RE: [MIP-QOS] MIP QoS requirements

["ext Michael Thomas" <mat@cisco.com>]

ext Phil Roberts writes:
 > > ext Phil Roberts writes:
 > >  > 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?  What
 > >  > about regional registration?
 > > 
 > >    Yes. Also FMIP. THere are implications with RSVP about 
 > >    creating new reservations for the tunnel interface for
 > >    the forward tunnel. The interesting question I have is
 > >    how that reservation is authorized in a reasonable 
 > >    amount of time (ie, that meets "fast" timing
 > >    requirements).
 > 
 > Yes, good point about FMIP.  What kind of requirements does its presence
 > generate?

   It would require an RFC 2746-like tunnel to be established
   from the old AR to MN. The problem is with how it interacts
   with the policy module. I do not believe that COPS as currently
   speced allows for "offline" or pre-authorized decisions -- 
   the PDP has hard state and needs to be kept coherent. As such,
   the implication is that tunnel establishment might require
   a round trip to the PDP which may not be a good idea. Also
   it's not entirely clear whose credentials should be put in
   the policy object. By the standards, that would ARold, but
   is that correct here?

   Frankly, I think the main requirement is that QoS Policy
   in the face of interrealm operation be far more explicit
   than it is right now. Unless I've missed something really
   large, it seems to be contained in about two obscure
   sentences in RFC 2752. Also, flexibility of who supplies
   the credentials may be a requirement.

		   Mike