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

From: Roberts Phil-QA3445 <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 08:41:17 -0600

All,

I had a conversation yesterday with Charlie and we both agreed that we need
to
define the different layers of mobility. Today we use micro and macro
mobility, and these terms mean completely different things, depending upon
the
proposal that you happen to be backing. Therefore, having agreement on the
list as to what micro vs. macro means will be a long, drawn out battle, and
I
think that we have better things to do with out time (well, at least I do).
Agreed.  In addition this will vary depending on the cellular technology one
is describing, not to mention other non-cellular mobility apps.

btw, in case you still aren't convinced, it isn't clear to me that what we
today call micro-mobility cannot be achieved via hierarchical Mobile IP,
while
others believe that Hawaii or Cellular IP provides micro-mobility.
Don't forget the 3g wireless draft as yet another means of doing this.

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)
Thanks for making the proposal, and we can let the discussion on this begin.

If we can come to some reasonable consensus on some terminology which seems
to me to be a worthwhile goal, how would you like to propagate this
agreement once we've got it?  Via the charter or some informational rfc?

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?

PatC

---

From: Sirish K Challagulla <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 20:34:27 +0530

All,
      Let us give a new terminology 3GMobile-IP, which do not confuse 3G stands
for 3rd Generation Mobile Networks. Support for 3G Networks  will be a grand
Success for us.

Best Regards
Sirish

"[email-masked]" <pcalhoun on 03/01/2000 08:13:34 PM

Please respond to "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>

To:   [email-masked]
cc:    (bcc: Sirish K Challagulla/HSS)

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

> I glad we speak the same languague...
> I totally agree with you.

good.
>
> I have tried to raise this question 1,5 year ago but with very little
> reponse...

Perhaps you were just a little ahead of your time :)

>
> But I dont like you grouping with names very specific to cellular sytems
> like BTS BSC and MSC
> But I agree on the "levels"
> But I would also like the level of personal network or pico mobility where
> the typical scenario is the wireless router with a lot of bluetooth links...

Agreed. I used the cellular names in hopes that most readers would have a
basic understanding of cellular systems, and to provide some context.

>
> > Link Layer Mobility (Inter-BTS hand-off)
> These two I would grouped together like micro mobility because they have the
> same access network!!

Here we disagree. Certainly, today's BSCs operate this way, but the work being
done in the All-IP standards will radically change the BSC. I see no reason
why an IP-level mobility cannot be used at the BSC (well, for CDMA anyways).

>
> In other word the could have the same L2 segment...
>
> And the BTS is just a "wireless bridge" and could be an access point for a
> wireless LAN for instance...

hence link-layer Mobility. Yes, I thought of using 802.11 as one example, but
it became harder to provider the other levels using 802.11 :(

>
> And in cellular sytems for instance it is very difficult to break up this
> that why I think it should go under a common micro-mobility
> And if it is a wirelles LAN access ponit you probably have a ethernet switch
> connecting all your access points and 802.1Q ethernet gives you local
> mobility...

Again, I respectfully disagree. We only think this way because of the current
systems, but some engineering effort is under way to change these systems, so
I would still prefer to see it the way I proposed. Otherwise, we will end up
with terminology problems when/if they do change.

>
> But clear interfaces is a must.
Well, I would agree on terminology. Proposals are plentiful, and picking one
from the list will be a rather difficult task. It must/will occur, but my
proposal is to simply come up with some common terminology.

PatC

PatC
>
> /Thomas
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2000 3:07 PM
> > To: Thomas Eklund
> > Cc: [email-masked]
> > Subject: Terminology (was: [MOBILE-IP] charter update?)
> >
> >
> > All,
> >
> > I had a conversation yesterday with Charlie and we both
> > agreed that we need to
> > mobility, and these terms mean completely different things,
> > depending upon the
> > list as to what micro vs. macro means will be a long, drawn
> > out battle, and I
> > today call micro-mobility cannot be achieved via hierarchical
> > Mobile IP, while
> > 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

---

From: Thomas Eklund <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 16:22:42 +0100

> why an IP-level mobility cannot be used at the BSC (well, for
I'm also talking about Ethernet 802.1Q switches which have "local mobility"
in the virtual LANs that the switch defines (subnet and protocol based
VLANs)..
Don understand how you cant agree with that?

Yes and the BSC/RNC controls the BTS'es and if you dont want that in the
BSC/RNC box then you perhaps put it in some server in the access network but
then that server handles the syncronnization, radio resource managment,
mobility managemnt etc..

But I have no problem with having one more layer as you proposed - because
the more generic the better... and let us define those interfaces or
mobility level in an arhitechure document...

ps. the way soft handover for instance is solved i W-CDMA it is practically
impossible to split it up but there might be other access network where it
is possible.. ds.

> with terminology problems when/if they do change.
Ok that debatable (for instance soft handover in UMTS)... But I dont want to
go into that because we agree on whats needs to be done..

Ok let me re-prase... In my deepest ip heart I agree with you, but I want a
network that is flexible to support both ways... I.e one more agressive and
one more "backward compatible" one...
Being able to do so we need to define the interfaces very clear so its is up
to the service provider to chose...

/Thomas

---

From: Basavaraj Patil <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 09:50:39 -0600

>for 3rd Generation Mobile Networks. Support for 3G Networks  will be a
grand

Sirish,

If 3G networks (Wireless/Cellular or otherwise) adopt Mobile IP as a
solution for Mobileity management, that would be a success for this WG,
and as you can see from the current charter the goal is in getting
Mobile IP deployed. But I would refrain from terminology such as
"3GMobile-IP".

-Basavaraj