RE: Bicasting/Simultaneous bindings in charter (was RE: [Mipshop]Warning: Bicasting and FMIPv6)

I am talking about a different problem in this thread.
There is an uncertainty about when the L2 handoff will
occur compared to the time when FBU is sent. This
will exist in most cases (e.g. WLAN) and causes a
disruption. That disruption will be considerable in
cases where L2 triggers based on signal strengths are
used (e.g. WLAN) since the MN may never actually make
a L2 handover or take a long time before it moves.
/Karim

-----Original Message-----
From: Syam Madanapalli
To: Alexandru Petrescu
Cc: Karim El-Malki (AL/EAB); Soliman, Hesham; mipshop@ietf.org; James Kempf; greg.daley@eng.monash.edu.au
Sent: 12/08/2005 20:19
Subject: Re: Bicasting/Simultaneous bindings in charter (was RE: [Mipshop]Warning: Bicasting and FMIPv6)

> 
> The problem mentioned could be solved by always doing IP stuff after
> link-layer stuff, but faster than it's currently done.  Like
> autoconfiguring an address after the link-layer is fine, but do it
with
> less and shorter messages.

This is the DNA job.
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-pentland-dna-protocol-01.txt

But I am sure the DNA has never thought, it can do better than FMIP.
We have a draft how DNA and FMIP co-work
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-koodli-dna-fmip-00.txt
This is very small draft, 7 pages (including everything).

In this draft we still reatined the HI/HACK, and there was question on
this
in DNA list why we need HI/HACK.
http://webcamserver.eng.monash.edu.au/~warchive/dna/2005-07/msg00062.htm
l

-Syam

_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
Mipshop@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop