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

From: James Kempf <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 11:36:48 -0700 (PDT)

>> Fast and smooth are tightly linked. So we cannot move Fast on without
>> having come to some solution for smooth. They should go hand in hand
>> through standards process, which is why I don't like the idea of
>> delaying bicasting/buffering for later.
>
>I don't agree here.  I would like a smoothing solution also and would
>like to see discussion on this progress.  But one of the important cases
>could be L2 support for smoothing.  For such an environment, having fast
>handoffs with MIP would be a big plus and there is not necessarily demand
>for smoothing support.
>

Yes, I think this is the key issue. There are some cases where sufficiently
tight L2 information on the sequencing of events during handover would
render smoothing irrelevent (they may not be common, but nevertheless). On the 
other hand, nobody is arguing that L2 information will render the FMIP 
techniques irrelevent, on the contrary.

		jak

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 14:11:11 -0400

The draft:
draft-ietf-mobileip-fast-mipv6-02.txt
has so many editorial problems including the following:
No table of contents. Figures 1-3 captions should end with handover, e.g.
Stateless Handover.
More importantly section 5.1 on Dad handling should include some text on the links
that do not require any DAD such as 3GPP links as per
draft-manyfolks-ipv6-cellular-host-00.txt.

Regards,

--
Behcet

---

From: Gopal Dommety <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 08:36:59 -0700

Thanks Behcet. I have corrected the Captions. Also let me know if you find 
other mistakes.

As for the DAD handling, how about the the following statement at the end 
of second paragraph of section 5.1. Let me know....

"Links wherein the  uniqueness of the interface identifier is ensured with 
in the subnet (by means beyond the scope of this document),  DAD handling 
procedures could be avoided."

thanks

-Gopal