Subject: RE : [mobile-ip] FMIPv6 protocol changes

From: "NJEDJOU Eric FTRD/DMR/REN" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 12:47:16 +0200

> > How could you have a protocol to properly support network controlled

> > handover without having it interacting with FMIP operation? As soon
as 
> > a MN considers handoff, it should be reminded that the PAR and NAR
may 
> > not belong two same administrative control or access network type. 
> > Therefore the Fast handoff mechanism can not just be blind with 
> > regards to this consideration. So, a network controlled handover 
> > protocol should be tought at for being carried by FMIPv6 for 
> > instancce.
> >

>I don't understand your point.

We recently submitted an internet draft that provide with motivations
and reasons for achieving betwork-controlled handoffs using IP mobility.
In that document we try to explain why the handoff process need to
involve network elements and functions that reside topologically beyond
the AR
 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-njedjou-inter-an-handoffs-00.t
xt

>The problem is, all the network controlled handover work for the past 3
years is based on >pure speculation. Nobody has matched up the
requirements for a real, implemented network >controlled L2 protocol
against FMIP, like Pete McCann did with 802.11, which is mobile 
>controlled. Any inclusion of network controlled handover in the FMIPv6
specification at 
>this point will continue to be pure speculation, and therefore subject
to radical change
> or even being dropped and re-invented when a real L2 protocol that
does network 
>controlled handover comes along that needs IP handover support. None of
the network 
>controlled L2 protocols (primarily cellular) currently need FMIP,
because they handle 
>fast handover of IP in proprietary ways. So why not simplify the
protocol by dropping 
>support for network controlled handover until an L2 protocol comes
along that can use it?

>            jak

Eric Njedjou

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 13:55:14 +0200

> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-njedjou-inter-an-handoffs-00.t

So this draft makes an argument about why network control handover is
needed, but it doesn't say why FMIPv6 must be the protocol to do it.

            jak