Re: [MIP-QOS] RE: MIP-QOS MIP QoS Mailing List is Active Now

["ext chuah" <chuah@hoserve.ho.lucent.com>]

Hi,
my 2cents

Comments to Requirements:

1) shouldn't these be the requirements for mobility management topic?
If they design it right, we will have optimized route as well as location
privacy (location privacy should be an option).

2) the signaling mechanism should be robust against out-of-order delivery

3) agreed

4) are we assuming only the same type of signaling mechanism works e2e (across
access network as well as core network)?

5) perhaps should include edges between different administrative domains
in the core network as well

6) I don't quite understand this requirement. Also, can someone enlighten me 
when we will have mobile equipment that can change source IP address say during 
an on-going web session? 

7) wouldn't a solution that provides mechanism to specify QOS requirements 
suffice to take care of this rather than specially say what media type?

8) agreed

9) agreed but are asymmetric routes common? In some cases, we may not want
asymmetric routes (ease of traffic engineering, revenue collection reasoning)

10) I don't understand this requirement. can Glenn explain what he meant
by older solutions? RSVP-based solution?

11) should we treat network element redundancy and failover mechanisms 
separately? however, we may need to specify how the mobile node can
quickly use alternative route when one route cann't be used.

12) not sure if this is always required

13) agreed

14) can you pls explain why?

15) agreed

Mooi Choo
=========================================================================
Here goes a first stab at discussion:

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