Re: [Mip4] RE: Differences between Low Latency Handovers and FMIP v4

[Henrik Levkowetz <henrik at levkowetz.com>]

Ok. So I see there is some interest, and somebody willing to do work
in the area.  I will have to check with Gab and the ADs to make sure
we agree on where the work should be done, if we take it up.

	Henrik


on 2005-03-22 9:07 pm Rajeev Koodli said the following:
> Hello Henrik,
> 
> I believe that we should have a single solution for subnet
> mobility. And, you may be aware that MIPSHOP is
> considering "AAA Keys for Handover" as one of the
> mechanisms to establish MN - AR security association.
> We could get the keys for IPv4 as well.
> In addition, there was discussion about extending the "SEND-based
> key derivation for handover" for IPv4 as well. (Disclaimer: James and
> myself are co-authors on this draft).
> 
> So, we could have a PS solution for IPv4 subnet mobility, just
> as MIPSHOP is attempting to define one.
> 
> My 2 cents..
> 
> -Rajeev
> 
> 
> 
> Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
> 
>>on 2005-03-22 6:40 pm James Kempf said the following:
>>
>><snip a lot of stuff on which I basically agree>
>>
>>  
>>
>>>Anyway, if this WG was serious about its charter to focus on deployment, it
>>>would start up an activity to standardize WLAN switching "IP mobility".
>>>    
>>>
>>
>>Interesting point.  
>>
>>If we do propose to take this up in the new charter proposal, do we
>>have people who would be willing to spend some time and energy on
>>this?
>>
>>	Henrik
>>
>>
>>  
>>
> 


-- 
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/