Hello, =
Here are some =
comments on the=20
requirements :
2> I believe =
this can be=20
accomplished with micro mobility protocols which hide the =
mobility to=20
the home network. About the delay to establish the new QoS path, my =
feeling=20
is that it can be done before the IP handoff by some sort of =
predictive=20
reservation scheme (which would be relatively easy to set up in a =
micro=20
mobility domain). The problem here lies when the mobile moves =
between=20
two micro mobility domains. The QOS path may take more time to =
be set=20
up but once again some predictive path could be determined in =
advance.=20
Using micro =
mobility has many=20
advantages one of which is that the qos path is not =
changed in the=20
core (which can then easily use Diffserv since the path is not =
highly=20
dynamic) when you move within a domain. In the domain itself, it =
seems=20
feasible to maintain more states and therefore deal with a =
higher=20
handoff rate.
[Phil Roberts]
Could =
you clarify=20
what you mean =
by micromobility?
4> Micro =
mobility also=20
answers the scalibility problem. Maybe the micro mobility domain can =
be=20
handled with a Diffserv mechanism but i believe the cells themselves =
should=20
maintain more states. This comes to the conclusion that you can use =
Diffserv=20
on the wired part of the network (micro mobility + core) but =
probably not on=20
the wireless link.
6> I don't =
understand=20
this. Using the mobile's home address is not fine ? =
7> More =
protection could=20
be provided if the medium has a a high error rate. In IEEE 802.11, =
many=20
transmission rates (with a more or less robust code -- high rate is =
less=20
robust of course) are used according to the link's quality. Is this =
what is=20
meant in this requirement ? What media should be considered ?=20
8> Is two way =
really an=20
issue ? Maybe for the ACKs ? RSVP deals with duplex links as 2 =
simplex=20
links.
9> =
Same comment as=20
8>
14> I believe =
this depends=20
on whether we talk about IPv4 or IPv6. It seems to me that the =
solution is=20
not the same in both cases. When talking about IPV4/IPV6 being dealt =
with=20
seperately, i think the principles should be the same (esp. if route =
optimization is a requirement). However, IPv6 has some specific=20
functionnalities which we should take advantage of. =
Gwendal LE=20
GRAND
-------Gwendal LE GRAND-------
mailto:Gwendal.Le-Grand@lip6.fr<=
/A>=20
tel: +33 (0) 1 44 27 75 12
http://www-rp.lip6.fr/~legrand =20
fax: +33 (0) 1 44 27 74 95
Universite Pierre et Marie Curie, =
Laboratoire=20
LIP6-CNRS, Bureau C646
8 Rue du Capitaine Scott, 75015 Paris,=20
France
Requirements:
------------=20
1>
The solution =
should provide=20
the simultaneous operation of location privacy and route =
optimization as=20
dog leg routing can increase unecessary delay - affect QoS. A =
person using=20
a mobile node should not have to sacrifice one for the =
other.
2>
The signaling =
should be as=20
fast as possible. Waiting on the dynamic dog-leg establishment of =
a=20
security associations to authenticate and authorize a binding and=20
reservation are occuring is probably not an option.
3>
If at all =
possible the=20
solution should leverage any existing security associations that =
exist and=20
are utilized in networks today in order to speed up the binding =
and=20
reservation.
4>
The solution =
should be as=20
scalable as possible. Any effort to reduce the amount to signaling =
and=20
processing through core edge and intermediary routers should be =
made.=20
Localization of proxy functions into aggregates and hierarchical=20
topologies at the edge should be utilized to improve the=20
scalability.
5>
The solution =
should be as=20
stateless as possible. States should only be kept at the edge or=20
pertaining to aggregatations.
6>
The solution =
should not=20
require an implementation to key any logical data structures (FIB, =
RIB,=20
PIB, BC, SIB, etc..) using the source IP address of an MN as this =
will=20
change.
7>
This is really a =
wireless=20
requirement:
In order to provide for =
unequal=20
protection of media streams on wireless link layers, the signaling =
should=20
be able to convey the actual media types used as part of the flows =
being=20
reserved.
8>
The solution =
should allow=20
for both one way and two way reservation when asymmetric routing =
is not an=20
issue i.e. a point to point link on the first hop.
9>
The solution =
should work=20
with asymmetric routes.
10>
The solution =
should provide=20
for proxy functions of the signaling with "older" solutions for =
backward=20
compatibility and when the signaling is considered too verbose for =
a=20
specific link layer.
11>
The solution =
should provide=20
for fast recovery mechanisms when intermidary nodes fail. =
12>
A method must =
be provided=20
to encrypt the signaling as it passes to the affected nodes of the =
network.
13>
A method must =
be provided=20
to authenticate the credentials of the signaling entities. =
14>
It should be =
possible to=20
send an application packet along with the signaling.
15>
Authorization =
and=20
Accounting should be treated as separate, decoupled back-end=20
processes.
Questions to discuss:
--------------------
1>
Should the =
signaling=20
solution be the same for IPv4 as for IPv6?
2>
What =
assumptions, if any,=20
can be made about pre-existing security associations between the =
MN with=20
its visited and home domains can be made?
3>
What =
assumptions, if any,=20
can be made about any pre-existing SAs between a CN and it's =
visited and=20
home domains can be made?
Hope this helps,
Glenn =