Subject: Re: [MOBILE-IP] Handoff framework

From: Basavaraj Patil <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 10:18:45 -0500

Ram,

>Hello Raj,
>
>Basavaraj Patil wrote:
>>
>> I disagree that the outcome of the current effort will be specific
>> solutions for different types of link layers. Based on the scope and
>> the parameters that we are working on we will limit getting into link
>> layer details.
>
>From the last handoff only meeting that I attended, the conclusion
>seemed to be that different proposals had different link
>characteristics in mind (for example, one proposal assumed
>coverage was overlapping so that registrations to new FA can go
>through old base station; one assumed link layer authentication etc.)
>and so different solutions made sense in different settings.

I think the best thing here would be to clearly specify the scope and
objectives of the handoff work being done within the WG. That will
clear the haze, but just to reiterate a point : We will not worry
about specific link layers in the handoff solution being addressed
now (to ensure people stop discussing soft handoffs and make before
break etc.).

>> >I think what we need is a FRAMEWORK FOR HANDLING MOBILITY LOCALLY.
>> >Inside this framework, there must be freedom to tailor handoffs
>> >in any way, based on link layer or other characteristics. This
>> >framework will also allow registrations to be processed locally,
>> >reducing signaling load to the home agent. Also,
>> >such a framework will help support paging within the network agents
>> >(which is another local function) and ipv6 (which will initially be
>> >a local function as the transition from ipv4 takes place).
>> >
>>
>> The comment here (biased) seems to lay the groundwork for proposals
>> such as HAWAII and Cellular IP.
>>
>> >Currently, there are two such broad frameworks available:
>> >
>> >1) HAWAII/CIP - every local node is involved, no tunneling
>> >2) HMIP/UMIP/RR - a few local nodes are involved, tunneling-based
>> >overlay
>> >
>> >I think both frameworks are/can be made to look like rfc2002
>> >with similar security models.
>
>Just to avoid the bias, I specifically stated that I consider
>both Hierarchical as well as Hawaii/CIP models are fine as frameworks -
>the bias is more on my belief that the wg needs to standardize on the
>framework before doing the handoffs standardization.
>

Maybe. Let's see if the people working on the handoff mechanisms
arrive at a similar conclusion.

>Cheers,
>Ram

-Basavaraj