Re: [CARD Techical Issue] Rate limiting flag

> As said earlier, the bit makes the protocol flexible without major
> additional complexity.
> The value of flexibility is worth adding the one-bit flag, I think.
> Also I guess the MNs would be need CARD information near handoff in most
> cases.
> That is, the CARD message traffic would be bursty to individual MN.
Setting
> a large inter-message time may not be desirable. Also allowing a too short
> inter-message time is not desirable, either. So the inter-message time
> should be configurable. Then the MN should be informed about the vale
which
> could be different at different ARs. This brings additional complexity,
> which the R flag can make unnecessary.
> So I think there are significant advantages with the R flag.
>

I'm not arguing whether the inter-message time should be configurable, just
that a default should be included and that it should be configurable.

The problem here is that protocols which operate on the local link, like RFC
2461, typically have explicit intermessage times, whereas end to end
protocols such as TCP (with ECN) do have explicit rate control. This
protocol is more like the former.

I don't see that a rate flag makes the protocol any more or less flexible
than having an explicit intermessage time enforced by the host, if the
intermessage time is configurable. In either case, the protocol depends on
the host to enforce the rate control.

            jak