Subject: Re: [MOBILE-IP] Anchor Handoff Draft

From: Gopal Dommety <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 02:33:04 -0800

Hello Behcet and Gabriel:

        I agree with you that something like realm is a good choice for Zone ID. For example Zone1.cisco.com and Zone2.cisco.com could be two different
Zone IDs.   I was also thinking about the possibility of  overlapping zones so that a type of softhandoff is always possible. So, when you are in an overlapping area
you can perform a local registration with the current achor in the old zone while trying to perform a global reg in the new zone.

Thanks
Gopal

At 09:36 AM 22/03/00 -0800, Gabriel Montenegro wrote:
>"Behcet Sarikaya" <[email-masked]> said:
>> Hello Gopal,
>>   In your anchor handoff draft RFC, you propose to use zone IDs to be
>> advertised
>> by FAs so that MNs can detect the change of the zone.
>>   In the draft RFC on regional registration (reg-tunnel-02), FAs should
>> include their NAIs
>> in the agent advertisements using FA NAI extension.
>>   While NAI has a well defined structure, and zone ID does not seem to
>> be well defined
>> however as a concept the zone ID could be better than NAI which was
>> defined to identify persons.
>>   What do you think?
>
>this is exactly right, the nai is not quite what we want. but
>the nai includes the definition of a "realm". in some recent emails
>to the list i suggested extending the "realm" definition in
>the nai (rfc2486) via the following:
>
>the ABNF for a "realm indicator" (ri) could simply be:
>
>   realm-indicator  = realm / "."
>
>   realm            = <from network access identifier (rfc2486)>
>
>network elements would advertise realm indicators, not complete
>nai's. for more details, please refer to the attached msgs.
>what do you think?
>
>tnx,
>
>-gabriel
>
>
Thank You.
Regards,
Gopal
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gopal Dommety
408 525 1404
[email-masked]
Cisco Systems, San Jose, CA, 95051