|
|||||||||||
|
[Mobopts] Re: [Mip6] Delay Analysis for Handoffs with Mobile IPv6 Route Optimization
From: Thomas C Schmidt <schmidt(at)fhtw-berlin.de>
Date: Sun Jan 15 2006 - 10:00:23 EST the mailinglist seems to be gone for the weekend ... so this is very private ... > While your results [1] on FMIPv6 and HMIPv6 shed light on the
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
Mobopts mailing list Mobopts@irtf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mobopts Received on Sun Jan 15 10:33:47 2006 This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Aug 23 2006 - 12:43:16 EDT |
||||||||||
|
|||||||||||