Subject: RE: CT reliability model was RE: [seamoby] [Issue] Support for Mu lti- Phase CT

From: Phillip Neumiller <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 09:57:59 -0400

I guess I have come full circle on this one Gary.  I don't think its
a sin to build MIP friendly stuff into CT, in fact it is desirable at this
point, especially for FMIPv6++ which looks to be a great improvement.
Until there ARE other mobility protocols in the IETF or somebody 
can point me to some other one they are going to use, it seems
quite illogical to NOT support MIP whole heartedly.
 
I do agree that MIP has problems.  With some patience and diligence
these things will be worked out over time.  With this being said,
and the L2 trigger work going on in FMIP, it also seems logical
to have a L2 trigger that is used by both MIP for handover and
SeaMoby for CT.  The next step is combine the events to optimize
the design IMHO.  I guess I frankly don't see the value of:

A). Proactive CT
B). Reactive CT
C). Polyphasic CT
 
Could you shed some light on why these are perceived as important
in a few sentences?  I don't see the value add.  
 
Best regards,
 
Phil

---

From: Pat Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 18:01:59 -0700

> quite illogical to NOT support MIP whole heartedly.

Glad to hear you like FMIPv6++, but I still don't see much of a
benefit in combining CT within the MIP message.

> the design IMHO.

I agree that combining events is a good thing, but that doesn't
necessarily require combining messages within a single packet.

PatC