[Seamoby] Problem Statement
"Christophe Jelger" <jelger@clarinet.u-strasbg.fr> Mon, 14 January 2002 17:24 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA08105 for <seamoby-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 12:24:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA14364; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 12:00:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA14322 for <seamoby@optimus.ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 12:00:35 -0500 (EST)
Received: from clarinet.u-strasbg.fr (IDENT:root@clarinet.u-strasbg.fr [130.79.90.157]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA06855 for <seamoby@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 12:00:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: from PATINET (patinet.u-strasbg.fr [130.79.90.172]) by clarinet.u-strasbg.fr (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA03272 for <seamoby@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 18:00:32 +0100
Message-ID: <027201c19d1c$fe949500$ac5a4f82@ustrasbg.fr>
From: Christophe Jelger <jelger@clarinet.u-strasbg.fr>
To: seamoby@ietf.org
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 18:00:39 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: [Seamoby] Problem Statement
Sender: seamoby-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: seamoby-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Context Transfer, Handoff Candidate Discovery, and Dormant Mode Host Alerting <seamoby.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: seamoby@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Hi all, I am new to the list so please forgive me if my points are out of the main discussion subject. I also apologise if this has been discussed before. In the draft context-transfer-problem-stat-04.txt in section 5.3, it is stated that context transfer should be used when it establishes a service faster than from scratch. While this is certainly good sense, it is also mentioned that for certain types of services, e.g. multicast, context transfer may not be suitable. As I told you before I am new to the list so I don't know if this has been discussed before. I believe that this statement makes little sense for two main reasons: 1) First, there has been almost no studies at all about the join latency of multicast communications and I find it inadequate to say that something is better or worse than something that has not been evaluated (even if it may intuitively be the case) 2) Second, the term "faster" or "quicker" has to be carefully defined to have a strict sense. What I mean is that with context transfer, the process of joining a multicast group (with respect to the nAR) can be anticipated and therefore after the handoff completes the multicast traffic may already be delivered in the new network and in that case the service disruption is almost null. The whole process of context tranfer may be longer than a native multicast join process from the new network but the service disruption time may be shorter with context transfer. Any comments/suggestions are welcome. Please also understand that my intention is not to critisise the draft when I did not take part of any prior discussions. I simply think that this point should be clarified. Regards, Christophe ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Christophe Jelger - LSIIT jelger@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr Université Louis Pasteur Strasbourg - France Tel: +33 (0)3 90 24 45 90 http://www-r2.u-strasbg.fr/~jelger ------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Seamoby mailing list Seamoby@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby
- [Seamoby] Problem Statement Christophe Jelger
- Re: [Seamoby] Problem Statement James Kempf
- Re: [Seamoby] Problem Statement Christophe Jelger