Subject: Re: [Seamoby] Concensus call on new CAR Discovery Requirement (was: Examples of

From: "Govind Krishnamurthi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 19:53:33 -0500

>,
> > So now you agree that the AR can hand over the list of GAARs and
> > their capabilities to the MN (maybe only pass on those which satisfy
> > the MN requirements, which is what CAR discovery was originally
>about).
> >
>
>No, that it sends all, along with the capabilities. Let me repeat the
>requirement I would like to see (and Henrik apparently agrees) so we are
>clear on this:
>
>     The CAR discovery protocol MUST provide the MN with GAAR
>     information, along with capabilities.
>

[Govind] First what you are calling as CAR discovery is not CAR discovery.
What you are saying is GAAR + associated capabilities discovery
not CAR discovery therefore part of CAR discovery. CAR discovery matches the 
requirements of the MN with the capabilities of the GAARs.

Having said that, if the purpose of the sending this information to
the MN is to run the TAR selection algorithm there, then it would be
prudent to filter out some of the GAARs (which don't satisfy the MN's 
requirements) and send only the remaining to the MN. That would reduce
the bandwidth as well as power.

Having said that, I disagree with this requirement which first forces a
particular TAR selection aspect onto CAR discovery which I feel is totally 
not required. A better requirement is CAR discovery output MUST
be made available to the TAR selection algorithm whereever it resides.

>Please see the requirement above. No contradiction. The protocol allows
>the MN to discover  the GAAR and capabilities, the MN decides which one
>it wants.
>Nothing about the AR in control of anything. The MN may use a variant >of
>IPv6 neighbor discovery, the AR may be involved somehow, but that's a
>protocol design, not a requirement, choice. The requirement is clearly
>that the MN does the discovery.

[Govind] I don't agree to the fact that MN must alone do the discovery.

>We now have two working group members who want this reqirement worded
>just this way. Nothing about "as the MN expresses its preferences" or
>"by the CAR discovery module" or anything else. And I believe Hesham has
>also expressed a preference for this requirement.

[Govind] Well I'm against it and I know others who have objected to this
too.

>
>Anybody else out there have an opinion on this? Should we include this
>requirement instead of requirement 3.4, which has the AR in control?
[Govind] I agree that the requirement 3.4 may look biased toward a AR
solution and we can re-word it. But to swing the pendulum to the other
extreme which prohibits anything other than a MN based discovery is
not correct.

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

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

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 08:21:38 -0800

Govind,

Of course it is CAR discovery. The MN takes the GAARs and figures out
which are CARs. Then it performs TAR.

What you seem to want is for the AR to do the CAR selection. As I've
pointed out numerous times, the AR can't possibly know a priori what the
MN's current interface configuration is at any day and time.

            jak

----- Original Message -----
From: "Govind Krishnamurthi" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 4:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Seamoby] Concensus call on new CAR Discovery Requirement
(was: Examples of

> >Nothing about the AR in control of anything. The MN may use a variant
>of

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 08:21:38 -0800

Govind,

            jak

----- Original Message -----
From: "Govind Krishnamurthi" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 4:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Seamoby] Concensus call on new CAR Discovery Requirement
(was: Examples of