RE: [MIP-QOS] MIP QoS requirements

["ext Phil Roberts" <PRoberts@MEGISTO.com>]

> Hi Phil,

Hi,
> > I haven't seen any mention of the presence of a foreign 
> > agent.  Does the
> > presence of lack of a foreign agent impact the requirements 
> > at all? 
> 
> Yes, foreign agent will come into picture a lot, but I think 
> in the solution
> space, not the requirements space. What do I mean by that? 
> When there is a
> foreign agent, the path change will be limited to the last 
> segment between
> FA and MN. We will cover that with the requirement of 
> "localizing the QoS 
> (re)programming whenever possible".

I'm not sure talking about the presence or lack of a foreign agent puts
anything in the solution space.  Are there specific requirements that are
there when there is one and when there isn't one.

But what about when there is a change of FA?  That's beyond the scope of
localization.

> 
> 
> > What
> > about regional registration?
> 
> Given the fact that we should not touch the solution space,  
> we should leave
> this at stating "interoperability with micro-mobility".

What I was trying to get at is that the set of MIP WG produced standards
puts a number of different configurations into play.  To what extent are the
requirements different if reg. reg. is being used in the network.

And we should really try to avoid using the term micro-mobility.  I don't
think seamoby was able to converge on a good definition and it's probably
not worth the headaches of trying to explain ourselves.

Phil