Subject: [netlmm] Concerning the Access Technology Type Option

From: Damien Routier <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 18:37:22 +0100

Hi all,

I have few questions regarding the Access Technology Type Option (chap 
8.4) which can be either PPP or Ethernet, WiFi etc ...
However, the Section 6.3 says that the specification supports only a 
point-to-point access link between the MAG and the MN.

How can it work with shared access technology such as Ethernet or open 
WiFi ?
Does it require to have WPA protected WiFi to simulate point-to-point 
access link? and what about Ethernet ?
If PPPoE is used, the Access Technology Type must be set to 802.3 or PPP ?

I searched through the discussion archive but I could not find answers 
to these questions.

Best Regards,
Damien

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

---

From: Sri Gundavelli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 13:01:08 -0800 (PST)

Hi Damien,

On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Damien Routier wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I have few questions regarding the Access Technology Type Option (chap 8.4) 
> which can be either PPP or Ethernet, WiFi etc ...

There are two things here, the link model and the access technology type.
The base protocol supports a P2P link model where in only two nodes, the
MAG and the MN are present on a given link. This is the current model
in SDO architectures. To you question on how this maps when Ethernet or
other broadcast technologies, this can be a achieved using a simple VLAN
configuration or thru other means. But, the requirement is for a P2P link
model between the MAG and the MN.

The Access Technology option has the Handover hint and the access
technology type. The handover hint in combination with interface
identifiers enable the network to distinguish between inter-technology
handoffs and a simple multi-homing attachment. The presented access
technology type is an additional information for the LMA and is not used
for this handover decision. Typically, the access technology should be
the physical technology over which the mobile and the MAG are connected.
So, if its Ethernet or 802.11, the same should be presented to the
network. In some cases when the terminal implements virtual interface,
hiding the physical access interfaces and if the MAG is aware of these
terminal capabilities, thru SDO specific interface, it can send the type
as a Virtual Interface.

Sri

> How can it work with shared access technology such as Ethernet or open WiFi ?
> Does it require to have WPA protected WiFi to simulate point-to-point access 
> link? and what about Ethernet ?
> I searched through the discussion archive but I could not find answers to 
> these questions.
>
> Best Regards,
> Damien
>
>

---

From: "John.zhao" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 10:44:36 +0800

Hi Sri and folks,
	I not sure how many difference access network type should be
included in this access technology type option. But why we didn't specify
such as IEEE802.16 in this type?
	Best Rgds,
Thanks,
John.zhao

> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Sri Gundavelli [mailto:[email-masked]]
> 发送时间: 2008年1月10日 5:01
> 收件人: Damien Routier
> 抄送: [email-masked]
> 主题: Re: [netlmm] Concerning the Access Technology Type Option
> 
> Hi Damien,
> 
> 
8.4)
WiFi ?
> > Does it require to have WPA protected WiFi to simulate point-to-point
access
> > I searched through the discussion archive but I could not find answers
to

---

From: Sri Gundavelli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 19:06:16 -0800 (PST)

> such as IEEE802.16 in this type?

We just define the name space for Access Technology. I'm not sure, if we 
will even reserve any types this document, the reservation can be done
outside. Currently, we did define few types and we may be missing some
types. We may add few more or just leave the whole allocation scheme out
of this document.

Sri

---

From: "Jong-Hyouk Lee" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:30:28 +0900

Hi, Sri.

As you know, the option, Access Technology Type Option, provides to the MAG
the handover hits and the access technology type as a method for improving
handoff performance. So, some folks in this working group think that Section
8.4 and the related text should be defined more clearly.

I think that you should define the missing types in Section 8.4 if we want
to take folks concerns off.

Cheers.

-- 
Internet Management Technology Lab, Sungkyunkwan University.
Jong-Hyouk Lee.

#email: jonghyouk (at) gmail (dot) com
#webpage: http://cv.hurryon.org
_______________________________________________
netlmm mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm

---

From: Sri Gundavelli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 21:49:59 -0800 (PST)

Hi Jong-Hyouk,

We can add the missing access technology types. But, as I said, it
is just about reserving them in the IANA space. Thru this doc or
from an IANA action. Any case, let me know what other types you
are interested in, we can add them to the list.

Sri

---

From: "Soininen Jonne (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 18:40:52 +0200

Hi,

I agree with Sri. It is not that much about that the list of access 
types in this document is exhaustive. If we agree, which I think we do, 
that the principles of the access type list are correct, should 
everything be ok. We then just have to make sure when we have the IANA 
registry for the access types that is then kept up to date.

Cheers,

Jonne.

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:33:42 -0800

Folks,

New access technology types can be reserved by justing sending
an email to IANA. We deliberately kept it very flexible to add
new access technology types. So don't worry if you don't find
your favorite access technology type defined in the draft.

Vijay