Subject: [Mipshop] Re: FMIPv6 FBU lifetime

From: yechengping <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 10:56:55 +0800

Hi 
	If a "large enough" value be set to cover all "realistic"
scenarios now, perhaps in the future some application that  need a
larger value than the "large enough" value  will not  be execute I
think. If the "large enough" value is very large, Security  must be
carefully Considered.

BR
Chengping Ye

_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop

---

From: Rajeev Koodli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 21:00:33 -0700

Hello Wassim, Vijay and Chengping Ye,

I also think the Lifetime should be a configurable value in FBU so that 
it can request a particular value. FBack returns the value that PAR can 
support.

Regards,

-Rajeev

 with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FYxgz-000640-Hi
	for [email-masked]; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 00:01:26 -0400
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 21:00:33 -0700
From: Rajeev Koodli <[email-masked]>
To: yechengping <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Mipshop] Re: FMIPv6 FBU lifetime
Cc: [email-masked]

Hello Wassim, Vijay and Chengping Ye,

I also think the Lifetime should be a configurable value in FBU so that 
it can request a particular value. FBack returns the value that PAR can 
support.

Regards,

-Rajeev

---

From: Wassim Haddad <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 07:08:37 +0300 (EEST)

> it can request a particular value. FBack returns the value that PAR can

=> Can you please clarify where would be the problem if the MN always
request the value that the PAR supports (which is supposed to be large
enough)?

Regards,

Wassim H.

---

From: yechengping <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 12:35:35 +0800

Hi Wassim, Vijay and Rajeev,

	The same opinions were presented with different ways.

BR,
Chengping Ye

-----Original Message-----
From: Wassim Haddad [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 12:09 PM
To: Rajeev Koodli
Cc: yechengping; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Mipshop] Re: FMIPv6 FBU lifetime

On Wed, 26 Apr 2006, Rajeev Koodli wrote:

> I also think the Lifetime should be a configurable value in FBU so 
> that it can request a particular value. FBack returns the value that 
> PAR can support.

Regards,

Wassim H.

> > 	If a "large enough" value be set to cover all "realistic"
scenarios 
> > now, perhaps in the future some application that  need a larger 
> > value than the "large enough" value  will not  be execute I think. 
> > If the "large enough" value is very large, Security  must be 
> > carefully Considered.
> >
> > BR
> > Chengping Ye
> >
> >
> >
> > [email-masked] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop
>
>
> [email-masked] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop
>
>

---

From: Rajeev Koodli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 15:21:33 -0700

> request the value that the PAR supports (which is supposed to be large

Are you suggesting that we predefine a value for Lifetime in FBU which 
translates to "Give me whatever Lifetime you have"?

-Rajeev

---

From: Wassim Haddad <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 04:46:34 +0300 (EEST)

> translates to "Give me whatever Lifetime you have"?

=> Yes and no depending on what you mean: IMHO, yes it makes sense to
predefine a value on the AR, which can also help the MN in deciding if
using FMIPv6 is worthy or not. In fact, if the MN is unable to update its
CN within the predefined amount of time (i.e., and return to a normal
routing) then the use of FMIPv6 is questionable! Otherwise, sending
another FBU to the same pAR just to request additional lifetime does not
sound as the best compromise!

Actually, do you see any need to use FMIPv6 when the quality of the session
is already bad? What is the motivation to increase the signaling on the MN
in this case? Is it to keep the quality "bad" or to prevent it from getting
"worse"?!

Wassim H.