RE: [MIP-QOS] MIP QoS requirements

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hemant.Chaskar@nokia.com [mailto:Hemant.Chaskar@nokia.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 3:37 PM
> To: mip-qos@research.nokia.com
> Subject: RE: [MIP-QOS] MIP QoS requirements
> 
> 
> Hi Phil,
> 
> What could be the scenarios when FA changes without handover? 
> If FA changes
> as a consequence of handover, we have covered it with the general
> requirement that, upon handover, the end-to-end path 
> traversed by packets
> may change and QoS mechanism must establish proper forwarding 
> treatment
> along this new path. Do you think we should go deeper on such 
> points and
> mention example scenarios such as change in FA or change in corssover
> router, mobility agent etc. Please advise.

I read what you wrote as being concerned only about the link between the MN
and the FA,
rather than moving across an FA which would involve at least one more.
That's all I had in mind.


> 
> Also we will not use the term micro-mobility to avoid any confusion.
> 
> Hemant
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ext Phil Roberts [mailto:PRoberts@MEGISTO.com]
> > Sent: 18. April 2001 15:13
> > To: 'mip-qos@research.nokia.com'
> > Subject: RE: [MIP-QOS] MIP QoS requirements
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > 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
> > 
>