Subject: Re: [MOBILE-IP] Handoff Discussions

From: James Kempf <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 12:57:39 -0700

Raj/Phil,

One thing that has come out in the discussings between Karim, Pat, and I
is that the requirements other than simply "make handoff faster" are going to
have a big effect on the solution. Would it make sense to have some
discussion around this topic either in the full working group or
among the group assembled afterwards to discuss? It's a pity the
draft deadline is about to expire, this would probably have been
a good draft topic...

                jak

---

From: Basavaraj Patil <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 09:05:13 -0500

Steve,

>> Our goal at the end of this IETF meeting is to have a single draft for
>> a working group item for handoff. (Two may be needed, perhaps a
>> separate item for v4 and for v6).
>
>    Why can't there be multiple hand-off technologies?

Handoff technologies are either of the following types : Network
initiated, Mobile initiated, Mobile assisited (MAHO) and a hybrid
combination of these. The network elements that play a role in the
handoffs differ and optimization to enhance the performance of handoff
can be done by multiple methods. There is a bunch of other issues as well
but to answer your question, yes there can be multiple solutions, but
what we are trying to do here is to take all the commonlaities of the
different proposals currently on the table and resolve the differences
to arrive at a single (or two) solutions.

>
>> Between the two sessions we'd like a small group to go work offline to
merge
>> some proposals or pick one, or one or two for the group to decide upon.
In
>> the second session we'd like to allocate 30 minutes to talk about the
>> outcome of this activity, and a very short presentation of the one or
>> two proposals that have been agreed upon.
>
>    This is a lot to accomplish in 2 weeks, since in order for a group (of
>unbiased individuals) to merge proposals, or select 2 for the WG to then
>select during the second session, they're going to have to be in a very
>finished state.
>

We do not expect this to be done in 2 weeks. It's a start. If required
we can talk about an interim meeting to merge the proposals and arrive
at a consensus solution.

>    I would rather the WG discuss the merits of each proposal in Pittsburg,
>perhaps what is required of a WG sanctioned proposal, then this smaller
group
>meet after the meeting to discuss recommendations to the group within 2
weeks.

This can happen on the discussion list and the merits of each proposal
can be highlighted at the meteing in Pittsburgh.

>                              Cheers,
>                                  Steve
Regards,
-Basavaraj

---

From: Matthias Kraner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 10:33:12 +0100

Hello,

I am following the discussion from some distance.
Regarding handoffs, IIP can offer some nice new thoughts on how to do them
very quickly and in some cases even without interruption. It offers some
new thoughts though. The fundamental difference is that it assumes hosts to
be mobile aware but it offers for all reluctant hosts, that are not mobile
aware, a nice and neat solution to communicate with mobile nodes. The
entity for that is called TVR.
I believe MIP and the fast hand off issues can benefit from some of the
proposed solutions. Chern Nam will present IIP in Pittsburgh and I believe
he would be interested in sharing his ideas with you

Matthias

                    Basavaraj Patil
                    <[email-masked]>           To:     [email-masked]
                    Sent by: "IP Routing for              cc:
                    Wireless/Mobile Hosts                 Subject:     Re: [MOBILE-IP] Handoff Discussions
                    (mobile-ip)"
                    <[email-masked]
                    WORKS.COM>

                    17/07/2000 15:05
                    Please respond to
                    Basavaraj.Patil

Steve,

merge
In

group
weeks.

Regards,
-Basavaraj

---

From: Roberts Phil-QA3445 <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 12:34:39 -0500

I think dinner is a good idea.  I'd like to have a small room with some sort
of writing surface for afterwards though as I imagine there will be some
discussion where we'll want to be able to draw to explain.

I've had a few requests from people who are not authors who would like to
attend.  I'd like to allow this but don't know what kind of room we'll be
able to get.  For now please just the authors of handover drafts that made
it in before the deadline plan to attend.  If we get a room that's big
enough we'll make it more open.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2000 8:48 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [MOBILE-IP] Handoff Discussions
>
>
> >It is a good idea. Since the first session is on Tue. How
> about interested
> >people
> >meet on Monday?
>
> How about dinner on Monday? We could all meet at the IETF
> registration...
>
> PatC
>

---

From: James Kempf <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 13:25:31 -0400

Fine by me. What time?

                        jak
>>It is a good idea. Since the first session is on Tue. How about interested
>>people
>>meet on Monday?
>
>How about dinner on Monday? We could all meet at the IETF registration...
>
>PatC

---

From: "Alan O'Neill" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 09:57:41 +0100

Scott, George and myself will be there...

> From: [email-masked] [SMTP:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2000 11:18 PM