Re: CARD: handling of sequence numbers

My comments are inline.


> Now, I think the solution depends on how we agree on another issue,
> which is related to protocol constants for the retransmissions.
> Again, according to Henrik's proposal to decrease the AR-AR retransmission
> interval and max. amount of retransmission on the AR-AR interface fit into
> one interval for MN-AR retransmission, then we get rid of the need to
> explicitely mark MN-AR retransmissions because ARs won't have a
> AR-AR timer set anymore in case of a MN-AR retransmission, right?
>
> The proposed values for retransmission timers were as follows:
>
> MN_AR_CARD_TIMEOUT: keep 1 sec.
> MN_AR_CARD_RETRIES: keep 5
> AR_AR_CARD_TIMEOUT: 300 ms
> AR_AR_CARD_RETRIES: 2
>
> We also need to take the max. allowed MN-AR request rate into account,
> which is
> in the recent draft set to 1/sec. Vijay proposed 2/sec, which would
> require to
> adjust the values for retransmission above appropriately.

Maybe my comment about it is quite late. Anyway I wonder again why it should
be 2 seconds instead of 1 second. Could Vijay explain a little bit? Even
though I have no base, 2 secounds sounds somewhat long.

>
> However, if we set MN-AR request rate to 1/second and the MN-AR timeout to
> 1 second, what's the differnce then between a retransmission and a new
> request?
>

There is no difference in terms of rate limiting this case. So I don't think
we need a marker for retransmitted Requests in the current specification.

Eunsoo

> So, what do you think?
>
> marco
>
> Henrik Petander wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, Eunsoo Shim wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>>>In case we keep 1 second also for the MN_AR_TIMEOUT, there should not
be
> >>>>a conflict,
> >>>>right? Otherwise, we could also let the MN "flag" a CARD REQUEST in
case
> >>>>it is a retransmission.
> >>>>But I guess this introcuced more complexity compared to the benefit.
> >>>>What do you think?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>Isn't the MN-AR request resend interval the same as the minimum
interval
> >>>for new requests? So a flag may be the easiest way to allow AR to
> >>>distinguish new requests from resends.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>If both time intervals are the same, does the AR need to distinguish a
> >>resent Request from a new Request for rate limiting?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >If it is OK that the AR sets the AR-AR resend timer for both, then there
> >is no need to distinguish them. This is OK with me.
> >
> >Henrik
> >
> >
>
>
>