Re: [netlmm] [MEXT] [netext] NEXTEXT2: first draft of the bof description

[<Basavaraj.Patil at nokia.com>]

Hi Hesham,


On 6/30/09 10:59 PM, "ext Hesham Soliman" <hesham at elevatemobile.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> Hi Raj,
> 
> I had a brief offline chat with Julien and thought that I could refine my
> suggestion a bit more to make the point clearer. My point is that there are
> currently two slightly different points being made about the requirement on
> host involvement 1) no SW on the host and the more nuanced 2) no protocol
> support on the host. I won't even get into the reasons for point 2) above
> and I'll let the people who raise it provide those reasons, I can't figure
> out any technical reasons there.

I believe that host involvement is imperative to enable features such as
inter-tech HO and flow binding/mobility for PMIP6. Some aspects of these
features may be potentially accomplished by doing some additional signaling
in the network itself and involving the policy store function to an even
greater degree. I do not believe that you can avoid having some requirements
on the host.  

> 
> Anyway, my point is that 1) above is not an issue today because it already
> happens on a very large scale, so requiring it for a specific feature like
> multihoming is hardly a leap. I can imagine ads for "download your wireless
> optimiser from wwww.operator.com and save money" (ok not very creative).
> The subtle difference between 1) and 2) is IMO a moot point anyway because
> 2) simply says that operators don't want protocol support in the network,
> but that support already exists in the form of PMIP and if you have PMIP you
> have MIP. 

While I agree that having PMIP equates to having MIP, it is only from the
perspective of the fact that the LMA is also a DSMIP6 HA. But this fact is
of no use in actual deployments. An LMA will not operate as a DSMIP6 HA
unless there is explicit support enabled for it to operate as an HA. I just
don't see the LMA accepting BUs from a (DS)MIP6 MN or establishing IPsec SAs
to secure the signaling. My point is that while the functionality of the
DSMIP6 HA exists in the LMA, it is simply unable to operate as such without
additional features being enabled.

Regarding point 1 above, I don't know if you are suggesting that MIP6 client
SW can simply be downloaded on a host and would work subsequently. While I
wish that were the case, I think we are still pretty far from such
capability. 

> So, both motivations seem to be on shaky ground.
> And yes, you can of course integrate 3G modems in computers, but you can
> also integrate mobility code in the same computers with the 3G support. The
> SW that is provided with the modems is not only connection SW it actually
> provides a number of features (e.g. Receiving SMS, account information,
> email ....etc) so it's a clear move by operators to be present on those
> machines. I don't think it's anything like WLAN connctions SW.

If the 3G modem requires a mobility stack in order to attach and access a 3G
network, then yes the host will include such SW. But if the only thing
needed is a device driver and some interface to a connection manager type of
app, then I don't see OS vendors going out of their way to add SW that would
be considered optional. If all the connectivity aspects are in the 3G modem
and the device driver then the need for mobility stack SW at L3 are
diminished. 

> 
> Of course it's worth mentioning that the elephant in the room is the binary
> requirement on host support of protocols. We need to have a yes/no answer as
> to whether there is a requirement to NOT have protocol support in the host.
> At the moment this is being kept very vague.

I think it is an unknown. Is there a need for L3 protocol support on the
host to accomplish the functionality being aimed for?
It might be the case that some of this L3 protocol support be achieved by
extending existing protocols such as DHCPv6 or ND (just examples and not to
be considered as solutions). Or there may be recommendations to L2s in which
case the IETF would only recommend some capabilities that L2 would be
required to have to provide these features. This is probably the reason why
there is no definitive yes/no answer on the need for protocol support in the
host. It should also be pointed out that requiring protocol support on the
host is not directly equilavalent to having a MIP client on the host. There
are degrees of differences between a MIP client vs some simple protocol
support. 

-Raj

> 
> Hesham
> 
>>> => No one I know can get a 3G data card to access the Internet from their PC
>>> without having to install a piece of software  on their PC to make it work.
>>> So I think your assumption that the operator cannot mandate software on the
>>> host is questionable, because they already do (unfortunately).
>> 
>> The situation that you describe above was the same when 802.11 first rolled
>> around as well.
>> You had to install a piece of software that came with the PC card. But that
>> has changed with
>> wifi now being an integral part of the notebook computers.
>> And I think you could expect 3G chipsets and access built-in as well in due
>> course of time. At least I know of a few
>> operators in the US (as well as notebook manufacturers) who offer such
>> net/notebook computers,
>> i.e with integrated 3G access. I do not know what additional sw is loaded on
>> these but at least the end user
>> is not installing anything else.
>> Does it imply that such hosts will include the software that would enable
>> host
>> mobility? Its an open question (i.e unknown)
>> and will depend largely on operator choices and vendors.
>> 
>> -Raj
>> 
>>> Hesham
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> netlmm mailing list
>> netlmm at ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm
> 
>