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

From: Basavaraj Patil <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 09:45:01 -0600

>All,

----snip snip-----

>So, I would like to propose that we agree on some new terminology. I
believe
>that we have: - Link Layer Mobility (Inter-BTS hand-off)
>- pick a name Mobility (inter-BSC hand-off)
>- Intra-Domain Mobility (Inter-MSC hand-off)
>- Inter-Domain Mobility (when the hand-off crosses a domain boundary)
>

Pat,

Agreeing on terminology is something that we need to strive for. But
the ones that you mention here are very specific to 2G Wireless/Cellular
networks. It would be better to be more generic or just map them to
functional entities that would exist in any type of network.

>I still don't have a preference for the second name, and I am not married
to
>ANY of the names above. These are merely suggestions. The goal here is to
ALL
>agree on basic terminology so that when we compare protocols, we can match
the
>protocol against a set of common terminology.
>
>Comments? Is this a worthwhile exercise?

Does the WG need to develop a terminology document that can be
referenced by all WG and Mobile IP related docs? It may be a
worthwhile exercise and help us all to be on the same page.

-Basavaraj

>PatC

---

From: Ramachandran Ramjee <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 16:54:39 +0000

Folks,

Basavaraj Patil wrote:
> >believe that we have: - Link Layer Mobility (Inter-BTS hand-off)

How about the following?

Link-Layer Mobility (Inter-BTS handoff: CDMA, 802.11 access points)
Intra-Domain Mobility (aka Micro-Mobility: Hier. MIP, HAWAII, CIP)
Inter-Domain Mobility (aka Macro-Mobility: Mobile IP)

Note that depending on how a domain is defined, we can have four
combinations (assuming Mobile IP is present):

1) Original scenario of "domain = base station" then
         Mobile IP necessary.

2) If base station acts as a link-layer bridge (access points/cellular
   base stations), "domain = next hop router" then
         Mobile IP  + link-layer mobility necessary.

3) If domain is an entire network and base station is an IP-level
   router
         Mobile IP + intra-domain mobility necessary

4) If domain is an entire network and base station acts as a bridge,then
         Mobile IP + intra-domain  + link-layer mobility necessary

Cellular folks can then map domains into their favorite elements
(BSC/MSC/SSGN/GGSN) and choose option 2 or option 4.
Others such as all-IP proponents can choose option 1 or option 3.
Thus, we allow maximum flexibility.

Cheers,
Ram

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 09:40:58 -0800

>>- Inter-Domain Mobility (when the hand-off crosses a domain boundary)

another stab:

keying off the issues that "domain" in IETF circles generally refers to an
administrative domain, often one that is reflected in DNS and/or corporate
ownership, and that at the BTS/BSC level what we're really talking about is
wandering around within a particular cellular-etc technology...

        technology-specific mobility
        inter-technology mobility
        intra-domain mobility
        inter-domain mobility

---

From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 06:07:30 -0800

> functional entities that would exist in any type of network.

agreed. As I mentioned in the thread, I used these examples to provide some
context, but more generalized examples would be preferred.

> worthwhile exercise and help us all to be on the same page.

I think that this would be a worthwhile exercise, would I would caution us
putting our existing milestones in jeopardy by doing so.

PatC

---

From: Tom Weckström <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 00:23:52 +0200

> putting our existing milestones in jeopardy by doing so.

I would like to have that kind of a terminology document. It would unify
terminology, shorten the drafts and RFCs (since a reference to
terminology would replace lengthy terminology chapters), provide a good
reference point to other WGs when using MIP terms (like the AAA WG is
doing).

        Tom

--
        Tom Weckström           [email-masked]