Problem Statement for Link-layer Triggers work
draft-williams-l2-probstmt-00
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | James Kempf , Alper E. Yegin | ||
| Last updated | 2002-06-26 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
Much discussion has resulted over the last few years regarding L2 triggers in wired and wireless scenarios. Recent wireless goals have been to collect requirements from various IETF related working groups for L2 triggers in wireless environments. For example, the Mobile IP and SeaMoby working groups require such L2 information to optimize handoff. It was the hope that the output of such an effort would be used to design an API or protocol if desired. A requirements draft [REQ] discusses requirements from the following FMIPv6, low latency MIPv4, and SeaMoby context transfer work. Discussion over the last several months in the PILC working group raises concerns about a generic L2 trigger framework independent if the it is for wired-line or wireless application. The goal of this document is to provide a clear problem statement of L2 triggers. Discussion has also been documented in this problem statement regarding special needs of the wireless application. For example, the method for communicating L2 information to L3 may be better suited for the wire-lined case (e.g., MIB) but not for the wireless scenario. Finally, recommendations on where to go with the L2 trigger area in IETF has been provided. This draft is preliminary.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)