RE: [MIP-QOS] RE: MIP-QOS -- Scope of d iscussions - One more comm ent

[Hemant.Chaskar@nokia.com]

I guess I meant options.

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Murray Philip [mailto:PMURRAY@dera.gov.uk]
Sent: 17. April 2001 10:51
To: 'mip-qos@research.nokia.com'
Subject: RE: [MIP-QOS] RE: MIP-QOS -- Scope of d iscussions - One more
comm ent


Hemant

I think that it is important that QoS is active for the whole
connection.  So if the path is intially on an unoptimised route, QoS
should still be established.

Sorry what do you mean by optimisations?

Phil

-----Original Message-----
From: Hemant.Chaskar@nokia.com [mailto:Hemant.Chaskar@nokia.com]
Sent: 17 April 2001 15:39
To: mip-qos@research.nokia.com
Subject: RE: [MIP-QOS] RE: MIP-QOS -- Scope of discussions - One more
comm ent


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


-- 
The Information contained in this E-Mail and any subsequent correspondence
is private and is intended solely for the intended recipient(s).
For those other than the recipient any disclosure, copying, distribution, 
or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on such information
is
prohibited and may be unlawful.