Subject: [mobile-ip] Re: So what is bicasting vs. buffering

From: kempf <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 15:34:43 -0700 (PDT)

Pat,
>
>So in my mind, I believe that the main difference between the bicasting
>and buffering approaches is simply that the latter requires the mobile
>to *request* packets.
>

I think this is the proposal in the primary reference 
(draft-krishnamurthi-mobileip-buffer6-01.txt). It need not, however, be
so. If just the packets arriving during L2 handover are
buffered on new AR, as proposed in Appendix B of the BETH draft, then
new AR can quickly download the buffer when the MN arrives on the new
link, as you pointed out yesterday. The advantage of this is no
signalling over the radio link, which means the radio link is free
for the user's real time traffic, not MIP signalling.

		jak

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 06:22:24 -0700 (PDT)

To my mind, signaling/not singaling and
bicasting/buffering are orthogonal. In fact,
bicasting and buffering aren't even in opposition
to one another; you may or may not buffer bicasted
packets.

		Mike