Subject: Re: [MOBILE-IP] IPv6 handover document

From: "Hesham Soliman (EPA)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 03:05:41 +1000

Hello Charlie,

First, let me answer by saying I'm clearly interested in this
work (steps 1 and 2).

I have a question though, is this new document going to be based on an
existing proposal for fast handoffs in v6 (I'm only aware of our draft) or
is it a new approach ?

Regards,
Hesham

-----Original Message-----
From: Charles E. Perkins [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: den 16 augusti 2000 18:38
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [MOBILE-IP] IPv6 handover document

Hello folks,

I have a primitive version of a writeup for the IPv6 handover
document that was authorized during the Pittsburgh IETF 48.
I am not sure whether this is supposed to be an edited document,
or a co-authored document, or in general whose names are supposed
to appear on the document.  My plan is as follows:

1. Distribute the primitive and rough document I have now to see
   if it is a useful starting point.
2. Get additional production collaboration from the interested participants
3. Submit an Internet Draft by end of August
4. Get discussion by the working group
5. Submit revised Internet Draft by end of October

Anyone who is interested in participation in (1) and (2) please
let me know and I will send you what I have.

Regards,
Charlie P.

---

From: "Charles E. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 10:33:25 -0700

Hello Hesham,

Welcome aboard.  I will send you the rough draft by day's end.

> existing proposal for fast handoffs in v6 (I'm only aware of our draft) or

The document is first and foremost a delineation of the issues
and relationships to Mobile IP.

I believe that recent Internet Drafts for IPv6 smooth handovers from
our group here at Nokia will also be relevant.  We propose a SHIN
(Smooth Handover Initiation) destination option, as well as SHREQ and
SHREP, for IPv6.  However, it may be the case that no protocol at all
will be specified in the document under discussion.  I hope at least
to get some consensus from the working group about what should be
under consideration.  If we get a protocol too, then so much the better!
The rough draft so far does not contain any protocol specification.

I also hope to get a clear picture about how to separate fast,
smooth, seamless handovers from regional registration.  The main
idea could be that handovers are purely edge phenomena, whereas
binding updates (e.g., registrations) are mostly not edge phenomena.
I wonder whether "fast restoration" is a handover thing or not (see
Alan's recent note).

Regards,
Charlie P.