Re: (virtual) hum on CARD open issues

"Eunsoo Shim" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.seamoby
Message-ID <01fe01c365db$c13ed6f0$d26b0f8a@peace>
Vijay,

ICMP was chosen for MN-AR interaction because we wanted to use the same
protocol with the fast handoff protocol. Actually there was an consideration
about using UDP instead of MN-AR interaction, too. If UDP was chosen for
MN-AR interaction, would you change the value or the rate limiting
mechanism?

BTW, I'd appreciate if you provide your opinion about my other questions,
too.

Eunsoo

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Vijay Devarapalli" <[email protected]>
To: "Eunsoo Shim" <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 4:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Seamoby] (virtual) hum on CARD open issues


> Eunsoo Shim wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Vijay,
> >
> > I am afraid my question is so long after your posting.
> > But please let me ask a few questions.
> > Is there any base for 1 second inter-message interval you suggested?
>
> typical ICMP rate limiting.
>
> Vijay
>
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.