Hi Vidya,
Thanks for this draft. It must be hard work to puzzle out this
complicated problem:)
I have a few comments.
- There are well summarized protocol descriptions in section4.1. I
wonder if you can list the mobility and multihoming
characteristics of each protocol maybe with some tables.
For example, MIP6 provides permanent addresses (i.e. HoA)
reachability, but not always guarantee the path reachability like
SHIM6 does. An IPv6 node may not be aware of unreachability of a MN
unless it explicitly exchanges a binding with the MN (RO).
The comparison of protocols is useful to see the common functions.
In future, some of the functions may be taken by each protocol and
can be
standardized as a universal spec. for all the protocols.
The policy exchange issue raised by Jari on this ML is just one
example.
Alternatively, if two protocols do a same operation (ex. keep-
alive beacon),
one of protocol can skip the operation as an optimization.
- MIP has special meaning to the "home" network. The consideration of
returning home is somehow missing in this document.
For example, MN has two interfaces attached to home network and
foreign network simultaneously. This configuration has been
discussed in Monami6 and not solved yet.
- We will have presentation about effectiveness of MCoA for MIP6
handover at MIPSHOP and MOBOPTS meeting. You may be interested in
our presentation. In our experimentation, a MN registerd two CoA
assigned to EvDo and another wireless system called iburst. No
packet drop was observed during the L3 handover (vertical
handoff). We used L2 indication implemented as 802.21. MCoA is not
originally designed for handover, but it provides good performance
in some scenarios (not horizontal,but only vertical).
- In section 6.2, you conclude that the netlmm cannot support
multihoming. However, even if a MN obtains different IP addresses
(let's say HoA1, HoA2) from relative MAG (MAG1 and MAG2), the prefix
received from MAGs must be same. Thus, the traffic sent with HoA1
can be routed to the default router (MAG2), because MAG1 and MAG2
are reachable default router for the home prefix. MAG is always
able to filter out such traffic, but I believe IPv6 conceptually
allows this operation.
- SCTP is a transport protocol and is out of scope in this document,
but it does support multihoming.
I tested SCTP and MIP6 integration on real implementation last year.
As a result, if a MN has multiple interfaces and has active CoAs on
each interface, SCTP can optimize the handover latency of MIP6.
In addition to this, one of good feature is that SCTP is capable of
changing association end-points regardless of IPv4 and IPv6.
You can change end point address from IPv4 to IPv6 and vice versa.
This is very good future for mobility, though DSMIP is being
stardized in MIP6 WG.
regards,
ryuji
On 2007/03/15, at 17:40, Narayanan, Vidya wrote:
All,
We have submitted a draft describing the interactions and
architectural
usage models involving various IP mobility and multihoming protocols
that have/are being specified here at the IETF. We'd appreciate review
and comments from the community.
Thanks,
Vidya
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
