Subject: [MOBILE-IP] charter update

From: Roberts Phil-QA3445 <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 14:19:08 -0600

The discussion is still going although it seems to have strayed from the
point just a tad..  Here's what I've gathered from all the posts so far.

First, there does seem to be some interest in producing a document with the
goal of achieving some common definitions about handover so that we'll
understand more easily what one another say.  It sounds like at least a
couple of people are interested in working on such a document.  From past
experience working between the TDMA and the CDMA  worlds and trying to
explain some of the possibilities to folks who are new to this I would have
to say this could be a very valuable tool.

Second, although there are discussions about exactly how mobility is to be
supported in cellular networks I haven't heard anything that sounds like a
consensus to update the charter of this working group to do this work.  I
think Pat said it well that he suggested our task was to find ways to
support the needs of the cellular industry without trying to design their
networks for them.
Perhaps if there is interest in one or more of the fast handoff drafts we
can make them work items under the activity of "facilitating deployment of
mobile ip" and just leave the charter as is for now.

Seem okay?

---

From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 17:36:45 -0800

> mobile ip" and just leave the charter as is for now.

not really. AAA is one way to facilitate deployment of Mobile IP, but not fast
hand-off, IMHO. This is really new work, and although we could conceal it
under a variety of existing work items in the charter, I think that we should
specifically spell out that we will develop a scheme to provide fast hand-off
at the IP layer. Please note, however, that we *may* find that there are
optimizations that can be done for specific link layers, and if we decide that
hand-offs is a work item that we want to take on, we will get into link layer
issues. A one-size fits all may not apply here.

PatC

---

From: "Andrew T. Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 21:16:37 -0800

Pat:

> issues. A one-size fits all may not apply here.

I think there has been a wide range of proposals on micro-mobility.

If the working group thinks it worthwhile (or even needed, above and
beyond
making Mobile IP go faster and, be more scalable in the signaling
load it generates under wide scale deployment) then some
consensus could be reached by considering the
existing proposals.

My feeling is that the solution space for
micro-mobiliy is well covered. That is not to
say that better solutions could not be proposed.

Of course I would be in favor for the charter to
explicitly call out a specific work item on
"micro-mobility. People actively pushing micro-mobility
could come to a consensus with a join ID for the
working group to consider. I think this could
be done quite quickly once we understand the
trade off of the current proposals.

--
Andrew
http://comet.columbia.edu/~campbell

---

From: "Charles E. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 15:10:06 -0800

Hello Pat,

>                ..............                                but not fast
> at the IP layer.

While I'm not adverse to taking this on as a charter goal,
I feel a little disconcerted to hear it described as new
work.  After all, we had a route optimization draft with
the Previous Foreign Agent Notification extension for years,
and a Registration Keys draft intended to make it secure.
Plus, there have been for years various attempts to create
regional registrations.

You may rightfully point out that the existing schemes could
be made better.  That doesn't justify consigning them into
a box of irrelevancies.

Regards,
Charlie P.

---

From: Luca Salgarelli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 09:14:30 -0500

Hi Pat.

> specifically spell out that we will develop a scheme to provide fast hand-off

I do not agree with the fact that optimizations to RFC2002 for supporting
fast handoffs is new work. I think there have been plenty of proposals,
starting with all the drafts on hierarchical FAs, to Cellular IP, and to
HAWAII. I guess a lot of work has been done on these proposals, and I would
rather say that they have reached a certain stage of maturity.

> Please note, however, that we *may* find that there are

I also do not agree on this: every optimization for fast handoff proposed
so far has been designed to work regardless of the underlying link-layer.

I think that RFC2002 offers a very good base protocol for mobility
management, but we all know a few of its shortcomings, e.g. when the HA is
several hops away from the visited network, and the user changes FA very
often. I think that the three proposal above address very well this issue,
with different pros and cons, without introducing any link-layer
dependency.

Therefore I think that the working group should work on these proposals,
harmonizing them, and coming up with a common approach to extend RFC2002 in
order for Mobile-IP to be able to support fast-handoffs.

Regards
Luca