Re: (virtual) hum on CARD open issues
"James Kempf" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.seamoby |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <001801c36665$2944ca50$0a6015ac@dclkempt40> |
Ensuoo,
I think we have concensus on rate limiting. It's time to cut off discussion
and move on. Thanx.
jak
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vijay Devarapalli" <[email protected]>
To: "Eunsoo Shim" <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 5:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Seamoby] (virtual) hum on CARD open issues
> Eunsoo Shim wrote:
> >
> > 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?
>
> no, you missed the point. you wanted to know what the
> basis was for the 1 second retransmission interval.
>
> > BTW, I'd appreciate if you provide your opinion about my other
questions,
> > too.
>
> I would be repeating myself. I think I made it clear which
> rate-limiting mechanism I prefer.
>
> Vijay
>
> _______________________________________________
> Seamoby mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby
>