L2 considerations for optimized IP mobility
draft-satish-l2-mobilereq-01
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Satish Jamadagni | ||
| Last updated | 2003-07-24 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
IP mobility protocols have traditionally been designed to be independent of any L2 considerations. A critical factor in achieving good performance for IP mobility protocols is its closeness to an L2 handover. Handover occurs when a Mobile Node moves from one radio access Point to another. If the new radio access point is associated with a new subnet, the routing reachability change will have to reflect at the access routers. Better synchronization between L2 handover and L3 handover are still more important when supporting fast handoff between two wireless domains. This draft discusses the L2 handover steps and the possible coupling of L2 and L3 layers to support optimize layer 3 handover. This draft also explores the location information as a possible L2 trigger to support optimized L3 handover. Also an L2 trigger message format is defined which can be handled at L3 independent of other protocol considerations.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)