Subject: Re: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53

From: "Hemant Chaskar" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 21:17:38 +0000

Hi James:

What do you mean when you say that hearing multiple L2 is equivalent to 
inter-technology case? I do not get the point. Why can't the MN listen to 
different L2 beacons of the same technology? I guess it can, and hence, it 
still needs to chose one among them for handoff. Then the issue is exactly 
the same as Glenn raised for single NIC case: How to get capabilities 
without letting go the old connection? Of course, I am assuming that these 
L2's have comparable signal strengths.

Hemant

>From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
>To: "Hemant Chaskar" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
>Subject: Re: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53
>Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 10:26:45 -0700
>
>
> > >[The Issue]
> > >It seems that the minutes indicate that people have somehow come to a
> > >conclusion that there is no need for access routers to divulge that
>they
> > >are
> > >geographically adjancent to themselves via the IP infrastructure. The
> > >minutes also seem to indicate that the mobile alone should be the
>only way
> > >to pass addresses of CARs to source ARs.
> > >
> > >[Technical Questions]
> > >O.K. If this is true then how will a mobile pass this information to
>their
> > >source AR if the mobile only has one NIC and that NIC is only capable
>of
> > >listening to one media at once?
> >
> > [HC] I agree that this is a genuine technical problem. What I would
>really
> > like to understand is whether the above is a relevant case for CAR
>discovery
> > or we simply neglect it and focus only on two physical interfaces
>case. I
> > raised this question before, but we have not had much discussion on
>it. In
> > any case, address translation part of CARD will be required in this
>case for
> > fast handoff support.
> >
>
>In a single interface handoff situation, Layer 2 typically delivers the
>AP or AR L2 identifier to which the MN will be handed over. This
>information is required (by the MIP fast handover algorithms) at the
>MN's AR. So the issue is fairly simple: the AR must be able to do
>reverse address translation in order that it can contact the other AR.
>Capabilities aren't involved, except to the extent that the MN can hear
>multiple L2s and make the decision. But this is exactly the same as for
>the intertechnology case.
>
>             jak
>

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com

_______________________________________________
Seamoby mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 15:44:48 -0700

Right, that's what I'm saying. There is one case where the MN needs to
choose, and the other where the MN and AR get an L2 address and don't
have a choice. The handover happens because, if not, the power will fade
and the MN loses link connectivity.

The former case might require capabilities, the latter just requires
cross link ARP.

            jak

----- Original Message -----
From: "Hemant Chaskar" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 2:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53

> Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
> http://www.hotmail.com
>
>

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 15:44:48 -0700

jak