Subject: RE: [Seamoby] CARD feeding TAR selection issue

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 15:29:28 -0500

Hi James:

-------------------------------------clip--------------------------------------
> Network policies (in network assisted CARD) can be implemented indirectly by
current AR. In other words, current AR may not send information about certain
CARs to MN, if network policy in unfavorable to those CARs. In an extreme case,
if network sends to MN information about only one CAR, it is tantamount to
performing TAR selection on current AR.

Hmm, I'm not sure I understand the motivation for this requirement. Could you
clarify?
 
            jak

[Hemant] Consider a scenario where MN hears two AP beacons, one from a domain favorable (due to business relationship, say) to current AR and another unfavorable to current AR. MN asks current AR to provide AR addresses and capabilities corresponding to both AP IDs. The issue is, do we want to provide an option to current AR to influence TAR selection in this case. For example, one of the two target AP IDs may be of OWLAN operated by the same operator and another one by different operator. Then, current AR may prefer (or sometimes require) MN handing over to the first OWLAN.

Hemant    

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

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 13:18:27 -0800

I don't understand why the protocol document describing how CARD information is
transferred from the AR to MN or between ARs needs to say anything about this
kind of policy issue.

What effect does it have on interoperability?

In an analogous situation, I don't believe the IP routing protocol
specifications say anything about whether or how a domain should expose
particular transit routes. That is up to the policy of the ISP. They can treat
transit routes like internal routes and not expose them, or they can expose
them, depending on the business relationship. But the protocol specifications
for BGP, IS-IS, OSPF, etc. don't say either way.

At best, this would be an issue that would be taken up in a separate BCP about
inter-operator use of CARD.

            jak
----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 12:29 PM
Subject: RE: [Seamoby] CARD feeding TAR selection issue

> [Hemant] Consider a scenario where MN hears two AP beacons, one from a domain
favorable (due to business relationship, say) to current AR and another
unfavorable to current AR. MN asks current AR to provide AR addresses and
capabilities corresponding to both AP IDs. The issue is, do we want to provide
an option to current AR to influence TAR selection in this case. For example,
one of the two target AP IDs may be of OWLAN operated by the same operator and
another one by different operator. Then, current AR may prefer (or sometimes
require) MN handing over to the first OWLAN.

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 13:18:27 -0800

jak