Subject: Re: [MOBILE-IP] Hand-over resend

From: "Alan O'Neill" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 15:24:41 +0100

Folks,

The following message was sent to the list last week and whilst it is on the
Nortel archive, it appears it did not hit the main list ?

Date:         Fri, 28 Apr 2000 08:15:51 -0400
                    Reply-To:     Alan O'Neill <[email-masked]>
                    Sender:       "IP Routing for Wireless/Mobile Hosts
(mobile-ip)"
                                  <[email-masked]>
                    From:         Alan O'Neill <[email-masked]>
                    Subject:      Re: handover

                    All,

                    For those who do not know me I work in BT on all IP
architecture with primary focus on UMTS Rel2001 but also including mobility
                    across a range of access technologies. I am also
co-author of <draft-oneill-ema-01.txt> which attempts to provide a generic
IP
                    hand-over architecture which will support UMTS:GTP,
MobileIP, but mainly routed mobility. Co-authors are Scott Corson the
                    MANET wg co-chair and George Tsirtsis also of BT.

                    We would like to to see  hand-over control and
interactions with the radio systems to be defined in a
                    generalised way so that an operator can migrate from
existing GTP through possibly MobileIP to the holy grail of a scalable
                    mobile enhanced routing protocol (we use modified
MANET:TORA for this at the moment), with co-existence where commercial
                    models dictate for the data-path options (tunnelled /
routed etc) . The aim is to facilitate a common IP hand-over interface so
that
                    the operator can have all options co-exist, and support
evolution between them. We can also see big dangers and interoperability
                    problems if each affected working group designs it's
own, non-interworking  fast IP hand-over solutions and associated interfaces
                    into the access technologies and systems.

                    The Edge mobility Architecture draft
<draft-oneill-ema-01.txt> avoids many of the details but hopefully the
reader can see the
                    clear need to enable tunnelled and native routed
solutions to co-exist,  re-using the same AAA, access signalling and policy
                    elements, plus the interfaces into many different access
technologies and systems. Our view at this stage is that the solution for
                    the signalling plane requires a combination of extended
MobileIP signalling to embrace GTP and routed mobility requirements,
                    plus DHCP extensions. We are presently preparing drafts
which detail the mapping of EMA to UMTS, and  the detailed signalling
                    pieces.

                    It seems to make sense that a separate short working
group be first formed to define the scope and
                    architecture for the IP hand-over work so that common
pieces can be identified along with the full set of new protocol
                    requirements. We can then let each existing or resulting
working group deal with those protocol requirements which clearly will
                    include MobileIP. Possibly a BOF could be specifically
scheduled at the next IETF or even some sort of interim meeting given
                    the all-IP timescales we are all experiencing in this
space.

                    Comments appreciated.

                    Regards
                    Alan O'Neill, Scott Corson, George Tsirtsis....

---

From: Ajay Wanchoo <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 17:21:15 -0400

Quite sometime back there was a discussion regarding
association (registration) of an MH to more than one FA.
Since it was brought up that there seemed to be no real
advantage, and even though currently Mobile IP does not
disallow multiple registration, maybe at a later date,
multiple associations may be disallowed.

I am curious about what the current thought is in this regard.
I am particularly concerned since I am currently working
on handoff approaches involving multiple associations.

Will appreciate any advice.

Regards,
Ajay Wanchoo

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 16:01:21 +0900

Could anybody understand the ema draft? It depends on another
draft from adhoc networking wg called TORA, i.e. the draft is not self
contained.
--
Behcet