Subject: RE: DNS discovery

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 01:39:21 +0200

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Alain Durand [mailto:[email-masked]]
> [email-masked] wrote:
> 
> >The wasted time is not much for one user. Perhaps it is not 
> much even for an operator. One point I wish to make is that 
> when the wasted time is multiplied by possibly hundreds of 
> millions of users worldwide - even daily perhaps - isn't it 
> worth of serius consideration in system/protocol desing? 
> >
> 
> I've been trying to understand better this line of reasoning, 
> but I honestly
> have a hard time to reconcile the desire to spare one packet exchange
> with the opinion that some Mobile IPv6 people expressed that
> RA should be send very frequently to ease movement detection....

Please correct me if I misunderstood your comment. The desire to spare one packet exchange was based on the fact that the host has to wait idle until packet exchange completes. Thus that idle time, when good transmission capability is not used at all, postpones start, and completion, of the actual communication the host wishes to do (presumed that the host needs DNS to start communication).

It is another issue if Mobile IPv6 people decide to decrease link throughputs by sending more RAs to those 200.000.000 million users (for good reasons I believe). The effect of their change may be bigger, or a lot bigger, than effect of one packet exchange, but still the packet exchage causes idle time that from my opinion should be avoided if possible.

I suppose in point-to-point links they do not need to increase RA frequency.

An answer to earlier question by Shirasaki Yasuhiro: IF an operator charges per byte and IF the operator includes RA size in byte count, increase in RA size increases cost for the user. I realized that I do not have enough knowledge in operator charging policies to really say if this is an issue, so I must step back a bit..

Regards,

          Teemu

#----------------------------------------------------------------------
# To unsubscribe, send a message to <[email-masked]>.

---

From: Alain Durand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 17:06:26 -0800

>Please correct me if I misunderstood your comment. The desire to spare one packet exchange was based on the fact that the host has to wait idle until packet exchange completes. Thus that idle time,…
So if I understand you correctly, you are concerned about a 100ms delay
that will happen when the phone is initially turn on (setting up a pdp 
context)
that could be used to send real traffic?

But if you do, say, a VoIP communication, the remote phone as to ring,
probably several times, that that would take much more than those 100ms, 
maybe
10 to 20 seconds...

So I'm having even more trouble undertanding what you're trying to 
achieve here...

    - Alain.

---

From: just me <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 08:45:36 -0800 (PST)

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Alain Durand wrote:

  So if I understand you correctly, you are concerned about a 100ms delay
  that will happen when the phone is initially turn on (setting up a pdp
  context) that could be used to send real traffic?

Teemu's not discussing initial registration on the GSM network. He's
discussing initial configuration of the IP stack; a completely
different process, and one that's actually on-topic here.

This generally happens when the user initiates features requiring IP
connectivity, like opening a WAP browser. The delay caused by extra
packets at this stage, opening the user application, is his concern.

While he is pointing at one specific case where extra traffic is a
nuisance, in general it seems to be good engineering to minimize RTT
delays in protocol negotiation.

matto

- [email-masked]<darwin><
   Flowers on the razor wire/I know you're here/We are few/And far
   between/I was thinking about her skin/Love is a many splintered
   thing/Don't be afraid now/Just walk on in. #include <disclaim.h>