Re: [MEXT] Well-known problem with authentication/etc. in wirelessnetworks

Hello Basavaraj,

Thanks for your correction/clarification.

Yes, I agree that in certain cases LTE can
do very fast handovers, of course, given the
installation of sufficiently high-performance
hardware to handle the additional signaling
requirement as designed for the special cases,
or homogeneous physical media.  And,
eventually, they could do fast handovers
for all physical media, with perhaps m*n^^2
hardware solutions for m applications and
n physical media.

I think that we could reasonably expect to
do better handovers in almost all cases
with a more flexible design based on Mobile IP,
FMIP, and PMIP.

I also agree that handovers are hampered by
authentication requirements serialized after
link establishment.  Pre-registration techniques
have been shown to ameliorate this problem
quite well even with "single-radio" handset
operation.  This "should" have been integrated
with FMIP, in my opinion.

Regards,
Charlie P.



On 8/26/2011 12:01 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
> Hi Charlie,
>
> On 8/26/11 1:38 PM, "ext Charles E. Perkins"<[email protected]>  wrote:
>>
>>>> Thus I am still not sure what the problem is.
>>
>>
>> The problem is that they can't do very effective handovers.
>> Worse, they are designing _per-application_ handover systems.
>> This is wrong by most reasonable engineering standards,
>> regardless on the positive effect it might have for
>> standards junkies and permanent employment for engineers.
>
> Effective handovers between what networks? Handovers within the scope of
> an HSPA or LTE access for example work fine.
> If you are referring to handovers between 3G accesses and wifi (non-3GPP
> access) then yes.
> But the handover performance in such a scenario is hampered by other
> factors such as latency in connectivity and authentication etc.
>
> -Basavaraj
>
>
>>
>>
>>> There's probably very little impetus for change no matter what MEXT
>>> does.
>>
>>
>> I agree that, if [mext] does nothing,
>> there won't be much impetus for change.
>> But if we do something that is (a) secure,
>> (b) deployable, (c) easier to administer,
>> and (d) considerably better performance,
>> then I reckon they'd have to be purposefully
>> resistant to insist on ignoring it.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Charlie P.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> MEXT mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>
> _______________________________________________
> MEXT mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>