Subject: Re: [mobile-ip] Draft 15

From: "Venkata Jagana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 12:23:34 -0700

>> I support Hersham's position:
   >>  - drop piggybacking

   > I think this is far premature.  It has the potential to be a very
   > important improvement

   > Sending Binding Updates along with data packets has many advantages:
   > - reduces number of media acquistions

   > => ?

   > - in the most natural implementations, reduces the total number
   >  of Binding Updates sent

   > => I believe the argument is delayed BUs, isn't it? This relies on
   > a specific traffic pattern, for instance no request-like traffic from
   > correspondents.

      I agree that it is a good idea to delay the BU's for an outgoing
     packet case. Why send Bu's unnecessarily if there is no incoming
     tunnelled packets to or no outgoing packets from MN, so it is a good
     idea to delay them. What would CN do by having this BU early if it
     has nothing to send (in a specific scenario) to MN and needed only
     when it receives something from MN.

     I can see both arguments here: a) delay case b) piggybacking.
     I strongly believe delaying is important to avoid unnecessary
     overhead very early on, piggybacking is important to reduce the
      packet overhead.

      This discussion is already captured in draft in sec 10.9 (...For
     example,since the Binding Update is a destination option and can be
     included in any packet sent by a mobile node, the mobile node MAY
     delay sending a new Binding Update to any correspondent...) and it
     looks OK to me.

 Thanks,
 Venkat

 ----------------------------------------------------------------
 Venkata R Jagana
 IBM Linux Technology Centre, Beaverton
 [email-masked]
 Tel: (503) 578 3430 T/L 775-3430