Subject: Re: [netlmm] Issue: Timestamp vs Sequence Number based logic

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 10:01:10 -0700 (PDT)

----- Original Message ----
From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
To: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 11:34:49 AM
Subject: Re: [netlmm] Issue: Timestamp vs Sequence Number based logic

Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
> Hi Alex, Sorry but I disagree. Why should we not force (or require) 
> MAGs to be time synchronized?

BEcause no other protocol does.

> Even most laptops implement time synchronization these days once they
>  are connected to the Internet. Why not MAGs?

Because MAGs are infrastructure and laptops are endusers.

Someone's hand watch can be NTP synchronized too, but because its main 
function is to show the time...

[behcet] In CDMA, base stations are time synchronized. Base stations are infrastructure nodes. Even in recent GSM systems time is now being offered to the cell phones by infrastructure nodes.

> On the mechanism you mentioned in RFC 3775, is it binding lifetime
> (BINDING_REFRESH)? Which section of 3775 is it specified? I don't
> think there is a compatible mechanism used in RFC 3775 that we can
> adopt in PMIP.

The 3775 BU proposes a lifetime and the HA accepts or suggests another 
one in the BAck (search 'lifetime').  Same thing could be for sequence 
numbers per mn id.

Relying on time synchronization is not a good tool to design reliable 
protocols.  This is my humble oppinion and feel free to vote against it.

[behcet] Yes, let's vote against it, let's leave this little bit of low level requirement of time synch to the infrastructure and 
move on...

Behcet

_______________________________________________
netlmm mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 19:15:52 +0200

Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
> [behcet] In CDMA, base stations are time synchronized. Base stations are 
> infrastructure nodes. Even in recent GSM systems time is now being 
> offered to the cell phones by infrastructure nodes.

There's a difference between offering the time as a service to end users 
and relying on time for a protocol working ok.

> [behcet] Yes, let's vote against it, let's leave this little bit of low 
> level requirement of time synch to the infrastructure and
> move on...

Why don't you put this NTP requirement on the IEEE 802.16 spec which 
talks TIME rfc868 (instead of NTP)... P802.16Rev2/D0b-June-2007.

Alex

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________