Hello,
Here are some comments on the requirements :
2> I believe this can be accomplished with micro mobility protocols which hide the mobility to the home network. About the delay to establish the new QoS path, my feeling is that it can be done before the IP handoff by some sort of predictive reservation scheme (which would be relatively easy to set up in a micro mobility domain). The problem here lies when the mobile moves between two micro mobility domains. The QOS path may take more time to be set up but once again some predictive path could be determined in advance.
Using micro mobility has many advantages one of which is that the qos path is not changed in the core (which can then easily use Diffserv since the path is not highly dynamic) when you move within a domain. In the domain itself, it seems feasible to maintain more states and therefore deal with a higher handoff rate.
4> Micro mobility also answers the scalibility problem. Maybe the micro mobility domain can be handled with a Diffserv mechanism but i believe the cells themselves should maintain more states. This comes to the conclusion that you can use Diffserv on the wired part of the network (micro mobility + core) but probably not on the wireless link.
6> I don't understand this. Using the mobile's home address is not fine ?
7> More protection could be provided if the medium has a a high error rate. In IEEE 802.11, many transmission rates (with a more or less robust code -- high rate is less robust of course) are used according to the link's quality. Is this what is meant in this requirement ? What media should be considered ?
8> Is two way really an issue ? Maybe for the ACKs ? RSVP deals with duplex links as 2 simplex links.
9> Same comment as 8>
14> I believe this depends on whether we talk about IPv4 or IPv6. It seems to me that the solution is not the same in both cases. When talking about IPV4/IPV6 being dealt with seperately, i think the principles should be the same (esp. if route optimization is a requirement). However, IPv6 has some specific functionnalities which we should take advantage of.
Gwendal LE GRAND
-------Gwendal LE GRAND-------
mailto:Gwendal.Le-Grand@lip6.fr tel:
+33 (0) 1 44 27 75 12
http://www-rp.lip6.fr/~legrand
fax: +33 (0) 1 44 27 74 95
Universite Pierre et Marie Curie, Laboratoire
LIP6-CNRS, Bureau C646
8 Rue du Capitaine Scott, 75015 Paris,
France
Requirements:
------------
1>
The solution should provide the simultaneous operation of location privacy and route optimization as dog leg routing can increase unecessary delay - affect QoS. A person using a mobile node should not have to sacrifice one for the other.2>
The signaling should be as fast as possible. Waiting on the dynamic dog-leg establishment of a security associations to authenticate and authorize a binding and reservation are occuring is probably not an option.3>
If at all possible the solution should leverage any existing security associations that exist and are utilized in networks today in order to speed up the binding and reservation.4>
The solution should be as scalable as possible. Any effort to reduce the amount to signaling and processing through core edge and intermediary routers should be made. Localization of proxy functions into aggregates and hierarchical topologies at the edge should be utilized to improve the scalability.5>
The solution should be as stateless as possible. States should only be kept at the edge or pertaining to aggregatations.6>
The solution should not require an implementation to key any logical data structures (FIB, RIB, PIB, BC, SIB, etc..) using the source IP address of an MN as this will change.7>
This is really a wireless requirement:
In order to provide for unequal protection of media streams on wireless link layers, the signaling should be able to convey the actual media types used as part of the flows being reserved.8>
The solution should allow for both one way and two way reservation when asymmetric routing is not an issue i.e. a point to point link on the first hop.9>
The solution should work with asymmetric routes.10>
The solution should provide for proxy functions of the signaling with "older" solutions for backward compatibility and when the signaling is considered too verbose for a specific link layer.11>
The solution should provide for fast recovery mechanisms when intermidary nodes fail.12>
A method must be provided to encrypt the signaling as it passes to the affected nodes of the network.13>
A method must be provided to authenticate the credentials of the signaling entities.14>
It should be possible to send an application packet along with the signaling.15>
Authorization and Accounting should be treated as separate, decoupled back-end processes.Questions to discuss:
--------------------1>
Should the signaling solution be the same for IPv4 as for IPv6?2>
What assumptions, if any, can be made about pre-existing security associations between the MN with its visited and home domains can be made?3>
What assumptions, if any, can be made about any pre-existing SAs between a CN and it's visited and home domains can be made?Hope this helps,
Glenn