Subject: Re: [Mipshop] Re: FMIPv6 FBU lifetime

From: Rajeev Koodli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 May 2006 11:52:16 -0700

Wassim,

Wassim Haddad wrote:

> => 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!
> 

I am not sure what you mean exactly.. I am finding it hard to imagine an 
AR rejecting a Lifetime unless it is an unreasonable value. Often we 
face these configurable parameters and specify a reasonable value. I am 
open for a reasonable default value.

> 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"?!
> 

It is upto the individual deployment scenario.

-Rajeev

> Wassim H.

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