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

[Marco Liebsch <[e-mail]>]

Hi Vijay,

Vijay Devarapalli wrote:
> 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.
We had a section on MN operation in until version 03, but removed it 
according to a proposal.
I am ok with including such section again and will propose text.

Thanks,
marco

>
> 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