Re: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53

["James Kempf" <[e-mail]>]

Right, that's what I'm saying. There is one case where the MN needs to
choose, and the other where the MN and AR get an L2 address and don't
have a choice. The handover happens because, if not, the power will fade
and the MN loses link connectivity.

The former case might require capabilities, the latter just requires
cross link ARP.

            jak

----- Original Message -----
From: "Hemant Chaskar" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 2:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53


> Hi James:
>
> What do you mean when you say that hearing multiple L2 is equivalent
to
> inter-technology case? I do not get the point. Why can't the MN listen
to
> different L2 beacons of the same technology? I guess it can, and
hence, it
> still needs to chose one among them for handoff. Then the issue is
exactly
> the same as Glenn raised for single NIC case: How to get capabilities
> without letting go the old connection? Of course, I am assuming that
these
> L2's have comparable signal strengths.
>
> Hemant
>
> >From: "James Kempf" <[e-mail]>
> >To: "Hemant Chaskar" <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
> >Subject: Re: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53
> >Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 10:26:45 -0700
> >
> >
> > > >[The Issue]
> > > >It seems that the minutes indicate that people have somehow come
to a
> > > >conclusion that there is no need for access routers to divulge
that
> >they
> > > >are
> > > >geographically adjancent to themselves via the IP infrastructure.
The
> > > >minutes also seem to indicate that the mobile alone should be the
> >only way
> > > >to pass addresses of CARs to source ARs.
> > > >
> > > >[Technical Questions]
> > > >O.K. If this is true then how will a mobile pass this information
to
> >their
> > > >source AR if the mobile only has one NIC and that NIC is only
capable
> >of
> > > >listening to one media at once?
> > >
> > > [HC] I agree that this is a genuine technical problem. What I
would
> >really
> > > like to understand is whether the above is a relevant case for CAR
> >discovery
> > > or we simply neglect it and focus only on two physical interfaces
> >case. I
> > > raised this question before, but we have not had much discussion
on
> >it. In
> > > any case, address translation part of CARD will be required in
this
> >case for
> > > fast handoff support.
> > >
> >
> >In a single interface handoff situation, Layer 2 typically delivers
the
> >AP or AR L2 identifier to which the MN will be handed over. This
> >information is required (by the MIP fast handover algorithms) at the
> >MN's AR. So the issue is fairly simple: the AR must be able to do
> >reverse address translation in order that it can contact the other
AR.
> >Capabilities aren't involved, except to the extent that the MN can
hear
> >multiple L2s and make the decision. But this is exactly the same as
for
> >the intertechnology case.
> >
> >             jak
> >
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
> http://www.hotmail.com
>
>


_______________________________________________
Seamoby mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby