Subject: RE: [seamoby] L2 API (WAS: Ext. for FMIPv6 - comments) (SHOULD b e, RE: Issue #4)

From: Phillip Neumiller <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 10:10:32 -0400

> Anyhow, your point in that email of two weeks ago was that it was less
> reliable to separate CT and HO. Which is true, but only  if 
> you consider that
> the
> system is unreliable because of a failed CT.

Hmm.  If CT provides seamless handover, its pretty damn important.
Why are we treating it like its just some "other" stuff to shuffle
around with the handover.  It "creates the environment" for the
seamless AND hopefully reliable handovers.  I really dont understand
how CT got so far off course with all these other goofy requirements.

We need to get down to the basic requiremetns of handover again and
forget all this wishy-washy:

1).  Weeel, maybe I can do CT before the handover...
2).  Weel Nancy, maybe I can do the CT after the handover...
     [ Phil in his best Ronny Raygun]
3).  Weeeel, maybe I can di it during the handover....

No NO NO!!!!  CT has to be an integral part of the handover if it
is going to do its job.  THAT is the WHOLE POINT!!!

Thanks,

Phil

---

From: Theo Pagtzis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 09:51:35 -0700

Hi Phil,

   I agree that the CT process must be part of the handover process if
seamlessness is to be effected. BUT, by making integral you rely on the
atomicity of timings with respect to the handover process.

That is, if the handover is happening now then CT must already be
initiated. If on the contrary you make it part of the handover, you can
lossen the timings between which the two can happen, in terms of how close
they happen assuming CT will always happen first (since happening second
won't be to me very seamless anyway).

Don't you think that losening this timing between the two event is crucial
in optimization decisions for the seamlessness of the transition?

Theo

UCL/Mobile Systems