Subject: RE: [Seamoby] delay data requested

From: Phillip Neumiller <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 14:07:18 -0500

Hi Shahrier,
 
This is a very good question.
 
1).  Since CT has to support inter-domain transfers, I would suspect these
would take 
      longer than intra-domain.  Then again, I am not sure if you are
referring to SeaMoby
      CT or something else???  The way the CT requirements read there is a
built in
      dependency on forming  a security association with the newAR before a
CT can
      take place, so that can also delay things considerably I imagine.
 
2).  In the best case, your ARs are joined on a fixed network with very low
latency
      probably << 1 ms I would imagine.
 
I am sure others will have some thoughts on this.  I am not sure if I
understood your
question though.
 
Best regards,
 
Phil

--
Mesh Networks, Inc. (www.meshnetworks.com)
Phillip D. Neumiller, Staff Scientist
[email-masked] PH: 1-407-659-5387 

-----Original Message-----
From: Shahrier, Sharif M. [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 11:36 AM
To: [email-masked]'
Cc: [email-masked]; Shahrier, Sharif M.
Subject: RE: [Seamoby] delay data requested

I am trying to do some calculations on the packet transfer delay between a
pair of ARs. I would like to know what is the raw delay (approx.) to
transfer a 32-bit word from the oldAR to the newAR. I expect this
information was used in some way in the calutations of handover protocols.
If someone can help, I would be grateful, if you can send me a direct
e-mail, as well as posting onto the list.
Thanks.
 
-Sharif.

****************************************************************************
This e-mail is intended only for the addressee named above and may contain
confidential, proprietary or privileged information. If you are not the
named addressee or the person responsible for delivering the message to the
named addressee, please inform us promptly by reply e-mail, then delete the
e-mail and destroy any printed copy. The contents should not be disclosed to
anyone and no copies should be made. We take reasonable precautions to
ensure that our emails are virus free. However we accept no responsibility
for any virus transmitted by us and recommend that you subject any incoming
e-mail to your own virus checking procedures.

---

From: "Gary Kenward"<[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 15:52:05 -0500

Phil:

> From: Phillip Neumiller [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: January 9, 2002 14:07
> To: 'Shahrier, Sharif M.'; [email-masked]'
> Cc: [email-masked]
would take 
>       longer than intra-domain.  Then again, I am not sure if you are
referring to > > > SeaMoby
built in
>       dependency on forming  a security association with the newAR before
a CT can
>       take place, so that can also delay things considerably I imagine.
[gwk] There was much discussion around this point. The requirement is only
that the 
association must exist for a ct to be performed. It does not specify when
the association is established. So, you can do it immediately prior to the
ct or  you can do it when you configure the network(s).
> 
> This is good, as it allows for both options.
> 
> 2).  In the best case, your ARs are joined on a fixed network with very
low latency
>       probably << 1 ms I would imagine.
Let's see: a 1G link would introduce about 32 nano secs of transmission
delay. Everything else would be AR implementation dependent.

Gary
 
understood your

 
-Sharif.