Re: [MEXT] [dmm?] Surprising assertion about make-before-break handover prevalance

Sri Gundavelli <sgundave@cisco.com> Fri, 05 August 2011 02:53 UTC

Return-Path: <sgundave@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9534821F8678 for <mext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 19:53:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.103
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.103 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.504, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E+VjlVsEOLBh for <mext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 19:53:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7A5621F866A for <mext@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 19:53:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=sgundave@cisco.com; l=1183; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1312512827; x=1313722427; h=date:subject:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:mime-version: content-transfer-encoding; bh=oCkNfzS37NkXfBP9ZcJnPo+ML9JF9ork2JTIzaKSKF4=; b=h7IJVS7CbBUULNCnuMIygIkKt/fz9scPLTEFka49FhVqSI5Jz0xO1ju7 jVeMcRcGDmXsLnh7FnJXzh+1gibN7tmk3hBFDoRaHALxJXcCRi1K+gVGC M4a//rC4xDVZu2JbUv9pYI5IK6i1VW0KYygaVOI4LFASzrSAETYujELjb 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EADhaO06rRDoJ/2dsb2JhbABDp253gUABAQEBAgESAScCAUENAQiBHQIEATSHSqIvAZ5ghkIEh1qLIYUQi3Q
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,320,1309737600"; d="scan'208";a="9876340"
Received: from mtv-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.58.9]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 Aug 2011 02:53:44 +0000
Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by mtv-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p752riBG011433; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 02:53:44 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-214.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.145]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 4 Aug 2011 19:53:44 -0700
Received: from 10.32.246.212 ([10.32.246.212]) by xmb-sjc-214.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.145]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 02:53:43 +0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.30.0.110427
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 19:53:38 -0700
From: Sri Gundavelli <sgundave@cisco.com>
To: <Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com>, <charles.perkins@earthlink.net>, <mext@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <CA60A942.238D2%sgundave@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [MEXT] [dmm?] Surprising assertion about make-before-break handover prevalance
Thread-Index: AQHMUuyMHmpdQRSJykeD7X8pFNgav5UNj+b4
In-Reply-To: <CA607467.1CAFC%basavaraj.patil@nokia.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Aug 2011 02:53:44.0561 (UTC) FILETIME=[E3F48610:01CC531A]
Subject: Re: [MEXT] [dmm?] Surprising assertion about make-before-break handover prevalance
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 02:53:31 -0000

> Will devices keep multiple radios powered on simultaneously in the future?
> It depends.
> Battery technology still lags the advances of radio, processors and
> displays on devices. And hence it generally boils down to optimizing
> battery in handheld devices which implies that you would not want to
> always keep multiple radios switched "On" all the time. You could if you
> were willing to carry around a battery backpack all the time :)


After all the standardization around MCoA/IFOM, building all the
hype/coolness around driving one flow on path and another the other path,
its sad to note that we simply don't have the devices/or the battery
technology that can keep multiple radios up at the same time for a
reasonable length of time (except few exceptions). Most devices/operator
configuration still try to keep only one radio active at a time, so they can
claim better battery serving time. So, we are not there yet, but from what I
believe with LTE radios, the power requirement is only going up. Hopefully,
there will be a major breakthrough in the battery technology that will allow
all the radios to be up for a day with a recharge ...


Sri