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

From: James Kempf <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 11:30:35 -0700 (PDT)

Hi Phil,

>There does seem to be some consensus that if a smoothing technique is chosen
>it should be through bicasting or simultaneous binding rather than some kind
>of
>buffering.  At the minimum we should have a discussion of why the tradeoff
>of
>accepting the possibility of duplicate packets weighs more heavily than
>accepting
>the possibility of lost packets and the results should be documented.
>

I have not heard much from advocates of buffering in the discussion
so far, so I would have to agree.

>George has also asserted (and speaking for myself personally I also agree
>with)
>that implementations in some environments at least can solve this without
>any kind
>of protocol support at layer 3.
>

I agree also.

>Does this seem to summarize everyone's position accurately?  Does this
>answer your question
>enough, Jim?
>

Yes, thanx.

>Of course, others contributing to the conversation COULD help,

Agree.

		jak

---

From: Rajeev Koodli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 10:08:02 -0700

Hello James,

> so far, so I would have to agree.

I don't understand your viewpoint. Just because you have not heard from
buffering advocates does not imply that the alternative is the way to go. There
are at least two things to consider. First, you are proposing to add a
particular smoothing technique to FMIPv6. I am registering my complaint saying
that it is not the right thing to do. FMIPv6 must be able to work independently
of bicasting. I have provided the problems stemming from header compression as
an example to illustrate the added complexity. Second, taking up smoothing as a
topic by itself, it is not a foregone conclusion that bicasting/simultaneous
binding are the only means. This is an open area and we need discussion and
*real experimental* evidence. Also, the header compression example hold here as
well.

Regards,

-Rajeev