Subject: RE: Current Movement Detection Process and Time (Re: [mobile-ip] Re: closing issue #297 (erik's and steven's technical comments on base))

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 12:03:40 -0500

>The only thing I feel uneasy about is that, because of lack of detail, 
>people may implement MN to send excessive RS or NS message 
>to overflow network. 

I think RS should not be the preferred method for probing anyway. NS
is preferred.
So would it be sufficient to have text that highlights the problem of
probing based on RS/NS and recommend the use of L2/L3 indications
while leaving any details of these out. 

>
>We may state that
>1) For movement detection, MN may use either RS/ RA or NS/ NA 
>    in a manner suitable for the situation. 
>2) But this probing should not overflow the network.   

How does the MN really know if he is causing trouble? Hence it is
better to handle all these problems separately and only have minimal
movement detection mechanism specified in the base spec. Hopefully
implementation and interop experience will enable this to be better
specified in the near term in a separate I-D.

>
>> Mobile node implementations can choose the strategy they wish
>> to. Yes, because implementors will still have to figure this
>> out. OTOH, they apparently can figure this out, and have even
>> different techniques that may be suitable in different
>> circumstances ;-)
> 
>Thanks 

I think we have consensus on this issue. So, maybe Jari can close this
one. 

>JinHyeock
-Basavaraj

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 10:31:23 -0700

> while leaving any details of these out.

I'm not clear that the direction in this choice is so clear cut. I'd
prefer something more general, to say that a node should minimize
traffic involved in MD probing. I think it is still an open question
exactly how this should be done, something for the new MD WG.

            jak