[Mobopts] Re: [Mip6] Delay Analysis for Handoffs with Mobile IPv6 Route Optimization
Thomas C Schmidt <schmidt@fhtw-berlin.de> Sun, 15 January 2006 15:16 UTC
Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Ey9c3-0001pX-Hq; Sun, 15 Jan 2006 10:16:11 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Ey9bw-0001lM-Da; Sun, 15 Jan 2006 10:16:04 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29460; Sun, 15 Jan 2006 10:14:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail1.rz.fhtw-berlin.de ([141.45.5.103]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ey9Rl-0000zk-Cj; Sun, 15 Jan 2006 10:05:34 -0500
Received: from e178178094.adsl.alicedsl.de ([85.178.178.94] helo=[192.168.178.20]) by mail1.rz.fhtw-berlin.de with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.42 (FreeBSD)) id 1Ey9Ju-000C1V-Jq; Sun, 15 Jan 2006 15:57:26 +0100
Message-ID: <43CA6387.8080306@fhtw-berlin.de>
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 16:00:23 +0100
From: Thomas C Schmidt <schmidt@fhtw-berlin.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Christian Vogt <chvogt@tm.uka.de>
References: <43C7A215.1040804@tm.uka.de> <43C91C45.3090909@fhtw-berlin.de> <43CA50C7.1000206@tm.uka.de>
In-Reply-To: <43CA50C7.1000206@tm.uka.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 2.4 (++)
X-Scan-Signature: 0ddefe323dd869ab027dbfff7eff0465
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Mip6 <mip6@ietf.org>, Mipshop <mipshop@ietf.org>, Mobopts <mobopts@irtf.org>
Subject: [Mobopts] Re: [Mip6] Delay Analysis for Handoffs with Mobile IPv6 Route Optimization
X-BeenThere: mobopts@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: schmidt@fhtw-berlin.de
List-Id: IP Mobility Optimizations <mobopts.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mobopts>, <mailto:mobopts-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:mobopts@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mobopts-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mobopts>, <mailto:mobopts-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: mobopts-bounces@irtf.org
Errors-To: mobopts-bounces@irtf.org
Hi Christian, the mailinglist seems to be gone for the weekend ... so this is very private ... Christian Vogt wrote: > While your results [1] on FMIPv6 and HMIPv6 shed light on the > performance of proactivity in combination with local mobility > optimizations and are as such undoubtedly very important, I do not > necessarily consent with your statement that those results can be > conveyed to the end-to-end mobility management that we have been > analyzing [2]. > I perfectly agree with your characterisation. I did'nt mean to say that both approaches are the same. What I tried to suggest is that there might be some lessons to be learned from [1] for your work. From an abstract point of view the approaches of FMIPv6 (predictive part) and proactive end-to-end mobility management agree in hiding update delays by advancing handover negotiations on the basis of predictions. Beside problems with the reliability of predictions they both rely on timing issues: negotiations have to be successfully completed for the schemes to work. You are addressing this issue in section 7.1 of [2], but what we would like to contribute as the essence of [1] reads: There are three different timescales, one defined by the HO scheme + Internet topology, another by the L2 technologie and the third by the actual movement of the mobile user. They are fairly independent of each other. It may as well happen that the degree of coincidence required by your scheme corresponds to a quite narrow regime in phase space, which is hardly ever met. Thus it is *possible* that the fascinating perspective of zero update delay is just a conceptual result, which basically does not hold in reality. Details of course are subject to a thorough analysis, which you will probably do. Best regards, thomas > [1] http://www.informatik.haw-hamburg.de/~schmidt/papers/telesys05.pdf > [2] > http://doc.tm.uka.de/2006/vogt-2006-delay-analysis-for-reactive-and-proactive-handoffs.pdf > _______________________________________________ Mobopts mailing list Mobopts@irtf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mobopts
- [Mobopts] Delay Analysis for Handoffs with Mobile… Christian Vogt
- [Mobopts] Re: [Mip6] Delay Analysis for Handoffs … Thomas C Schmidt
- [Mobopts] Re: [Mip6] Delay Analysis for Handoffs … Christian Vogt
- Re: [Mobopts] Delay Analysis for Handoffs with Mo… Theodoros Pagtzis
- [Mobopts] Re: [Mip6] Delay Analysis for Handoffs … Thomas C Schmidt
- Re: [Mobopts] Delay Analysis for Handoffs with Mo… Christian Vogt
- [Mobopts] Re: [Mip6] Delay Analysis for Handoffs … Christian Vogt