Subject: Re: [MOBILE-IP] Differences between the two MIPv4 handoff approac hes

From: "Hesham Soliman (EPA)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 08:46:38 +1100

> >         => You certainly addressed lots of issues. My point was concise
> >         and straight forward. The proactive approach assumes a certain
> >         architecture that allows the FA to know that the MN is about to
> >         move. The handoff control is done completely by the network.
> correct.
>
> >         In some (or many) cases that is not the case. On the other hand
> >         Fast Handoffs does not assume that, and it allows MN initiation
> >         or Network initiation. This is simply due to the fact that it
> > follows RFC2002,
> >         which was designed in a very generic way, for a good reason.
>
> Well, RFC 2002 is *the* way for mobile initiated handoff. If there is NO
> network assistance, which is an assumption I'm making since you are
> stating
> that the network does not know when the mobile is doing to handoff, then I
> see
> no advantage in adding more to the protocol.
>
        => We're not adding anything to the protocol, we're simply
        allowin for anticipation, bicasting is already in the basic
        protocol. We also argue that this basic protocol is all
        that is needed, provided anticipation is used. There is no
        need for having new messages and inter-FA security
        assumptions.

> >
> >         I gave WLAN as an example. There are more.
> >         But there is no need to get into these system specific details.
> >         As I'm sure you're aware, this is the MIP WG and not MIP for
> >         cdma2000 or WLAN or something else. So let's try to be generic
> >         and not confuse people with system specific issues that change
> >         from one year to another.
>
> hmmm..... how about you provide us with a concrete example? I know that
> Mobile
> IP *will* be used for CDMA and WLAN.
>
        => Correction, CDMA is a radio technology and not a system.
        As I said earlier there is no point in discussing these system
        specific details but to answer your question I already gave a very
        simple and concrete example, WLAN. The FA in a WLAN
        doesn't know the MN is about to move, so how would proactive
        address this issue.

        Hesham

---

From: Pat Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 15:59:25 -0800

>         need for having new messages and inter-FA security

I don't see new messages as really being an issue here, and if you are to have
FAs talk to each other, then it better be secured.

>         doesn't know the MN is about to move, so how would proactive

sorry, but I don't buy this one. The fact that *some* existing WLAN APs are
not systems is really an implementation issue. Cisco's 802.11 AP includes
Mobile IP Foreign Agent functionality. No link layer changes are required.

PatC