Subject: [Seamoby] CARD between Routers - will CT do?

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 13:58:00 -0800

So most of the discussion here has been about CARD between the Mobile Node and
Access Router, and that's OK since it certainly is an important topic.

However, equally important is how two Access Routers exchange information about
the access points connected to them. This could be statically configured, but
that would be very inconvenient.

I'm wondering if this might be a good application of CT? The "context" here
would be an authenticatable list of access points connected up to a particular
router.

Comments?

            jak

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

---

From: "Eunsoo Shim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 06:00:52 -0800

Hi, James,

There should be two types of messages between ARs for CARD.
- Discovery process related
- Attributes (including information about access points) related

And there can be two modes of attribute information exchange.
- One time request-response
- Periodic updates (one time request and follow-up periodic responses)

I have two questions about your suggestion.
1) You are suggesting using CT for attribute information exchanges but not
the discovery related signaling, aren't you?
2) Will CT support the above modes of attribute information exchange?

My feeling is that we'd better identify the type of messages for CARD first
and then can think about reusing any other protocol for the messages. And I
think we need more discussion or output from the design team regarding the
message types.
Thanks.

Eunsoo

---

From: "Eunsoo Shim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 06:00:52 -0800

Hi, James,

Eunsoo

---

From: Marco Liebsch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 17:06:33 +0100

Hi James,

I agree that info exchange between ARs is a big issue to be resolved.
But I am not sure about CT to be the right way to go for and would
rather de-couple CARD from the actual CT procedure, which is,
in my opinion, currently related to mobile terminal context. So, we would
run into similar discussion with CT as we are doing now for Fast MIPv6
when trying to extend CT with CARD attributes, isnt't it?

Another issue I see is timing. Now, not all info (address resolution and
caps exchange) is to be done necessarily at the same time, in particular not
necessarily when CT is performed. Further, it's not clear to me how 
learning of
dynamic capabilities should be handled, which could be a parameter
handover decision might depend on?

marco

---

From: Marco Liebsch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 17:06:33 +0100

Hi James,

marco

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 08:39:15 -0800

Eunsoo,

There is no need for discovery related messages between ARs. Routers know where
they are, the routing protocol tells them. There is, of course, an issue of the
AR finding APs attached to it, but that is a different question. That would
probably benefit by some protocol, but, of course, we have this problem about
APs being invisible as far as IP is concerned.

The idea of using CT for CARD between routers came out of some discussions we've
been having here about how best to implement these protocols. Having a generic
framework within which all the inter-AR signaling can fit could make the
implementation cleaner. For example, one could view the HI/HAck signaling of
FMIP as another instance of CT.  One could imagine extending the routing
protocol to do implement the framework, but having a separate protocol might be
better.

Anyway, maybe this is boiling the ocean. We are already having enough trouble
getting the specs done on CT and CARD for MNs. Maybe we ought to finish that
first, then revisit the issue when we have more experience with implementing
these protocols.

            jak

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 08:39:15 -0800

Eunsoo,

            jak

---

From: "Eunsoo Shim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 14:31:09 -0800

Hi, James,

The need to transport discovery related information is an important piece
for CARD as Hermant pointed out.
So let me skip about it.

I understand your motivation. It seems to me also that there are many
protocols with some overlapping regarding mobility management. It would be
nice to clean up them and end up with a less number of protocols in the end.
Such thought also came to me in the past but it seems to me that we might
have to go a longer way to reach such protocol sets. I hope it is possible
to do it later.

Regards.

Eunsoo
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
To: "Eunsoo Shim" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 8:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Seamoby] CARD between Routers - will CT do?

> > > So most of the discussion here has been about CARD between the Mobile
Node
> > and
> > > However, equally important is how two Access Routers exchange
information
> > about
> > > the access points connected to them. This could be statically
configured,
> > but

---

From: "Eunsoo Shim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 14:31:09 -0800

Hi, James,

Regards.

Eunsoo
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
To: "Eunsoo Shim" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 8:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Seamoby] CARD between Routers - will CT do?

Node
information
configured,