Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] Analysis of Jitter in Bicasting

From: George Tsirtsis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 14:56:42 -0400

-----Original Message-----
From: James Kempf [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 7:37 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] Analysis of Jitter in Bicasting

>   Indeed, I suspect that the end-to-end principal is our friend
>   here. Real time traffic already uses jitter buffers, and good
>   ones are adaptive to transient conditions. For this kind of
>   traffic, you most definitely would *not* want L2-L3 smoothing
>   jitter out for you or you might end up with unnecessary additive
>   latency. I'm not sure that jitter concealment would be all that
>   useful in other places though. TCP's should be fairly resilient
>   to small amounts of jitter, which I would expect would be the
>   case with localized handoff schemes such as FMIP (ie, adding
>   80ms to an average RTT of 80ms because of FMIP handoff, should
>   get lost in the noise.)
>      

The other alternative is to actually not bicast at all, but to
simply have old AR start tunnelling when it sees that L2 has
stopped sending packets through old AR. If it can get this
information. Much more bandwidth efficient anyway...

GT> yes! yes! and assuming the network is well dimentioned as you suggested
earlier this should work fine.

---

From: "Alper" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 00:23:26 -0700

aey>	exactly. if your L2 can tell you when a MN attaches or detaches, you
don't
	need to use bi-casting. This not only saves the network bandwidth and
	prevent possible packet duplication, but also saves processing power on
	the AR. With bicasting, AR needs to duplicate packets and send both
	copies.

alper