Re: [Mip4] RE: Differences between Low Latency Handovers and FMIP v4

[Rajeev Koodli <rajeev at iprg.nokia.com>]

Hi Kent,


Kent Leung wrote:

> KL> PFANE is good to have.  Also the BU and BAck messages to
> set up tunnel between FAs is good.  As I said before, I'm keen to
> keep the solution in line of MIPv4 (FMIPv4 on FAs only).
FMIPv4 has the PFANE-type reactive handover; it is also better because
movement detection and agent discovery delays are effectively eliminated
due to performing neighborhood discovery (out of handover critical timing)
on the previous link.

Regards,

-Rajeev

> Kent
>
> --
>      |           |                   Kent Leung
>     :|:         :|:                  IP Mobility Development
>    :|||:       :|||:                 Internet Technologies Division
>   :|||||||:   :|||||||:              Voice: 408.526.5030
> .:|||||||||:.:|||||||||:.             Fax:   408.525.1653
>  c i s c o S y s t e m s             Email: kleung at cisco.com

--
Mip4 mailing list: Mip4 at ietf.org
   Web interface: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4
    Charter page: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/mip4-charter.html
Supplemental site: http://www.mip4.org/