Subject: Re: [MOBILE-IP] Terminology (was: [MOBILE-IP] charter update?)

From: Thomas Eklund <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 11:06:31 +0100

> >A spinoff of the MIP WG, say  MIPSAT WG
> >(IP mobility support over Specific Access Technologies)
> >would probably be a good thing, accommodating
> >any need to address specific problems that
> >MIP is considered not sufficient to address over
> >specific access Technologies. Also this would
> >come with the benefit of providing a well defined
> >scope for each new proposal coming in.
> >
>
> Mobile IP's access independence characteristic makes it so viable.
> So there's not much to be said for IP mobility support over specific
> access technologies as you propose.

I definitatly not agree here.. It is very important to optimize the IP
transport (doen in Robust Header Compression WG), mobility management over
specific link layers, especially over different radio link layers because
they have very special charateristics that needs to be adapted to in order
to make it efficient...

I would say that this is very important and judging from the interest of
trying to solve the micro mobility shows that people are not satisfied with
just running mobile ip over radio....

Important thing to include for instance is more states in the radio like
idle, active mode in order to define location managemnt protocols...

We are speaking about IP based mobility here not mobile IP... But mobile IP
will be the base for all work of course...

>
> >There may be another approach (AKA "the tail that
> >wags the dog") that is defining a new access network
> >based on newly IETF specified access protocols, but this
IETF dont specify access technologies, this is layer 1 and 2 stuff... When
we want to run IP over them, then of course it should be as smooth as
possible this is why we need  clear interfaces that people have been
discussing so when a new acces technology comes you can very easy integrate
it with your ISP backbone...

/Thomas

---

From: Vincent Magret <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 17:25:15 -0600

I agree that it is necessary to take advantage of the underlying technology
used. The principle I'm thinking of is to define a protocol to support
micro-mobility and to define "mapping" to specific wireless technology. I don't
see how a protocol without tuning (i.e. link to  LL 2) could provide an
acceptable level of services (i.e. fast handoff).

Vincent.