Subject: Re: [Mipshop] LLA in FBUs

From: gabriel montenegro <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 10:24:37 -0700 (PDT)

--- Emil Ivov <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Do you think that there's any chance of updating the draft or is it 
> already too late?

This sounds like it's more than merely editorial, so the 48 hour period
before publication is not a good fit. 

On the other hand, assuming we move forward in a rechartered MIPSHOP,
this is exactly the type of thing that must be addressed.

Anybody keeping an issues list of items to address going forward?
Ideally, we'd use the same *public* issues list we've used in the past
(set up by Henrik). Rajeev?

-gabriel

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

---

From: Rajeev Koodli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 10:09:46 -0700

Hello folks,

>before publication is not a good fit. 
This topic came up during a thread on "Inter-technology handovers" (or 
something
close to that string). Here are the possibilities (not necessarily from 
the thread):

1.) PAR has sent traffic to the MN and hence has the LLA. If not,
2.) PAR can solicit. This incurs the usual ND round trip between AR and 
MN however.

This combination seems to work because if there was no traffic in the 
recent past,
doing 2) does not affect the in-progress traffic (because there is no 
traffic).

Having said that,

3.) a SHOULD for LLA in FBU is a good idea.

>(set up by Henrik). Rajeev?
I will work on it.

-Rajeev