Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] Handover Smoothing - What to Do?

From: George Tsirtsis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 10:37:22 -0400

So you did not miss it :)

Pat, I never said stop all development, if that is what you thought I meant
:)...I only said that specs should be clear about problems that a technology
might cause and I do not like coupling such a technology with another
technology (in this case FMIP) that does not cause such problems...

I am all for studying bicasting, comparing it with other smoothing
mechanisms and deciding on what to do an a fashion orthogonal to FMIP.

George

-----Original Message-----
From: Pat Calhoun [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 3:14 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [mobile-ip] Handover Smoothing - What to Do?

On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 10:18:58AM -0400, George Tsirtsis wrote:
> Maybe you have missed this...please see my response to Mike on the same
> question...
> I feel like a broken record by there you go :-0

but your response is in regards to a problem that is being fixed. Should
we stop all development until the fix has an RFC number? I don't think so.
Folks that want to build mobile devices will include this fix. Folks
running general purpose OSes that don't include the fix can complain to
their
OS supplier.

> P.S: in your question...what is "infrequent"??? the handoff? I do not
think
> so....

Relative to staying within a cell, yes, but I suppose with pico cells that's
not the case. In any case, I'm not saying let's design a protocol assuming 
the mobile doesn't handoff often, in case that's what you thought I meant :)

PatC

---

From: Pat Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 07:43:50 -0700

> mechanisms and deciding on what to do an a fashion orthogonal to FMIP.

Excellent. Let's also make sure that we study buffering in as much detail,
since I'm sure it'll uncover a few interesting nuggets.

PatC