Re: [Mipshop] Review of Transient Binding Spec

[Vijay Devarapalli <vijay at wichorus.com>]

Hi Marco,

This is not about FMIPv6. You can always setup a tunnel between the two MAGs
for forwarding packets. Think S103 interface in the 3GPP architecture. In
addition in turn on buffering on the nMAG if the LMA forwards the packets
and the MN has not attached yet at L2. And you can definitely configure an
LMA to receiving uplink packets from the pMAG and nMAG for a short duration
during a handover. 

All this can be achieved without using FMIPv6 or PFMIPv6.

Why would the following text reduce the value of the transient binding cache
extension?

   The problem that the transient binding cache mechanism is trying to
   address can also be achieved through implementation-specific mechanisms
   on the LMA, such a configuration on the LMA to accept uplink packets
   both from the pMAG and the nMAG during a handover and through buffering
   at the nMAG when the downlink packets starting arriving at the nMAG and
   the L2 link between the MN and nMAG is not setup yet. However, dynamic
   solutions by means of the proposed extension in this document is needed
   to optimize the performance for a variety of handover situations and
   different radio characteristics. See Appendix B for a more detailed
   discussion on this.


On 8/18/09 1:13 AM, "Marco Liebsch" wrote:

> The document will be RFC Experimental first. Folks can implement and can get
> convinced about the benefit:complexity-ratio. I do not see any value in
> adding a misleading note to the
> spec that folks should not implement this as you may solve it by static
> implementation.

On the contrary, I don't see the above text misleading a reader. It only
says that there are other options (which is true), but the protocol
extension as specified in the draft make sense. For a detailed discussion,
see the appendix.

Vijay