Re: [Mip4] RE: Differences between Low Latency Handovers and FMIP v4
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Mip4] RE: Differences between Low Latency Handovers and FMIP v4
Hi Rajeev.
My personal take on this is that the early agent discovery is unnecessary
in the overall latency. The return on investment of the new messaging and
operation is minimal. I think having the agent advertisement sent by the
new FA after access authorization will provide fast handover. The time for
MN to learn about FA can be sub-msec range. With PFANE and BU/BA,
the packets in transit are no lost during registration period to acheive
the smooth handover. It is my opinion that we can achieve good optimization
with some basic messages and extension, without adding much complexity
to the mobility agents.
Kent
At 02:52 PM 3/22/2005 -0800, Rajeev Koodli wrote:
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
--
| | 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/
Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.