Subject: [Mipshop] Fmipv6

From: Anurag Uxa <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 18:34:14 +0530

Dear Rajeev,

Thanks man for converting FNA to UNA in your new draft  "Fast Handovers 
for Mobile IPv6 draft-ietf-mipshop-fmipv6-rfc4068bis-01.txt". We have 
implemented Fmip6 for multiple interfaces.  Now we are able to save almost 
200+ ms.  which we were wasting on NA for rechable and then FNA.

Regards
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anurag Uxa
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
( ) L&T Infotech Proprietary & Confidential
(+) L&T Infotech Confidential
( ) L&T Infotech Internal Use only
( ) General Business Information
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

______________________________________________________________________

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

---

From: Rajeev Koodli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 14:58:14 -0700

Can you provide some information about your system?
What are the interfaces used, what platform OS? And, how you are able to
save on the delay, which seems high BTW.

Thanks,

-Rajeev

On 4/4/07 6:04 AM, "ext Anurag Uxa" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> 
> Dear Rajeev, 
> 
> Thanks man for converting FNA to UNA in your new draft  "Fast Handovers for
> Mobile IPv6 draft-ietf-mipshop-fmipv6-rfc4068bis-01.txt". We have implemented
> Fmip6 for multiple interfaces.  Now we are able to save almost 200+ ms.  which
> we were wasting on NA for rechable and then FNA.
> 
> 
> Regards
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------------------------------------
>

---

From: "Kandra Mohan-a22098" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 15:39:44 +0800

Hi Anurag,

I don't understand the need of sending NA before FNA. Also, as Rajeev
pointed, the delay (200+ms) which you are saving with the UNA message
seems high. 

Could you please let me know how you are able to reduce this delay with
UNA message.

Some points that need to be considered with the introduction of UNA
message:

1.	In reactive mode, if MN is going to sent FBU immediately after
UNA, then there will be packet loss in case of duplicate address. But
the same loss won't be there when we use FNA[FBU] message. 
2.	with UNA, in case of duplicate address, additional burden at PAR
to delete or modify the tunnel that was created based on wrong NCOA
(received with FBU send immediately after UNA).

Regards,

Mohan

-----Original Message-----
From: Rajeev Koodli [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 3:28 AM
To: ext Anurag Uxa
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: [Mipshop] Re: Fmipv6

Thanks,

-Rajeev

Dear Rajeev, 

Thanks man for converting FNA to UNA in your new draft  "Fast Handovers
for Mobile IPv6 draft-ietf-mipshop-fmipv6-rfc4068bis-01.txt". We have
implemented Fmip6 for multiple interfaces.  Now we are able to save
almost 200+ ms.  which we were wasting on NA for rechable and then FNA. 

Regards
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anurag Uxa
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
( ) L&T Infotech Proprietary & Confidential
(+) L&T Infotech Confidential
( ) L&T Infotech Internal Use only
( ) General Business Information
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Anurag Uxa <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 13:36:25 +0530

Dear Mohan &Rajiv,

Actually our implementation for FMIP6 is in user space. 200+ ms which i 
mentioned is for 3 things 
1. Configuring IP6 addrss on the interface.
2. Create the Route for NCoA.
3. Sending  NA.& FNA and then at NAR side make neighbor entry at reachable 
which we had already made for NoA  incomplete state.

The point  is that when adding a new addr after receiving BAck  is not 
immediately usable since there is a certain delay during which  the 
address is considered by the kernel to be TENTATIVE (e.g. because of DAD) 
and messages sent with that address as source would be rejected by the 
kernel.
After receiving the FBAck when we configure the IPv6 global address at 
interface kernel start DAD for that address which i have already
disable in kernel (No Dad) But i couldn't remove the time taken by 
Creating routing table entry. Actually all this things came in my mind 
when i have seen the UNA (ICMP Type) in place of FNA (MH type). 

Regards
Anurag Uxa

"Kandra Mohan-a22098" <[email-masked]> 
04/05/2007 01:09 PM

To
"Rajeev Koodli" <[email-masked]>, "ext Anurag Uxa" 
<[email-masked]>
cc
<[email-masked]>
Subject
RE: [Mipshop] Re: Fmipv6

Hi Anurag,
 
I don’t understand the need of sending NA before FNA. Also, as Rajeev 
pointed, the delay (200+ms) which you are saving with the UNA message 
seems high. 
Could you please let me know how you are able to reduce this delay with 
UNA message.
 
Some points that need to be considered with the introduction of UNA 
message:
1.      In reactive mode, if MN is going to sent FBU immediately after 
UNA, then there will be packet loss in case of duplicate address. But the 
same loss won’t be there when we use FNA[FBU] message. 
2.      with UNA, in case of duplicate address, additional burden at PAR 
to delete or modify the tunnel that was created based on wrong NCOA 
(received with FBU send immediately after UNA).
 
Regards,
Mohan
-----Original Message-----
From: Rajeev Koodli [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 3:28 AM
To: ext Anurag Uxa
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: [Mipshop] Re: Fmipv6

Thanks,

-Rajeev

Dear Rajeev, 

Regards

---

From: "Kandra Mohan-a22098" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 16:58:03 +0800

Hi Anurag,

            Do you mean those three steps are not required with the
introduction of UNA? I think steps 1 and 2 are still required.

            Also, I didn't get your third point. What is the need of NA
before FNA?

            Regards,

            Mohan  

-----Original Message-----
From: Anurag Uxa [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 1:36 PM
To: Kandra Mohan-a22098
Cc: [email-masked]; Rajeev Koodli
Subject: RE: [Mipshop] Re: Fmipv6

Dear Mohan &Rajiv, 

Actually our implementation for FMIP6 is in user space. 200+ ms which i
mentioned is for 3 things 
1. Configuring IP6 addrss on the interface. 
2. Create the Route for NCoA. 
3. Sending  NA.& FNA and then at NAR side make neighbor entry at
reachable which we had already made for NoA  incomplete state. 

The point  is that when adding a new addr after receiving BAck  is not
immediately usable since there is a certain delay during which  the
address is considered by the kernel to be TENTATIVE (e.g. because of
DAD) and messages sent with that address as source would be rejected by
the kernel. 
After receiving the FBAck when we configure the IPv6 global address at
interface kernel start DAD for that address which i have already 
disable in kernel (No Dad) But i couldn't remove the time taken by
Creating routing table entry. Actually all this things came in my mind
when i have seen the UNA (ICMP Type) in place of FNA (MH type). 

Regards 
Anurag Uxa

04/05/2007 01:09 PM 

To

cc

<[email-masked]> 

Subject

RE: [Mipshop] Re: Fmipv6

Hi Anurag, 

Some points that need to be considered with the introduction of UNA
message: 
1.        In reactive mode, if MN is going to sent FBU immediately after
UNA, then there will be packet loss in case of duplicate address. But
the same loss won't be there when we use FNA[FBU] message. 
2.        with UNA, in case of duplicate address, additional burden at
PAR to delete or modify the tunnel that was created based on wrong NCOA
(received with FBU send immediately after UNA). 
  
Regards, 
Mohan 
-----Original Message-----
From: Rajeev Koodli [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 3:28 AM
To: ext Anurag Uxa
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: [Mipshop] Re: Fmipv6 

Thanks,

-Rajeev

Dear Rajeev, 

Regards