Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] I-D ACTION:draft-mccann-mobileip-80211fh-01.txt

From: "Karim El-Malki (EAB)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 18:27:05 +0100

Hi Pete

 > Karim El-Malki (EAB) writes:
 >  > The original solution had the tunnel terminated in the MN.
 >  > Terminating the tunnel in the MN would have made it 
 > straightforward
 >  > to set up the tunnel only when both F-BU and HACK had 
 > been received.
 >  > Although it isn't clear, I imagine the tunnel is instead 
 > set up upon
 >  > HACK and traffic forwarding is performed after F-BU. So 
 > I'm in favour
 >  > of changing things back the way they were, since the idea is to
 >  > anticipate the handoff and the use of nCoA not to enable the use
 >  > of PCoA at the new AR. It seems like a different problem to me.
 > 
 > I would hope we keep this functionality.  It seems important to be
 > able to defer CoA establishment to keep it off the critical handover
 > path.

In the last email we had agreed that FMIPv6 was simpler without the
tunnel-based handover which could be done at the link-layer in IEEE.
That could give you the use of PCoA. While FMIPv6 then takes care of
reducing the latency of NCoA establishment.

Rgds
/Karim

---

From: Pete McCann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 13:28:12 -0600

Hi, Karim,

 > reducing the latency of NCoA establishment.

By "tunnel-based" I mean the establishment of packet forwarding state
based purely on link-layer triggers.  That has security/performance
considerations as outlined in my draft that I think can only be
addressed with new link layer standards.

I think it is still valuable to use PCoA from the new AR, even if the
packet forwarding state is established by F-BU.

-Pete