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

From: Nakhjiri Madjid-MNAKHJI1 <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 16:51:54 -0500

Phil,

One technical reason would be that I might not want to
wait until MN sends a ND message to newAR before I start
my CT, that is very late, we can be more "proactive" than that.

your own CNP would have trouble with proactive CT if CT trigger
is based on MIP HO messages.

About The poly-phasic, I really think that might be a natural
thing to do to reduce the packet loss. I don't know why you 
don't like it, maybe I should read the rest of my 60 unread seamoby
mails :)

Madjid

-----Original Message-----
From: Phillip Neumiller [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 8:58 AM
To: 'Pat Calhoun'
Cc: 'Gary Kenward'; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: CT reliability model was RE: [seamoby] [Issue] Support for
Mu lti- Phase CT

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

I have not heard one technical reason why NOT.  This is just YOUR
opinion Pat.  In fact I DONT like your poly-phasic idea and I have
stated technical reasons why.  Why don't you give me a "technical"
reason why rather than "I don't see much of a benefit" stuff?

BTW, I have not seen any real support for your polyphasic CT on
the list but it remains a requirement in your mind for some reason.

Thanks,

Phil

---

From: Theo Pagtzis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 15:19:35 -0700

Hi Madjid,

I definetely agree with that !

The handoff process should not be the basic trigger for context
negotiation/preparation over the mobility neighbourhood of the current
point of attachment of the MN.

This is going to be _too_ late considering the unpredictability of the
mobility pattern and potential cell-bouncing.

Please see draft-pagtzis-mobileip-proactivev6-00.txt/.ps

Cheers

Theo

UCL/Mobile Systems