List Info

Thread: Re: Fmipv6




Re: Fmipv6
user name
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.Uxalntinfotech.com> wrote:


Dear Rajeev,

Thanks man for converting FNA to UNA in your new draft  &quot;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
user name
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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.koodlinokia.com]
Sent:
Thursday, April 05, 2007 3:28 AM
To: ext Anurag Uxa
Cc: STDS-802-21listserv.ieee.org; mipshopietf.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.Uxalntinfotech.com> wrote:


Dear Rajeev,

Thanks man for converting FNA to UNA in your new draft  &quot;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 )