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

From: James Kempf <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 11:36:54 -0700 (PDT)

>   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...

		jak

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 12:01:27 -0700

> information. Much more bandwidth efficient anyway...

with buffering on the new router to store the tunneled packets
till the mobile node actually shows up.

vijay