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

From: George Tsirtsis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 13:35:08 -0400

-----Original Message-----
From: Rajeev Koodli [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 6:28 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [mobile-ip] Handover Smoothing - What to Do?

...
Reiterating my point, this must not be part of FMIPv6. Time permitting,
I will work on a separate draft for smoothing and HC and outline these
issues in detail.

GT> Rajeev, just to make sure I understand, do you think that bicasting
should be part of FMIPv4 instead or you just do not care about it so match?
Are the concerns you have IPv6 specific in any way?

George

---

From: Rajeev Koodli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 10:54:32 -0700

George,

> Are the concerns you have IPv6 specific in any way?

Rajeev: My personal opinion (without having participated in the design team
discussion!) is that any fast handover protocol must be able to work without
having to rely on a particular smoothing technique. This is especially
important when practical experience is absent. We are working on FMIPv6
implementation and we hope to be able to shed some light (on smoothing) in due
course of time.
Hope this helps.

Regards,

-Rajeev

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 13:11:29 -0400

Rajeev's email seems to be in line with my position. The only remark I have is to
not to disregard the LMM due to whatever reasons.

If there is a bar meeting planned on this in London, count me in.

--
Behcet

---

From: "Charles E. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 12:00:30 -0700

Hello Rajeev,

This matches my view which, along with other members of the
design team, I maintained during all of the discussions.
We agreed during the meetings that smoothing techniques
for handovers would be considered separately, and thus that
both buffering techniques and bicasting techniques would not
be specified within the fast handover draft.

Regards,
Charlie P.