Subject: Re: [MOBILE-IP] Handoff triggering

From: "Kay, Rodney" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 12:06:44 -0500

Have been going through your draft document and find it very interesting,
but have a general question:  You talk of the MT scenario as being a
combination of the MI/MO scenarios; but I wonder if it wouldn't properly be
a separate entity unto itself.  Your example of a MH in a moving vehicle
seems to make the argument that when terminal velocity exceeds X
(pre-defined by better minds than mine) then the ITHO should be negated in
favor of remaining with the GPN as opposed to swapping around various LPN's.

Regards,

Rodney H. Kay
Department of Veteran's Affairs
Puget Sound Health Care System
Systems Manager
Seattle, Washington

-----Original Message-----
From: Mika Ylianttila [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 7:50 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [MOBILE-IP] Handoff triggering

  First a kind note for the majordomo admin: please try to preclude spams,
as well as out of office replys. It should be pretty easy to do, e.g.

taboo_headers  <<  END
/$/i
/"OUT OF OFFICE"/i
END

  Then for the actual topic. As it is possible to use net in real-time
during the WG sessions, I would assume that e.g. CRAPS and handoff issues
would be relevant topics for immeadent discussions. While it is still
unclear if there is enough work items (or specific enough) for a new WG, I
am still very much interested in this kind of an effort within IETF. There
are many aspect of handoff that are not yet currently addressed with the
use of Mobile IP as inter-technology handoff protocol. One is the
triggering part. It may be debatable if the handoff algorithm aspects for
triggering is an IETF topic, but I would like to see discussion about it. I
have presented some aspects for it in my draft
http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ylianttila-isl-prot-req-00.txt.
Because it was originally made to Spatial Location BOF it contains a number
of irrelevant stuff for this WG, but you should find the relevant parts
pretty easily.

Waiting for the discussion (is there some other list, I have not seen
much discussion on this list lately?) ;)

--
Mika Ylianttila
M.Sc., Research Scientist
Centre for Wireless Communications
PL 4500, Tutkijantie 2 E, FIN-90014
University of Oulu, Finland

---

From: Mika Ylianttila <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 10:15:17 +0300

On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Kay, Rodney wrote:

>a separate entity unto itself.

Hi Rodney,

you are right that MT may not be explicitly a combination the first two,
but merely in the conceptual level. This firts draft tries to bring up the
problems and related requirements in a quite general level, and the
contents of each scenario can be deepened, and some issues may need to be
redefined. We have been studying the algorithm aspects around inter- tech
mobility, and I was happy to see that there are now an increased interest
within IETF to address these issues.

>Your example of a MH in a moving vehicle

That is a quite realistic assumption in my opinion. I think the coverage of
LPN must be taken into consideration in respect to the terminal velocity
(in an ideal system).