Re: [MIP-QOS] RE: MIP-QOS -- Scope of discussions - One more comment

["ext Vinod Kumar Choyi" <vinod.choyi@usa.alcatel.com>]

How about provisions for, handoffs initiated by QoS requirements too.
instead of only going by the usual, handoff to a cell on my path, how about
a detour to a cell that can offer me some kind of guarantees?
How about soft reservations ?
When do we decide to tear down reservations on segments that are not part of
the new path (immediately after handoff / after a certain time period / what
if we use Temporary Tunnels between Old and new ARs)
What if I don't receive QoS support after a handoff can I use Temporary
tunnels between old and new Access Routers (Fast Handoff..) to obtain the
required QoS (It will be difficult because we would still be using the same
wireless link, but what if a segment above the AR cannot provide me the
support)

vinod kumar choyi

----- Original Message -----
From: <Hemant.Chaskar@nokia.com>
To: <mip-qos@research.nokia.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 9:38 AM
Subject: RE: [MIP-QOS] RE: MIP-QOS -- Scope of discussions - One more
comment


> After more careful look into the issue raised by Murray Philip, now I
> realize that there are a number of possible routes MN's packets may take
> after handover:
>
> 1. Non-optimized path which includes a segment from CN to HA and another
> from HA to MN.
>
> 2. Optimized path from CN to MN.
>
> 3. Temporary tunnel between old and new access routers created by some
> mobility protocols such as fast handover (note that even though the
routers
> may be physically adjacent, this tunnel could be a long one, possibly even
> crossing the core).
>
> Is it absolutely required to provide QoS support on all these segment? Or
> shall we just say that it is required to provide QoS support on optimized
> path and leave others as optimizations.?
>
> Hemant