|
List Info
Thread: Re: Fmipv6
|
|
| Re: Fmipv6 |

|
2007-04-04 16:58:14 |
|
Can you provide some information about your system?
What are the interfaces used, what platform OS? And, how you are able to save on the delay, which seems high BTW.
Thanks,
-Rajeev
On 4/4/07 6:04 AM, "ext Anurag Uxa" <Anurag.Uxa lntinfotech.com> wrote:
Dear Rajeev,
Thanks man for converting FNA to UNA in your new draft "Fast Handovers for Mobile IPv6 draft-ietf-mipshop-fmipv6-rfc4068bis-01.txt". We have implemented Fmip6 for multiple interfaces. Now we are able to save almost 200+ ms. which we were wasting on NA for rechable and then FNA.
Regards
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anurag Uxa
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
( ) L&T Infotech Proprietary & Confidential
(+) L&T Infotech Confidential
( ) L&T Infotech Internal Use only
( ) General Business Information
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________________
|
| RE: Re: Fmipv6 |

|
2007-04-05 02:39:44 |
|
Hi Anurag,
I don’t understand the need of sending
NA before FNA. Also, as Rajeev pointed, the delay (200+ms) which you are saving
with the UNA message seems high.
Could you please let me know how you are
able to reduce this delay with UNA message.
Some points that need to be considered
with the introduction of UNA message:
- In reactive mode, if MN is
going to sent FBU immediately after UNA, then there will be packet loss in
case of duplicate address. But the same loss won’t be there when we
use FNA[FBU] message.
- with UNA, in case of duplicate
address, additional burden at PAR to delete or modify the tunnel that was
created based on wrong NCOA (received with FBU send immediately after UNA).
Regards,
Mohan
-----Original Message-----
From: Rajeev Koodli
[mailto:rajeev.koodli nokia.com]
Sent: Thursday, April
05, 2007 3:28 AM
To: ext Anurag Uxa
Cc: STDS-802-21 listserv.ieee.org;
mipshop ietf.org
Subject: [Mipshop] Re: Fmipv6
Can you provide some information about your system?
What are the interfaces used, what platform OS? And, how you are able to save
on the delay, which seems high BTW.
Thanks,
-Rajeev
On 4/4/07 6:04 AM, "ext Anurag Uxa"
<Anurag.Uxa lntinfotech.com> wrote:
Dear Rajeev,
Thanks man for converting FNA to UNA in your new draft "Fast
Handovers for Mobile IPv6 draft-ietf-mipshop-fmipv6-rfc4068bis-01.txt". We
have implemented Fmip6 for multiple interfaces. Now we are able to save
almost 200+ ms. which we were wasting on NA for rechable and then FNA.
Regards
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anurag Uxa
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
( ) L&T Infotech Proprietary & Confidential
(+) L&T Infotech Confidential
( ) L&T Infotech Internal Use only
( ) General Business Information
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________________
|
[1-2]
|
|
|
about | contact Other archives ( Real Estate discussion Medical topics )
|