Subject: Re: [MOBILE-IP] Comments on PILC draft

From: Roberts Phil-QA3445 <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 10:58:35 -0500

Phil,

    we had a discussion on this list before the last IETF about whether
handover should be added to the charter.  We've had three or four drafts
describing ways to do handover in a cellular system using Mobile IP.  That
may be in the scope of the working group, but I'm fairly reluctant to say
that link layer specifics are within the scope of the group.  Not that there
isn't a need for it to be done by someone, somewhere.

Phil

-----Original Message-----
From: NEUMILLER PHILLIP-QA2757
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2000 4:18 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [MOBILE-IP] Comments on PILC draft

Folks,

Disclaimer:  I have not read through all 800+ messages in the
PILC archive.  That will take some time.  There are some subjects
of interest to Mobile-IP folks, that is why I cross posted.

I have read through the PILC draft.  It suggests many different
proven methods for link layer adaptation to IP.  I found errors
of omission rather than of commission.  What could be done
is to expand the current draft (or introduce a new draft) that
specifically addresses problems faced by the implementors of
"wireless Internet".  This document was very TCP specific and
the wireless world is also concerned about RTP among other
things.

I believe that wireless links are sufficiently different (not
to mention increasingly prevalent) that they deserve their own
set of "standard" link layer adaptation techniques.

I suggest that we (enhance the existing) or prepare a draft that
defines "Canonical Wireless Link Layer Adaptation for IP".  In this
draft the important issues of QoS, AAA, and handover could be
addressed in an abstract way, suitable and useable by Wireless LANS
(femto, pico, nano-cellular) and conventional macro-cellular (i.e.
2G, 2.5G, 3G).  I am also hoping that the proposed Bluetooth BOF
planned for Pittsburgh could be generalized in scope to include the
more generic notion of "personal area networking" rather than being
just a link adaptation fest for Bluetooth.  Other link layers such
as 802.11a, 802.11b, HomeRF, Hyperlan, and Hyperlan2 must be
considered world players as well and the more commonality the
better.

I would also hope that the MWIF contribution could be combined with
a previously proposed BOF for open base station protocols.  It is my
hope that the IETF can help unify wireless access by providing
specific link layer hooks that are universal across diverse radio
access networks.

Does this fall into the PILC or Mobile-IP scope or somewhere else?
I am not sure.

Thanks,

Phil [email-masked]
847-632-4118

---

From: Wolfgang Schoenfeld <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 09:19:53 +0200

Phil,

I think this depends on where you place "handover".
Clearly, if you consider all of a cellular network
as being part of the link layer,
then this applies to handover between base stations, too.
However, handover considerations also make sense in the network layer.
Consider e.g. the obvious idea of extending Mobile IP
to support seamless/fast handover by using multi-path routing
via several foreign agents.
Should this kind of ideas be excluded from the WG scope?

Wolfgang

PS: I don't want to re-enter the previous discussion,
it's only a comment on Phil's argumentation.

--
Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schoenfeld, GMD-IPSI,
+49-6151-869-865 (Phone), +49-170-2285450 (Mobile)