Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] Timings for FMIPv4 and FMIPv6

From: "Hesham Soliman (ERA)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 23:46:07 +0200

Hi James, 

A couple of comments on your mail:

1. MIPv6 does not run over UDP like MIPv4, so I don't know
why you add 8 bytes for the UDP header. 

2. I really question the assumption that MIP signalling 
can not run over the signalling channel. we ought to have 
some very good reasons before we can make a conclusion like 
that. Especially if we're judging the handover speed based on that
assumption. This is purely an implementation issue and ultimately
the IETF will not be the body making this decision.

Cheers,
Hesham

---

From: James Kempf <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 15:31:35 -0700 (PDT)

Hi Hesham,

>why you add 8 bytes for the UDP header. 

Got it. I'll adjust the numbers. Thanx

>the IETF will not be the body making this decision.

Well, I think we need to be realistic. If we are talking about current
3G protocols (which is what these numbers are designed to address),
then I think we can't make any assumptions about using signalling
channels, since they are strictly reserved for current radio link protocol 
signalling. The attraction of MIP to the mobile operators and wireless
ISPs is that it fits into their networks without any change in the
radio link protocol, which is practically impossible to do. 

That said, I think we can make a good case for doing the change in the
radio link protocol if they want to integrate better with IP. There
may be some interest in 3GPP2, probably none in 3GPP.

		jak

---

From: "Hesham Soliman (ERA)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 00:49:22 +0200

Hi James, 

> radio link protocol, which is practically impossible to do. 
	=> As I was saying there may not be anything to change
	in the signalling channel depending on what system you're
	referring to. It might simply e an implementation issue.
	The idea is not so unreaslistic and in fact 
	people do consider it for IP signalling.

	Hesham