Subject: Re: [MOBILE-IP] charter update

From: Yingchun Xu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 10:33:59 -0600

Jim,
Depending on which all IP you are talking about, it is not true that all all IP
schemes will introduce the hassles.

--Yingchun.

Jim Willkie <[email-masked]> on 03/08/2000 09:59:51 AM

Please respond to Jim Willkie <[email-masked]>

Sent by:  Jim Willkie <[email-masked]>

To:   [email-masked]
cc:    (Yingchun Xu/MW/US/3Com)
Subject:  Re: [MOBILE-IP] charter update

At 02:40 PM 3/7/00 -0800, James Kempf wrote:
>I agree if you consider the PDSN (or SGSN and GGSN in GPRS) and
>connectivity to the Internet. But if you look at the RAN as a self contained
>network, and consider soft handoff for mobility, then I would maintain
that it
>does introduce more complexity, due to the multiple incoming and
>outgoing streams (macrodiversity in the cellular jargon).

James:

A CDMA network handles soft handoff within the RAN, so network components
outside the RAN should not be involved in soft handoff issues. Now an all
IP network in the RAN would introduce some hassles. I would think that this
is a shortcoming of 'all IP' within a RAN and not a complexity of CDMA.
Perhaps people that are on the 'all IP' bandwagon should consider that and
weigh the benefits versus the hassles of 'all IP'.

Jim Willkie

---

From: Jim Willkie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 09:01:39 -0800

>schemes will introduce the hassles.

Good. Thanks for the clarification, because the concept of 'all IP' is
good. Perhaps the ''all IP' schemes that introduce hassle are deficient?

Jim W