> To clarify: we've been doing some work to identify and isolate > the causes of L3 handover delays, and they each seem solvable > by one means or another. > > For example, hmipv6 offers one possible way of eliminating the RTT > delay caused by sending BUs. In its current form, it probably > isn't scalable to that level,
=> Why not? I think it is scalable to that level simply because you can plug more anchor points as you see fit. it's as scalable as HAs are in MIPv6. > > Actually, JinHyeock reminded me that I'd forgotten to mention > the Movement Detection Delay ... we've been tackling that > with inter-layer signalling to prompt router solicitations. => What you're doing (optimistic DAD) can be combined with Fast Handovers to completely eliminate movement detection delay. > The Optimistic DAD thing comes about because I thought > the FH stuff was getting a bit theoretical and I felt that a > set of small, easily implemented patches, one per cause of > L3 handover delay, would be a good way to move forward in the > short term. => My very initial effort (with Karim) with Fast handovers was aimed at: anticipation + optimistic DAD + HMIPv6. I still think this is the simplest solution and will achieve excellent results. We already have some basic simulations (not to the level that Jim is asking for) that prove this and more to come. Hesham > > cheers, > -----Nick > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
