On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Thomas C. Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Behcet, > > these requirements are for a fast handover solution, i.e., a protocol that > operates a *handover* in a *fast* manner. > > I agree that draft-ietf-multimob-fast-handover does not meet the > requirements, but had written earlier on the list that the name of this > draft is misleading in two ways: (i) draft-ietf-multimob-fast-handover is > not a fast handover solution, and (ii) the name "fast handover" is tied to > RFC5568/RFC5949-like schemes for good reasons. >
The draft title contains ... handover optimization ... and it reflects its content. We asked for this WG draft name because of the charter item to which it corresponds. I think this clarifies your confusion. Regards, Behcet > Cheers, > > Thomas > > > On 20.11.2012 00:09, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: >> >> Hi Thomas, >> >> It seems that these requirements are for >> >> draft-schmidt-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast >> >> and not for >> draft-ietf-multimob-fast-handover. >> >> What do you think? >> >> Regards, >> >> Behcet >> >> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Thomas C. Schmidt >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> after the - somewhat uninformed discussion at IETF85 - chairs asked me to >>> restate requirements of a "fast handover solution" for Multicast >>> Mobility. >>> >>> Here they are: >>> >>> (i) Handover should be fast (this is only true for a direct pMAG/AR to >>> nMAG/AR solution such as >>> >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schmidt-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast). >>> >>> (ii) Multicast handover should be fully synchronized with unicast >>> handover >>> (otherwise unicast and multicast states diverge as is a well-known issue >>> for >>> the RAMS-approach, i.e., >>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-multimob-fast-handover). >>> >>> (iii) Multicast handover solutions should tightly integrate with >>> unicast >>> handover (only >>> >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schmidt-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast >>> integrates with PFMIPv6 and FMIPv6). >>> >>> (iv) Handover management should reuse standard mobility and multicast >>> protocol operations for easy implementation and deployment >>> >>> (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schmidt-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast >>> introduced the use of standard IGMP/MLD records for context description >>> in >>> transfer, which has been copied several times). >>> >>> (v) Multicast handover management should integrate ASM and SSM, as well >>> as >>> IPv4 (IGMP) and IPv6 (MLD), which is only provided by >>> >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schmidt-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast. >>> >>> Based on these facts, chairs and AD proclaimed to re-decide on future >>> paths >>> for Multimob fast handover solutions. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Thomas >>> -- >>> >>> Prof. Dr. Thomas C. Schmidt >>> ° Hamburg University of Applied Sciences Berliner Tor 7 >>> ° >>> ° Dept. Informatik, Internet Technologies Group 20099 Hamburg, Germany >>> ° >>> ° http://www.haw-hamburg.de/inet Fon: +49-40-42875-8452 >>> ° >>> ° http://www.informatik.haw-hamburg.de/~schmidt Fax: +49-40-42875-8409 >>> ° >>> _______________________________________________ >>> multimob mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob > > > -- > > Prof. Dr. Thomas C. Schmidt > ° Hamburg University of Applied Sciences Berliner Tor 7 ° > ° Dept. Informatik, Internet Technologies Group 20099 Hamburg, Germany ° > ° http://www.haw-hamburg.de/inet Fon: +49-40-42875-8452 ° > ° http://www.informatik.haw-hamburg.de/~schmidt Fax: +49-40-42875-8409 ° _______________________________________________ multimob mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob
