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

From: Nakhjiri Madjid-MNAKHJI1 <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 17:21:59 -0500

-Given this, it seems like the implementation consequences of separating
CT and handover signalling are the following. If nAR doesn't know first that a 
handover is going to happen and a CT packet arrives first, it must set
a timer and wait until the handover signaling arrives. If the handover
signaling doesn't arrive until the timer pops, nAR discards the CT.
If it does, nAR completes the handover by replying back to oAR and
installing CT. Then  awaits the arrival of the MN on the new L2.

Does this make sense?

		jak

Madjid>> James, the timer makes sense, however, the time to live
for each context depends on the feature that the context belongs 
too, maybe such a time to live can be added to the context packets.
Having a universal time to live for all types of context is not
very precise.

Madjid

---

From: Youngjune Lee Gwon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 17:28:43 -0700 (PDT)

Hi,

This is a quick question regarding CT trigger/completion debate.

Consider if a MN is receiving IP packets from nAR, and the packets are
forwarded (tunneled, e.g. BETH) from the oAR. Are forwarded packets
(CN->oAR->nAR->MN) OK without CT between oAR and nAR? Or, do they still
require that CT should be completed at nAR by the time MN is receiving
them from nAR?

My understanding is that CT does not have to be completed at nAR if
packets are tunneled from oAR. And, oAR can support MN's IP
micro-flow because context info is still there at oAR. Correct?

Youngjune