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 >