Subject: RE: [seamoby] More beating my head against the wall....

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 14:38:22 -0600

Sent by:  "Gary Kenward" <[email-masked]>

*snip*

I would tend to agree with you Phil, but do we have tangible evidence that
the MIP routing is too slow, and the routing at the edge is required? I
*believe*
it is a problem, but I suspect the claim would be contentious without
numbers.

pdn>If it were not slow (my measurements done about 2 years back indicated
pdn>that it was), why would the MIP group be so actively pursuing fast
pdn>handoff?  My REAL belief is that fast hand off work belongs in
pdn>SeaMoby.  That is if you are willing to seperate the world into
pdn>Core routing (mobile IP) and edge tunnelling (SeaMoby).  This type of
pdn>division of labor makes MUCH more sense to me technically, but the
pdn>politics of such a reorganization make its possibility of existence
pdn>tenuous.  Just think how the MIP group would be free to worry about
pdn>optimizing the router chains for mobility rather than edge device
pdn>junk.  SeaMoby would only have to worry about eventually sending a
pdn>new MIP registration while a temporary tunnel keeps the connection
pdn>seamless.  Perhaps I really am wacked, but this is the way I see
pdn>it.

---

From: Dana Blair <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 21:54:19 -0500

>it is a problem, but I suspect the claim would be contentious without

Slowness can be measured in terms of round trip path, number and size of
packets that need to be sent and received.  This should be done when comparing
various mobility solutions.    

thanks,
Dana