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

From: James Kempf <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 08:41:45 -0700 (PDT)

Hi Hesham,

>> I think we agree that specifications of smoothing and fast handoff do not 
need 
>> to be linked, if only for practical considerations. 
>> 
>	=> I would like to understand your point here. What difference does it 
>	make if we put the smoothing techniques in the same draft 
>	(as the low latency draft does) or leave them out (as in the v6 draft) ?
>	If we believe smoothing is essential as you said below then why keep it
>	out of a draft which was designed specifically to reduce L3 losses and 
>	delays due to the MIP handover ?
>

Like I said, practical considerations. The difference may be a year
delay in whether the base FMIP gets through the IESG to proposed standard.
I think there is wide agreement (dare I say rough concensus? :-) on FMIP,
but there appears to be no concensus on smoothing.

>	If I'm implementing this function in a product, don't I have to do the 
smoothing
>	anyway ?

Agree 100%. But we've got to have a better understanding of
the issues before we can standardize.

>	Therefore, I think for prctical reasons we should actually have them in 
the 
>	same draft. Otherwise the only difference would be more drafts, more 
paper
>	work and unncessary cycles consumed. 
>

Well, I understand where you are coming from, as I would like a complete
handover solution to be done soon too. But realistically, it takes as
long as it takes. If we can peel off the FMIP work and get IESG to
take a look at that, we can reduce the amount of time later when
we do reach concensus on smoothing.

I'd like to hear from the WG chairs and ADs on this, I guess, since
it seems to me basically a procedural issue. Raj has already come
out for keeping smoothing separate for now, what do the rest of
you think?

		jak

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 10:56:40 -0500

Fast handovers are good, smooth and fast handovers are even better.
I favor coming up preferrably a single draft which achieves this integrated into the
LMM, and it seems that the leading draft for LMM is HMIP.

This put into the fast track standardization should resolve Raj's concerns.
Any thoughts on this?

Regards,

--
Behcet