Subject: Re: RR enhancements (Was: Re: [Mipshop] MIPSHOP discussion on new items and milestones)

From: Christian Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 21:45:05 +0200

Hi Samita,

I am sorry, I missed your message, so this reply is a bit late.

What you say is right; more experimentation with OMIP6+CBA relative to
RFC3775 RR would definitely be very helpful.

Just this one thing:

 > For recod keeping, another possibility might be that the apps on both
 > CN and MN negotiate that they need to stay connected on the current
 > addresses for a while and each side requests the corresponding
 > Mobile-IP implementation to grant longer lifetime (through some API).
 > But this provides burden on each app to specify that - on the other
 > hand it releases mobile-ip implementation from taking care of packet
 > count profile for each mobile-node's connection.

The purpose of CBA is to rule out data amplification while a care-of
address is unverified (i.e., while it has not yet been tested).  This is
why you do the byte counting.  CBA is necessary when you allow nodes to
already use a new CoA *before* it has been probed though the RFC3775
care-of-address test.

It does not matter what the (requested) lifetime for the MIP6 binding is.

Best regards,

- Christian

--
Christian Vogt, Institute of Telematics, University of Karlsruhe
www.tm.uka.de/~chvogt/pubkey/

Samita Chakrabarti wrote:
> Hi Jari,
>
>> But as I have said before, I think the two schemes are orthogonal,
>>  so I don't think we need to choose between them. It appears quite
>>  possible to run both of them and get both advantages. (This does
>> not necessarily imply that they have to be in one document, just
>> that they both exist in standardized form.)
>
>
> I did not catch up with all the mails on this thread. I agree with
> most of the requirements (less signalling for RO and longer
> expiration time when the stay is longer). I still think that it'd be
>  nice to have some experimental data before we conclude on
> standardizing the two existing documents.
>
> Perhaps, some experimental data on different types of apps (for ex:
> voIP, streaming media and some other apps that send data off and on
> over a period of time) vs. frequency of handover would be interesting
>  to see if we can take the measurements on RFC3775 RR, OMIP6 and CBA
>  methods. I am not sure if OMIP6 section 7 accounting is experimental
>  or computational.
>
> For recod keeping, another possibility might be that the apps on both
>  CN and MN negotiate that they need to stay connected on the current
>  addresses for a while and each side requests the corresponding
> Mobile-IP implementation to grant longer lifetime (through some API).
>  But this provides burden on each app to specify that - on the other
>  hand it releases mobile-ip implementation from taking care of packet
>  count profile for each mobile-node's connection.
>
> In OMIP6, CGA provides security and hence we can skip HOTI/HOT during
>  handover- that's nice.  However, the experimental data would help us
>  make the right choice and perhaps helps us find out when to kick-off
>  the RO by MN. BTW, I assume IPR issues with CGA are no longer a
> concern?
>
> Thanks, -Samita

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