable solution for low latency
MIPv4 handoffs which people can implement and try out. Early
implementation is useful but few implementations doesn't
mean it shouldn't make it to RFC. We also need to consider that
low latency is closely knit to wireless (through L2 triggers and
their timing) which makes the real implementation harder than
many other drafts.

GT> I think that the community has been overwhelmed by the MIPv6 security
discussion and has reviewed the fast handoff specs very little. Also these
specs are full of new mechanisms...some of them very complex. Fast handoffs
are also "optimizations" and as Eric N. said recently, IETF is not very good
at producing optimization techniques. Even worst, parts of the fast handoff
specs are about optimizing the optimization...see Handoff To Third
(HTT)....what about the Forth, Fifth and Hundredth? What I am saying is that
the IETF must be very careful and rather conservative in this
standardization effort. Peer review and experimentation is needed here more
than anywhere.

 > 
 > Second, it was proposed that PFANE from the RO draft might 
 > be stripped
 > into a separate draft to accelerate progress on low latency. 

The previous FA extension has no relation to the low latency draft.

GT> This is true.

In fact the PFANE is sent by the MN along with the registration
request when it has attached to the new FA and is completing the
L3 handoff. The low latency solutions aim at reducing L3 handoff
latency to zero, which means that the MN must be in communication
as soon as it attaches to the new FA.

GT> The point is though that PFANE extension has been very stable for long
time and provides lossless handoff that can be used in the short term and
until either fast handoffs mature or link layers get make before break
capability...in which case fast handoff specs are not needed. The only
reason PFANEs are not a standard today is because they are part of the Route
Optimization draft that is notionaly kept behind because of the MIPv6
security discussion. Yet PFANEs have no security issue themselves...hence
the discussion about publishing them independently of Routing Optimization.

Regards
George

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 10:22:30 -0800

George,

> at producing optimization techniques.

I agree.

>Even worst, parts of the fast handoff
> (HTT)....what about the Forth, Fifth and Hundredth?

I see you haven't read the spec. If you had, you would see
that the "Third" in this case is the highest it can go.

>What I am saying is that

I agree!!

> the discussion about publishing them independently of Routing
Optimization.

I agree with this as well. PFANE can perform optimization now, and is
particularly important for protocols such as 802.11 in which the
MN controls movement. The only reason it is being held up is that the
security
issues of full route optimization are much more complex than the simple
FA/FA security
required for PFANE. Therefore, I think it needs to be moved into a
separate
draft.

                jak