Subject: [mobile-ip] New BETH Draft

From: James Kempf <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 15:06:32 -0700 (PDT)

Hi folks,

Just posted the 02 BETH draft to the IETF drafts directory. Many thanx
to those who contributed to the discussion of tunnel termination
over the last couple days, I've attempted to capture the conversation
in the section on tunnel termination. Also, I think I've incorporated all the 
comments that came up at the London meeting and prior to it as well,
and tryed to integrate BETH into the FMIPv6 framework more tightly.
Please let me know if I've missed anything. 

I also removed alot of the explanatory material, and the appendicies
discussing theoretical performance of FMIPv6 and smoothing, and
sanitized any references to individual smoothing techniques within
the body of the protocol description. The result should be ready
to incorporate into FMIPv6.

As agreed upon in London, unless there are any further changes needed,
I'd like to move forward with Gopal on incorporating the draft
into the body of draft-ietf-mobileip-fast-mipv6-02.txt.

		jak

---

From: Rajeev Koodli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 16:29:43 -0700

Hello James,

> into the body of draft-ietf-mobileip-fast-mipv6-02.txt.

I have some concerns with this. As I understand, please correct me if I am
wrong, BETH
relies on link-layer triggers to establish the bi-directional tunnel. The
link-layer triggers are

- not standarized. Who will do the standardization ?
- not implemented (I guess since there is no standard). Any comments ?

Given this dependence, having BETH as a part of FMIPv6 raises the following
issues

- how can we implement FMIPv6 with BETH ?
- how can we test inter-operability ?

So, I feel that FMIPv6 should contain enough specification that can become a
standard without depending on link-layer trigger standardization to succeed. We
are keen on moving FMIPv6 along, and would welcome new ideas that would improve
the protocol. However, items that would require standardization of their own
should perhaps be part of a separate document, and (still) be recognized in the
FMIPv6 specification.

Comments ?

Regards,

-Rajeev

---

From: Pat Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 19:14:59 -0700

> - how can we test inter-operability ?

Triggers, the link layer and the MIP implementation exist on a single platform.
Therefore, this is implementation specific, and obviously cannot cause any
interoperability issues.

Perhaps I've missed something here,

PatC