Hi Thomas, Behcet and all, please my reply inline:
------------------------------------------- Hi Behcet, hi all, please see inline. On 31.07.2012 13:31, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: We did have, apart from draft-schmidt-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast, several other multicast handover solution drafts such as: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vonhugo-multimob-cxtp-extension-01 This draft basically uses the context transfer protocol (RFC4067) to carry multicast state between ARs/MAGs. No full handover operations have been specified. At the unicast side, RFC4067 is a predecessor of the more advanced Fast Handover Protocols does not apply to unicast handover management.... IMO it does not make much sense to consider this rather elementary approach any further. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hui-multimob-fast-handover-04 This draft is - if you want so - a competitor to draft-schmidt-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast, but has never been worked out (as have several other attempts in the past). If this document was to be advanced, it had to rewrite (or copy ??) 80 % of our draft, which is not a proper way to treat authorship. ===> I aggree draft-hui-multimob-fast-handover-04 is a competitor of draft-schmidt-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast. Further more, draft-hui-multimob-fast-handover was written in June 2009 and after this draft was submitted for more than half a year, other similar draft was submitted and have a lot common idea of our draft. So I really do not see why someone say if this document was to be advanced, it will need to "COPY" 80% of draft-schmidt-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast? To Behcet: 1. First of all, may I ask why IETF need more than one solution for one problem? 2. If the group have decided to allow more than one WG draft forthis problem, I then also request the group to consider draft-hui-multimob-fast-handover-04 as one basis of WG document. Regards, Dapeng Liu If we decide to accept more than one handover solution then we probably need to consider all of them for possible WG adoption. I don't understand your thinking here: it is perfectly normal that there are competing approaches and the idea of the IETF discussion is to have the best solution win. From the performance side, and from protocol systematics (cooperation with unicast), draft-schmidt-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast is clearly the best solution for fast handover operations - this comparison includes the adopted draft "fast handover from transient binding". 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
