Subject: Re: [MOBILE-IP] charter review

From: Matthias Kraner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 15:17:01 +0100

Since we have faced a similar statement, when we were applying for a
timeslot for IIP in Pittsburgh ...

MIP working group has started to address one of the major problems for
wireless mobile phone environments that is hand-offs (Fast Handoff
discussion).

However, it seems that there is only little research available on MIP
perfomance especially in those areas mentioned in the charter: GPRS, UMTS,
CDMA2000.

Given that after Pittsburgh, I have been told, there are still severe
issues with the handoff problem, that there are security issues
(unfortunately others overspent the time guidelines sufficiently that a
colleague of mine couldn't present her contribution) and that MIP in both
versions is heavily contributing towards transport overhead on expensive
spectrum, I believe it is premature to assume MIP is really the suitable
solution and thus to exclude other protocols proposals. (It is still a pain
to make MIP interworking on different platforms)

There is no need to adopt another protocol from scratch but at least some
thoughts might be worthwhile considering for future MIP versions ;-).

How about taking the advantage and to review the whole process of MIP
standardization. It might be not to late to review the research in this
area. Is it time for a CFP to support this?

Matthias

                    Andrew Campbell
                    <[email-masked]>         To:     [email-masked]
                    Sent by: "IP Routing for              cc:
                    Wireless/Mobile Hosts                 Subject:     Re: [MOBILE-IP] charter review
                    (mobile-ip)"
                    <[email-masked]
                    WORKS.COM>

                    17/08/2000 16:36
                    Please respond to Andrew
                    Campbell

I am happy with this change.

Our intention with introducing Cellular IP was never to drive for
any form of standardization with the protocol. We wanted to
inform and push an agenda that Mobile IP needs a
number of important enhancements to be more
commercial useful to carriers/wireless ISPs; these are:

1) fast and low loss handoff control
2) IP paging
3) a link level API that exposes link state information
   (e.g., SNR) for fast handoff

A number of people see CIP at odds with Mobile IP. That is
not the case. CIP and Mobile IP run in unison to support
1-3. (A CIP terminal runs CIP and Mobile IP to achieve
micro and macro mobility, respectively).

The challenge is to provide 1-3 with minimal state, signaling
and complexity.

I'm convinced that Mobile IP  needs to provide 1-3.

Looks like the charter embraces 1 but not 2 and 3 at the
moment.

Andrew

>
>
> > The chairs would like to refocus the Mobile IP WG objectives to
> > protocols and solutions that are based on Mobile IP v4 and v6. The
> > current objective in the charter of enhancing the protocol to make it
> > suitable for deployment can be achieved if we simply focus on what
> > needs to be done from the perspective of just Mobile IP as specified
> > for IPv4 and IPv6.
> >
> > We believe that alternatives to Mobile IP for IP mobility are outside
> > the scope of this WG. To this end we are proposing that we remove the
> > micromobility bullet item from our charter. Removing this means that
> > we are not going to be considering protocols that are not based of
> > Mobile IP v4/6. The two specific protocols that are WG items currently
> > that will drop out of scope immediately are Cellular IP and HAWAII.
> >
> > We would like to hear from WG members their opinions on this
> > proposal. You should be aware that going forward there MAY or
> > MAY NOT necessarily be another WG in the IETF to pick up this work
> > although we feel that it is a topic that needs separate coverage.
> >
> > Phil and Basavaraj
>

---

From: "Charles E. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 07:56:47 -0700

Hello Matthias,

> perfomance especially in those areas mentioned in the charter: GPRS, UMTS,

These would be interesting numbers to get.

> colleague of mine couldn't present her contribution)

Could you describe the security issues?

>                                                  and that MIP in both
> spectrum,

How does Mobile IP contribute in any significant way, compared to
(say) IP header overhead on data packets?

>         I believe it is premature to assume MIP is really the suitable

Let's assume that Mobile IP does not solve all problems associated
with mobility.  In fact, it really just makes IP packet redirection
invisible to higher level protocols (and applications).  Thus, for
other mobility problems (e.g., service discovery) Mobile IP is not
"the suitable solution".  Do you claim that Mobile IP is not the
suitable solution for managing IP routing to mobile nodes?  If so,
can you suggest a better approach?

Or, instead, do you claim that there are application requirements
that are not solved by Mobile IP?  In that case, I reckon you would
get widespread agreement.  On the other hand, I don't know whether
the mobile-ip working group is prepared to take on application issues.
Of course I am only speaking for myself; if others wanted to take
up the problem area, that could lead to many possible improvements.

> area. Is it time for a CFP to support this?

What does CFP mean in the context of an IETF working group?  Do you
mean to propose a design team?

Regards,
Charlie P.