Subject: [netext] research article about a flat and distributed PMIP scheme

From: Bokor Laszlo <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 12:54:55 +0200

Dear Folks,

please let me advertise you a research paper about a flat and distributed
PMIP scheme:

Title: Evaluation of two integrated signalling schemes for the Ultra Flat
Architecture using SIP, IEEE 802.21, and HIP/PMIP protocols
ACM link: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1975468
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2011.02.005

I hope you will find the above article interesting, and also that you will
provide us with feedbacks on our work.

Best regards,
goodzi

--
László BOKOR
Budapest University of Technology and Economics (BME)
Department of Telecommunications (HIT) - Mobile Innovation Centre (MIK)
Tel: +36-1-463-3420, Fax: +36-1-463-3307
web: http://www.hit.bme.hu/~bokorl

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 14:51:46 +0300

Tell us, what is the conclusion with relevance for this group? 

On Jul 14, 2011, at 1:54 PM, Bokor Laszlo wrote:

> Dear Folks,
> 
> please let me advertise you a research paper about a flat and distributed PMIP scheme:
> 
> Title: Evaluation of two integrated signalling schemes for the Ultra Flat Architecture using SIP, IEEE 802.21, and HIP/PMIP protocols
> I hope you will find the above article interesting, and also that you will provide us with feedbacks on our work.
> 
> Best regards,
> goodzi
> 
> --
> László BOKOR
> web: http://www.hit.bme.hu/~bokorl _______________________________________________
> netext mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext

---

From: Bokor Laszlo <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 17:14:12 +0200

Dear Hannes,

I believe that the PMIP-related results of this paper could be interesting
for the NETEXT community. The main conclusion is that the introduced
SIP+IEEE 802.21+PMIP signalling scheme is quite a promising and suitable
candidate for future flat mobile architectures. We have compared the
SIP+IEEE 802.21+PMIP solution with the SIP+IEEE 802.21+HIP scheme in a well
defined network modell and found that both proposals have nearly the same
performance, however the HIP-based scheme got slightly better scores under
our criteria set due to its stronger security and fewer functional elements
to deploy.

Best regards,
goodzi

2011/7/14 Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>

> > I hope you will find the above article interesting, and also that you
> will provide us with feedbacks on our work.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > goodzi
> >
> > --
> > László BOKOR
> > web: http://www.hit.bme.hu/~bokorl_______________________________________________
> > netext mailing list
> > [email-masked]

---

From: Sri Gundavelli <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 11:23:44 -0700

> The main conclusion is that the introduced SIP+IEEE 802.21+PMIP signalling
scheme is quite a promising and suitable candidate for future flat mobile
architectures.

Thanks Goodzi for the information and sharing the paper. Very nice to know
that.

> however the HIP-based scheme got slightly better scores under our criteria set
due to its stronger security and fewer functional elements to deploy.

Well ..we need to see the criteria. It appears we need some tweaking there
for the HIP :). In PMIP model, clearly there is the access authentication
requirement, security between the network elements and the MAG authorization
aspect, that should be sufficient for any trusted network model.

Regards
Sri

On 7/14/11 8:14 AM, "Bokor Laszlo" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> 
> Dear Hannes,
> 
> I believe that the PMIP-related results of this paper could be interesting for
> the NETEXT community. The main conclusion is that the introduced SIP+IEEE
> 802.21+PMIP signalling scheme is quite a promising and suitable candidate for
> future flat mobile architectures. We have compared the SIP+IEEE 802.21+PMIP
> solution with the SIP+IEEE 802.21+HIP scheme in a well defined network modell
> and found that both proposals have nearly the same performance, however the
> HIP-based scheme got slightly better scores under our criteria set due to its
> stronger security and fewer functional elements to deploy.
> 
> Best regards,
> goodzi
> 
> --
> László BOKOR
>>> > web: http://www.hit.bme.hu/~bokorl <http://www.hit.bme.hu/%7Ebokorl>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> > netext mailing list
>>> > [email-masked]
> _______________________________________________
> netext mailing list
> [email-masked]

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 01:26:24 +0300

Thanks. 

One question though: Isn't  SIP+IEEE 802.21+PMIP vs. SIP+IEEE 802.21+HIP a comparison of apples and oranges? 
Wouldn't it be more natural to compare SIP+IEEE 802.21+MIP and SIP+IEEE 802.21+HIP as well as SIP+IEEE 802.21+PMIP and SIP+IEEE 802.21+proxy HIP? 

Ciao
Hannes

PS: Do you know something about the deployment status of IEEE 802.21? 

