Re: [Mip4] Request to consider FMIPv4 as a working group document

["Charles E. Perkins" <charliep at iprg.nokia.com>]

Hello Kent,

Thanks for your comments.  I have several follow-on
discussion points below.


Kent Leung wrote:

> Hi Charlie.
>
> Generally, I support having a WG solution for fast handover
> using MIPv4.

I hope you will find that FMIPv4 is useful for that purpose.

>   - Key difference between MIPv4 and MIPv6 is FA existence.

Well -- there are route optimization details and additional security
features that are also key differences...  But these are not necessarily
relevant to FMIPv4.

>  - FMIPv4 enabled ARs not being FAs is unlikely, IMHO.  So
>    we can simplify by specifying only FA mode operation, no CCoA
>    support needed since ARs would have to be MIPv4 enabled.
>    This would fit the deployment model and clean up most of
>    draft dealing with IP address management.

I think it is reasonable to have an access router that is not
a foreign agent.  Specifying that operation does not seem to
complicate the rest of the specification which relates to the
case of AR == FA.  So, I don't see any reason to take out
that part of the specification, and it could be useful.

>  - Support for fast handover in WiFi already exists today w/o
>    MIPv4 involvement.  Therefore, realizing deployments using
>    this type of scheme will be difficult.

Even WiFi access points or access point controllers might
well implement this feature, especially for the case of
heterogeneous media.

Thanks in advance for any more detailed comments
you can offer.


Regards,
Charlie P.


--
Mip4 mailing list: Mip4 at ietf.org
   Web interface: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4
    Charter page: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/mip4-charter.html
Supplemental site: http://www.mip4.org/