Subject: Re: [MOBILE-IP] Comments on draft-calhoun-mobileip-proactive-fa-02.txt

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 11:42:07 +0200

On Tuesday, October 03, 2000 20:12, Pete McCann [SMTP:[email-masked]] wrote:

> >> 11).  I take objection to including section 9.0-9.2.  All link layers should
> >> be addressed
> >> in generalities with maybe a distinction between fixed and wireless
> >> being allowed.
> >> Of course I am not a fan of the MIER approach at all.
>
> psc> Whether MIER is good or not, it is irrelevant. We have limited
> psc> address space, and MIER allows us to conserve some space. What,
> psc> exactly, would you prefer to see in sections 9.0-9.2?
>
> The link-layer address can be used as an opaque identifier, and
> doesn't need to be understood by the FA, so the protocol is not
> link-layer specific.  We just need to maintain a type space to
> keep the identifiers unique across different technologies.  If
> you have another technology in mind speak up and we can start to
> fill in the type space.

I agree.  I'm concerned, however, that the octet sub-type may be insufficient.
It may need to distinguish between not only different wireless transmission
technologies, but also between the same technology applied in different
frequency bands. -- An alternative is of course to express link-layer address
formats in such a manner that it comprises both band and address information,
when the technology itself doesn't have an address scheme that lets you derive
the frequency band from the link layer address.  Then the LLA field in 9.0
would actually be something more than a simple link layer address.

        Regards,
                Henrik

---

From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 06:59:00 -0700

>
> I agree.  I'm concerned, however, that the octet sub-type may be
> insufficient. It may need to distinguish between not only different wireless
> transmission technologies, but also between the same technology applied in
> different frequency bands. -- An alternative is of course to express
> link-layer address formats in such a manner that it comprises both band and
> address information, when the technology itself doesn't have an address
> scheme that lets you derive the frequency band from the link layer address.
> Then the LLA field in 9.0 would actually be something more than a simple
> link layer address.
>
OK, but would be, I assume, for a very specific technology, right? So, when
that technology's LLA is defined, it would include the band. In the CDMA2000
part, we also encode the RLP identifier, which is not part of the MAC address
itself. However, other technologies don't have such extensibility.

So, do you have specific text to propose?

PatC