Subject: Re: [MOBILE-IP] Architectural v.s. Incremental Lession for FastHandoff Discussion

From: James Kempf <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 13:07:24 -0800

Hi Charlie,

>> In the final analysis, the *real* test in all this is "running code." If the
>> Hesham/Karim proposal and the IPv6 proposal for signalling over L2 during
>> handoff works, then lets include it in the drafts. If not, then lets drop them.
>
>There is running code, to within a certain degree of imprecision caused
>by changes from the design team.  I think that we should have one solution
>per problem.  Different ways of applying layer-2 triggers result in different
>problems.  We cannot expect that layer-2 triggers will be applied in the
>same way in all future systems, so it is very prudent to determine which
>problems need solving, and look for as many common denominators as
>we can find.
>

Are you speaking for Hesham and Karim here or yourself?

If for yourself, then would it be possible to get some information the
implementations? Like which MIPv6 proposals were implemented on which L2s,
what the probability of droppage for IPv6 signalling is for the IPv6 proposals
that involve L3 signalling during a handoff (i.e. after L2 at the old point
of connectivity has decided a handoff is necessary) and what L2s these
probabilities correspond to? Also, what is the amount of time needed to
perform the handoff?

W.r.t. the latter, a proposal before 3GPP2 at the Kauai meeting cites 80 ms
as the amount of time required for existing CDMA hard handoff.

                jak