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

From: Roberts Phil-QA3445 <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 12:51:10 -0500

Alan,

        this was on the mail list.  We were letting people say pretty much
whatever they wanted on this issue last week so I didn't respond.

        I now have a couple of comments.

        Although a sizeable constituency of the group has the same goal of
an all IP mobile enabled network for cellular, the group is not chartered to
come up with a transition plan for something like UMTS.  That's not to say
such isn't needed, it's just beyond the scope of this group.  If there are
particular aspects of that kind of work that fall into our charter (such as
supporting fast handovers) we're certainly willing to take contributions.

        As far as forming something like a BOF to investigate the appraoch
you've outlined, there may be members of this list who are interested in
participating, but we're not really the right audience to ask for such an
agenda item.

Hope this helps,
Phil

-----Original Message-----
From: Alan O'Neill [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2000 9:25 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [MOBILE-IP] Hand-over resend

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: "Andrew T. Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 14:40:20 -0700

Phil:

Following up on your note:

I think it would be a mistake to have the Mobile IP Working
Group do a 3GIP kind of thing or be a vehicle for 2/3G
transition to wireless Internet.

The Mobile IP WG should charter 4GIP: pure unadulterated
IP packet networks based on Mobile IP and packets to
and from the mobile host using best effort service.

I think too much 3G influence in the group may
be a distraction from that.

Andrew

---

From: "C. Perkins/D. Reese" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 11:48:10 -0700

Hello Andrew,

I think it would be a mistake to limit the involvement of
3G proponents.  Instead, I would hope that we would
identify the correct charter items, and solicit input from
all interested parties along the way towards fulfilling
the charter work items.  Just as an example -- if, for
instance, some 3G folks need to have certain Route
Optimization features that are independent of the access
medium, that is a discussion which belongs here.

Part of the reason I am reacting to this is that I have
spent a lot of time encouraging 3G engineers to get
more involved with the mobile-ip working group.
They should be welcomed, and we should all make
sure that we understand clearly the goals of the working
group.

One notable difference is that the mobile-ip working
group is mostly chartered to do protocols, whereas
3G standardization groups also have to put together
system architectures.  Thus, they are likely to notice
when a protocol component is missing.  That is good
information for us to know.

Regards,
Charlie P.

---

From: Arthur Ross <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 12:01:57 -0700

>be a distraction from that.
I agree. Trying to graft MIP onto 3G would be a quagmire & distraction.
Pure MIP packet radio should be the goal. I would include in that the
"Minimalist" physical layer, although some may consider that controvertial
or out of scope.

   -- A

---

From: "Andrew T. Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 15:22:30 -0700

Charlie:

I fully agree we need to be open and
inclusive.

But my gut feel is that overlaying 3G
on to IP is a little like the ATM
circuit model on to IP.

Andrew