Subject: Re: [MOBILE-IP] Charter Update

From: Basavaraj Patil <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 09:37:26 -0600

Just to clarify what the intent of increasing the scope
of the charter is :

We are increasingly seeing proposals to the Mobile IP WG
that deal with handoffs. The cellular/wireless environment
is where handoffs are a critical function. The WG needs to
address this domain without necessarily having to become a
"Mobile IP for Cellular" WG. I need to reiterate that the
solutions developed in this WG are applicable across different
types of access and core networks.

One more thing:
Handoff solutions that the WG needs to work on need to be
applicable to both IPv4/6.

-Basavaraj

---

From: Pete McCann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 11:02:59 -0600

Hi, Basavaraj,

I agree with your message below - I think we need to be very cautious
about expanding the charter of the WG to be too cellular-specific.
This is the Mobile IP working group, which means that we should be
defining IP-layer protocols.

There are some link-layer specific questions that need to be
addressed, in terms of how a Mobile IP Foreign Agent should be "glued"
onto the cellular wireless link layer.
draft-ietf-mobileip-3gwireless-ext-02.txt does this pretty well.
However, I do not think we should try to start standardizing other
aspects of a 3rd generation cellular network.  I think some people are
trying to plan a BOF in Adelaide called "IP to the Base Station" that
could address some of these questions, but I am concerned that the
IETF has a fairly limited understanding of the cellular link layer,
especially as it pertains to CDMA - I've read and heard statements
that reveal a certain lack of knowledge of how a CDMA Selection and
Distribution Unit really work, when people try to get IP packets sent
by a MN directly out of a BTS.  Of course, I've also seen people here
who *do* understand the technology quite well - I don't mean to start
a flame war, but I think this kind of work logically belongs in the
respective 3GPPs for each technology.

Certainly the Mobile IP WG should strive to develop an understanding
of the various link-layer technologies so that its protocols are as
widely applicable as possible, and perform well for multimedia
applications.  However, I do not think we should get in the business
of standardizing link layers.

-Pete

Basavaraj Patil <[email-masked]> (BP) writes:

BP> Just to clarify what the intent of increasing the scope
BP> of the charter is :

BP> We are increasingly seeing proposals to the Mobile IP WG
BP> that deal with handoffs. The cellular/wireless environment
BP> is where handoffs are a critical function. The WG needs to
BP> address this domain without necessarily having to become a
BP> "Mobile IP for Cellular" WG. I need to reiterate that the
BP> solutions developed in this WG are applicable across different
BP> types of access and core networks.

BP> One more thing:
BP> Handoff solutions that the WG needs to work on need to be
BP> applicable to both IPv4/6.

BP> -Basavaraj

---

From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 06:20:13 -0800

Not sure this thread really belongs here, but...

> defining IP-layer protocols.

agreed, and specifying a better (or faster) hand-off mechanism isn't
cellular-specific, but as you and Raj state, it can be used by these people.
What we need to do is make Mobile IP provide the functionality that they need,
not try to design their networks/systems.

> respective 3GPPs for each technology.

Well, I for one will be at this BOF, and I agree that many people don't fully
understand how the macro diversity combiner works. However, I think that it is
a reasonable goal to allow the *control* protocol between the BSC and the BTS
to run over an IP network. Furthermore, once IP is in the BTS, one can
centrally manage it using off the shelf tools, etc.

As for data, is switching or routing better, I'm not conviced the latter is
the right design choice. A layer 2 approach, such as MPLS, may be appropriate.

> of standardizing link layers.

right.

PatC