MIPSHOP

 

WG documents review:

- HMIPv6 document: Jari indicated that IESG has cleared the document after the changes that IESG had suggested, just waiting for WG to confirm it

- Basic MIH framework is completed.

- For DNS extensions for MIH, it completed the WG last call, waiting for DNS directorate review still.

- For DHCP extensions we’ll go in WG last call soon, with a current open issue.

 

Rechartering status: new charter text is available. Work includes:

- At least one document on setting up FMIP security associations using AAA

- PMIPv6 handover optimizations, without referring to any solutions. Open for discussion in this meeting and in few weeks. Two solutions currently on the table

one work item coming from MEXT during their chartering (IP tunneling optimizations)

 

Presentations:

 

MIH Discussion

   draft-ietf-mipshop-mstp-solution-05

   draft-ietf-mipshop-mos-dhcp-options-03

   draft-ietf-mipshop-mos-dns-discovery-01

   Subir Das

Subir Das presented the slide set

 

Use of FMIPv6 signaling for PMIPv6 handover Optimization

   Rajeev Koodli

 

Use of Transient BCE for PMIPv6 handover optimization  

Marco Liebsch

o       Rajeev: it seems that the LMA needs to be able to receive packets from both the previous MAG and the new MAG. Is it a protocol issue?

o       Marco: yes, it depends on how the protocol is defined

o       Rajeev: for uplink, PMIP is clear on how to updated BCE. If there is an exception, when it is defined it should be defined how to use it and how to behave. If it is a deployment aspect, it should be either defined in such framework or done in implementation

o       Ahmad: issue inherent to all Mobile IP protocols

o       Vijay: this can be achieved without any protocol extensions, just write this document describing the scenario. When the LMA receives the HI, the LMA may decide to receive packets from both MAGs, and DL is switched only when the new MAG is done. Just specify the LMA behavior, without modifying the protocol

o       Ahmad: seems protocol needs to still be modified

o       Vijay: no, only LMA behavior

o       Ahmad: how does the LMA know how to address the different type of scenarios/traffic?

o       Suresh Krishnan: need indicator on the wire, otherwise how does the LMA differentiate? This also allows the MAG to indicate whether they indicate the new behavior or not

o       Vijay: why not buffering in new MAG?

o       Marco: does not mean to modify the underlying architecture (e.g. 3GPP)

o       Ahmad: even if SDO specific, why not accepting it?

o       Hidetoshi: if buffering is possible, there is no need for transient BCE

o       Taken offline

o       Alper: timeline for L2 attach, during that period traffic is forwarded to new target

o       Vijay: consensus in the room for WG document? 10 in favor, 2 against it. This will be confirmed on the mailing list.