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

From: Phillip Neumiller <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 17:17:47 -0400

Is there any co-dependence between CT and "succesful" handovers?
I think so.  Seperating the messages makes handover less reliable.
Do we want to build "seamless handover" systems that are less
reliable?  What about jitter and congestions effect on the timing
of multiple messages?  Yuck.  I don't get your argument Pat.

Best Regards,

Phil

---

From: Pat Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 16:10:28 -0700

> I think so.  Seperating the messages makes handover less reliable.

Only if the network is unreliable.

> of multiple messages?  Yuck.  I don't get your argument Pat.

If the link between the ARs are congested, then I would argue
that the single combined MIP/CT message will be subjected to
the same jitter and congestion conditions you'd experience
with a dual approach. So, I have a hard time convincing myself
that we should be looking at tying CT to MIP to get around
poor network design.

PatC