Re: [Mipshop] Section 4.3.1 of draft-ietf-mipshop-transient-bce-pmipv6

[Vijay Devarapalli <[e-mail]>]

On 9/10/10 3:59 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
> Is some document change needed?

Yes, IMO. Section 4.3.1 talks about the nMAG creating a transient BCE 
only if it knows the MN supports transient BCE. Two issues with this.

1. If its a single radio handover, nothing needs to be supported on the 
MN. Just whatever is needed according to RFC 5213.

2. For a dual radio handover, to get the true benefit from transient 
BCE, the MN needs to be able to receive packets on two interfaces at the 
same time for a short while. If it does not do this, transient BCE would 
still work, and the MN does benefit, but there will be some packet loss.

This is not really captured in the draft.

For the actual text changes, it is going to be hard for me to suggest 
text changes since its been a year since I read the draft. I have to go 
through it again. Marco would probably be able to come up with text 
changes much more quickly.

Perhaps we should add a section on the mobile node support for transient 
BCE and explain clearly what needs to be supported on the mobile node.

Vijay