Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] WG Feedback Requested

From: George Tsirtsis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 13:54:15 -0500

James,

We agree on most things in this thread so lets desagree on one :-)....see
below.

-----Original Message-----
From: James Kempf [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 6:23 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [mobile-ip] WG Feedback Requested

...

>Even worst, parts of the fast handoff
> specs are about optimizing the optimization...see Handoff To Third
> (HTT)....what about the Forth, Fifth and Hundredth?

I see you haven't read the spec. If you had, you would see
that the "Third" in this case is the highest it can go.

GT> Actually I have.... Just because HTT is currently limited in scope it
does not mean that someone can not be tempted to extend it. HTT is for fast
mobiles. What about super fast mobiles? Say someone goes a bit mad and tries
to cover the bullet-train track with microcells...A bullet train can go
through a large number of microcells in very short time indeed!
Just kidding of course but you see my point about how far do you go with
optimizing something? Maybe specifying such an optimization separately would
help isolate the essential part of fast handoff from its
optimization...which is always a good thing.

George

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 12:00:40 -0800

George,

> optimizing something?

Well, my sense of humor seems to have atrophied this morning.
Maybe I need to go get stem cell therapy or something to get it back.
:-)

Actually, I don't see the need for anything further. And HTT is not
just for superfast mobiles. It also works if the mobile wants
to postpone getting a new care of address for any reason.

Maybe the name sounds too "bell-shaped" for you?

> Maybe specifying such an optimization separately would

I don't think so. IMHO, the fundamental problems are that:

1) Simulation results indicate that Prereg performance could be worse
the standard MIPv4 for certain kinds of radio links.

2) Postreg doesn't handle MN initiated handover.

We can solve 2) with PFANE. We can solve 1) by making Prereg
informational or experimental so it is not Least Required to
Implement for the standard.

If the WG doesn't want to make the hard call, then let's take low
latency to experimental and separate out PFANE as standards
track for now.

It might be worthwhile looking at splitting the draft up just to
facilitate the IESG reading it, but that's a separate issue from
what should be a proposed standard and what not. I think
we ought to settle that issue first.

            jak