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

["James Kempf" <kempf at docomolabs-usa.com>]

> Okay. Why do we need to standardize inter-switch communication? Are you
> considering the switch also as a L3 device from a MIP MN perspective?
>

The fact that handover optimization was done at a switch rather than at the
router had mainly to do with practical considerations about how to bring a
product out best, I suspect. It allows one to install switches below one's
existing routers, without having to modify the routers. Thus, an easier
sale.

>From the MIP perspective, I think the FA is the place to define the
function. But I'm not sure, though now that I think of it, whether the
switch vendors would even be interested in working in MIP4. Most of their
efforts are focussed on CAPWAP, and I think they might rather want to have
the handover optimization functionality defined at the Access Controller
(AC, a functional entity that controls the access points), if they want it
at all (I think they might agree from a technical standpoint that it would
be nice).

Having the switch vendors involved is necessary, otherwise nobody will
implement it, just as has been the case with all the other proposed handover
optimization technologies up until now.

            jak




-- 
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/