Subject: Re: [MOBILE-IP] Handoff framework [Was Re: [MOBILE-IP] Anothernovicequestions!]

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 13:37:54 -0500

I agreed with Jim. In fact, the approach has been used to some extent in 3G
cdma2000 wireless network.

In general, there are two approachs to abstract an Access Network:
1. Abstract Link Layer Protocol: Defining an common link layer protocol to
extend various Access Network to FA.
 By doing this, an FA will only need to understand the Abstract link layer
protocol (or Abstract Access Network).
Each Access Network will be
responsible for translating (or mapping) its specific link layer to the Abstract
link layer.

In 3G cdma2000, the RP interface protocol (to some extent) is an extension of
cdma2000 link layer.

2. Link Layer Specific FA: This will make every Access Network has its own
specific FA. The FA will be fully
knowledgable of a specific link layer (or Access Network).  This method tries to
abstract Access Network
at network layer so that from HA point of view, all Access Network are same.
Unfortunately, it makes Mobile IP
depending on specific link layer.

Method 1 is prefered since it makes Mobile IP independent of any specific link
layer protocol (but still dependent of
the common Abstract link layer).

---Yingchun.

Arthur Ross <[email-masked]> on 08/13/2000 01:52:05 PM

Please respond to Arthur Ross <[email-masked]>

Sent by:  Arthur Ross <[email-masked]>

To:   [email-masked]
cc:    (Yingchun Xu/MW/US/3Com)
Subject:  Re: [MOBILE-IP] Handoff framework [Was Re: [MOBILE-IP]
      Anothernovicequestions!]

At 11:09 -0700 08/13/2000, Sebastian Thalanany wrote:
>The use of  an abstraction of link layer characteristics(ie. optional
>triggers etc.) to assist L3 is fundamental to the realization
>of efficient wireless mobile handoffs. I agree with Jim.
>
I support this as well. The trick, of course, is going to be coming up with
that OOP- or WIN-like abstraction. And, like Jim said, in the attempt may
lie a VERY USEFUL large-scale gedanken experiment in helping to clarify
what the physical layer designers' problem(s) is(are), and how the legacy
stuff either a) fits in, or b) can be patched up. This is, IMHO, precisely
the sort of enlightened collective discussion of this problem that has been
needed for a long time.

   -- Arthur

   Dr. Arthur H. M. Ross
   2325 East Orangewood Avenue
   Phoenix, AZ 85020-4730

---

From: Vincent Magret <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 13:53:35 -0500

I will be in favor of the first solution.

Vincent.

---

From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 13:40:44 -0700

> responsible for translating (or mapping) its specific link layer to the
> Abstract link layer.
>
> knowledgable of a specific link layer (or Access Network).  This method
> tries to abstract Access Network
> Method 1 is prefered since it makes Mobile IP independent of any specific
> link layer protocol (but still dependent of
So, let's see if I get this correct.

You propose that each wireless standard try to figure out how to get Mobile IP
working correctly, as opposed to Mobile IP providing a set of tools for the
wireless standards people to use.

Do you not believe that the IETF is where any Mobile IP work should be done?
Do people really want to see solutions like the 3G ext, where PPP is carried
in GRE, and god knows what other standard body comes up with, as opposed to a
*single* nice clean solution?

I much prefer #2 above, but I do not like the way you've put it. How about:

"2. The Mobile IP WG will develop a single fast handoff strategy, that takes
advantage of certain wireless technology capabilities. The document will
include support for complex air interfaces (e.g. ones that provide air
interface measurements), and simpler ones (e.g. ones that do not provide such
measurements)."

PatC