I simply cannot believe it is 1000 ms. Like I said lets get some empircal data.
/jim -----Original Message----- From: Nick 'Sharkey' Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 5:24 PM To: Tony Hain Cc: 'Charles E. Perkins'; 'Pekka Savola'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Optimistic DAD draft ... On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 03:18:34PM -0700, Tony Hain wrote: > > It seems like this would be a bigger latency concern than DAD. 1000ms is a long time by anyone's standards! > Maybe I just don't understand the technology well enough, but I from > my limited perspective it would seem that the current GGSN would know > which radio system the MN was attached to, and therefore could figure > out the candidate set of destinations for a hand-off. If only the networks we are experimenting with were so civilized! There's a lot of interest in getting MIPv6 working on 802.11 networks though ... -----N -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