On Jul 17, 2011, at 9:23 PM, Sri Gundavelli wrote:

> > The main conclusion is that the introduced SIP+IEEE 802.21+PMIP signalling scheme is quite a promising and suitable candidate for future flat mobile architectures.
> 
> Thanks Goodzi for the information and sharing the paper. Very nice to know that.
> 
> > however the HIP-based scheme got slightly better scores under our criteria set due to its stronger security and fewer functional elements to deploy.
> 
> Well ..we need to see the criteria. It appears we need some tweaking there for the HIP :). In PMIP model, clearly there is the access authentication requirement, security between the network elements and the MAG authorization aspect, that should be sufficient for any trusted network model.
> 
> Regards
> Sri
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> I believe that the PMIP-related results of this paper could be interesting for the NETEXT community. The main conclusion is that the introduced SIP+IEEE 802.21+PMIP signalling scheme is quite a promising and suitable candidate for future flat mobile architectures. We have compared the SIP+IEEE 802.21+PMIP solution with the SIP+IEEE 802.21+HIP scheme in a well defined network modell and found that both proposals have nearly the same performance, however the HIP-based scheme got slightly better scores under our criteria set due to its stronger security and fewer functional elements to deploy.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> goodzi
>> 
>> --
>> László BOKOR
>>> > web: http://www.hit.bme.hu/~bokorl <http://www.hit.bme.hu/%7Ebokorl>  _______________________________________________
>>> > netext mailing list
>>> > [email-masked]

---

From: Bokor Laszlo <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 13:28:30 +0200

Dear Sri,

you are right, the evaluation results depend a lot on the criteria. However,
a carefully created criteria set could help in accomplishing objective
analysis, and that is what we tried to achieve. Our results can be used for
locating possible weaknesses and bottlenecks of both PMIP and HIP in flat
environments, but of course there are potential ways for enhancements in the
application of our scheme.

Best regards,
goodzi

2011/7/17 Sri Gundavelli <[email-masked]>

>  > The main conclusion is that the introduced SIP+IEEE 802.21+PMIP
> signalling scheme is quite a promising and suitable candidate for future
> flat mobile architectures.
>
> > however the HIP-based scheme got slightly better scores under our
> criteria set due to its stronger security and fewer functional elements to
> deploy.
>
> ------------------------------

---

From: Bokor Laszlo <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 15:03:00 +0200

Dear Hannes,

thanks for your insights. Please find my answers inline.

> Wouldn't it be more natural to compare SIP+IEEE 802.21+MIP and SIP+IEEE
802.21+HIP as well as SIP+IEEE 802.21+PMIP
> and SIP+IEEE 802.21+proxy HIP?
Yes, you are right, your proposed coupling is more natural. However, we had
to take other aspects (like available resources, level of standardization of
the protocol to be integrated, etc.) into consideration during this work
which resulted in some trade-offs. Of course we will follow your valuable
suggestions in our future work.

> PS: Do you know something about the deployment status of IEEE 802.21?
As far as I know IEEE 802.21 is quite far from being a widespreadly deployed
****protocol but vendors are interested in its promising toolset and ongoing
projects (e.g., CELTIC-Plus MEVICO) are also dealing with
integration/implementation/further evaluation questions of 802.21 MIH. It
has its alternatives and rivals (e.g., 3GPP ANDSF) and time will tell which
one will be the winner (even mixed/integrated scenarios could be feasible).

Best regards,
goodzi

2011/7/18 Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>

> Wouldn't it be more natural to compare SIP+IEEE 802.21+MIP and SIP+IEEE
> 802.21+HIP as well as SIP+IEEE 802.21+PMIP and SIP+IEEE 802.21+proxy HIP?
>
> Ciao
> Hannes
>
> > Well ..we need to see the criteria. It appears we need some tweaking
> there for the HIP :). In PMIP model, clearly there is the access
> authentication requirement, security between the network elements and the
> MAG authorization aspect, that should be sufficient for any trusted network
> model.
> >
> > Regards
> > Sri
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> I believe that the PMIP-related results of this paper could be
> interesting for the NETEXT community. The main conclusion is that the
> introduced SIP+IEEE 802.21+PMIP signalling scheme is quite a promising and
> suitable candidate for future flat mobile architectures. We have compared
> the SIP+IEEE 802.21+PMIP solution with the SIP+IEEE 802.21+HIP scheme in a
> well defined network modell and found that both proposals have nearly the
> same performance, however the HIP-based scheme got slightly better scores
> under our criteria set due to its stronger security and fewer functional
> elements to deploy.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> goodzi
> >>
> >> --
> >> László BOKOR
> >>> > Title: Evaluation of two integrated signalling schemes for the Ultra
> Flat Architecture using SIP, IEEE 802.21, and HIP/PMIP protocols

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 17:15:36 +0200

Dear Hannes,
Is there actually Proxy HIP (already) on the agenda of HIP WG or HIPRG? I didn't find that at a first glance on MLs and charters ...
Thanks for providing a pointer!

Best regards
Dirk

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] Im Auftrag von Hannes Tschofenig
Gesendet: Montag, 18. Juli 2011 00:26
An: Sri Gundavelli
Cc: [email-masked]
Betreff: Re: [netext] research article about a flat and distributed PMIP scheme

Thanks.

Ciao
Hannes

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 08:39:29 -0700 (PDT)

> PS: Do you know something about the deployment  status of IEEE 802.21? 

I think any work on 802.21 is purely academic at this moment.

Behcet