Re: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53

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

Hemant,

Remember, TAR is not in scope.

As a practical matter, I believe the 802.11 standard should provide some
guidance, currently it doesn't.

            jak

----- Original Message -----
From: "Hemant Chaskar" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 2:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Seamoby] Minutes for Meeting at IETF 53


> Hi James:
>
> If there are more than one L2 beacons available (of comparable signal
> strength), probably governed by different ARs, how do we choose? I do
not
> have problem choosing randomly, but just want to confirm if this is
the way
> we want to proceed.
>
> There is no doubt that handoff is necessary as old link will fade, but
you
> still have choice as to which new beacon to hold on to.
>
> 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 15:44:48 -0700
> >
> >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
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
>
>


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