Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] Last Call: Regional Tunneling input

From: "Hesham Soliman (ERA)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 17:55:27 +0200

Emad,

  > Annika,
  > 
  > 	My main concern about this draft:
  > 
  > 1) Has there been any studies/scenarios about the impact to 
  > in-flight
  > traffic to the MN, while it is performing regional 
  > re-registrations? 
  > 
  > 2) How does the old FA handle the data that is received while the MN
  > re-registers with a new FA? 

=> Isn't this the same for a HA registration?
Why should we expect this draft to handle all the 
handover problems?
The low latency draft handles the problems you
mention, and it includes a section on how to 
co-exist with this draft.

Hesham

---

From: "Emad Qaddoura" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 23:04:32 +0200

Hesham,

	Yes it is not different from the HA registration, but, we are
adding additional level(s) for processing registrations. Therefore, the
ultimate timing might be impacted depending on the scenario. I really
wish to see the studies/(bakeoff results if any) for this draft to
understand the overall impact to MIP.

	What is the status of the low latency draft? How many vendors
have adopted the low latency draft already and have it in their
products? Is it required or optional when addition the regional
registration scheme? Please don't consider this as a negative view of
the low latency draft, but until these drafts become adopted and widely
implemented, it would be preferable to make new MIP design/enhancements
with the least impact to through traffic. Otherwise, MIP would be more
of non-real time oriented mobility protocol.

Thx.
EQ

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:owner-mobile-
> [email-masked]] On Behalf Of Hesham Soliman (ERA)
> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 5:55 PM
> To: [email-masked]'; 'Annika Jonsson';
[email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] Last Call: Regional Tunneling input
> 
> Emad,
> 
>   > Annika,
>   >

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 14:54:28 -0700

EQ,

Excuse me for butting in, but here's my take on your questions.

> What is the status of the low latency draft?

It is considered by the authors to be complete, there is still the
question of updating based on implementation
experience and what track to put it on (experimental v.s. standard).

>How many vendors
> products?

None, and the prospect is not good for any in the near future. There is
currently one experimental implementation, done by Jon Wood on Solaris
MIP. Jon is also working on another implementation on Linux. There are
no other implementations nor implementation efforts of which I am aware.
Vendors interested in Mobile IPv4 would most likely be implementing the
3GPP2 standard, and they already define a mechanism based on PPP for
fast IP handover.

>Is it required or optional when addition the regional
> registration scheme?

It is not required, but there is some discussion in the low latency
draft about how to utilize regional registration if it is available for
the Prereg technique. For Postreg, it is unnecessary, because the Mobile
Node can continue to use its Care of Address until Home Agent
Registration would not pose a latency burden.

>Please don't consider this as a negative view of

Well, it currently is a non-realtime oriented mobility protocol, with
the exception of Layer 2 specific fast handover techniques such as 3GPP2
uses.

            jak