Subject: RE: [seamoby] Answer to a question on the mobility terminology dr aft

From: "Gary Kenward" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 16:31:57 -0500

I think that this distinction between intra-AR and inter-AR handover
is a useful one, as it will help us distinguish when CT is to happen and
when it
is not to happen (at least at the IP layer).

This, in my view, is the only reason to identify the AP in the reference
architecture. Unfortunately, having it there opens up the can of worms
related to AP to AP handovers. While I think this is an interesting area
to explore, it seems to me that this will take us into the area described
by some as "L2 mobility" or "soft handover".

Gary

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jukka Manner [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2001 4:24 AM
> To: cnyap
> Cc: seamoby
> Subject: [seamoby] Answer to a question on the mobility terminology
> draft
> 
> 
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, cnyap wrote:
> 
> > Hi
> >
> > Could you please give more explaination on Intra-AR Handover.
> > It is not very clear in the draft.
> >
> 
> 	As an example, let's consider an AR which has network 
> interfaces to APs
> under its control. When a MH switches APs under the same AR, 
> it does an intra-AR
> handover. The AN internal routing does thus not change, only 
> the AR needs to
> update its internal routing to reflect the new network 
> interface, where the MH
> now is located. It also may need to move packets from queues 
> on the old network
> interface to new queues. If the AP and AR are one single 
> component and there is
> only one AP, then an intra-AR handover never happens.
> 
> 
> 	Jukka
> 
>