Subject: [MOBILE-IP] charter review

From: Roberts Phil-QA3445 <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 09:36:10 -0500

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: Ramachandran Ramjee <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 18:28:55 +0000

Hi Raj and Phil,

Two quick points:

1) I believe Hierachical Mobile IP/ UMIP/Regional registrations etc.
also solve the issues of micro-mobility.

2) HAWAII conforms to Mobile IP (the mobile host will
not even know if HAWAII or Regional Registrations is operating in the
access network).
The messages between HAWAII only nodes can also be
easily translated into messages similar to the ones
used in the RR draft (Mobile IP messages with extensions)
as I recently mentioned to Charlie.

Thus, the only key difference between HAWAII and Regional
Registrations is whether tunneling is used or not (i.e.
overlay or not) in the local access network. If any protocol
that does not use tunneling is outside of the scope of the
Mobile IP wg, then I agree with you.

Cheers,
Ram

---

From: Steven Glass - Solaris Software <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 17:16:39 -0400

I support this 100%, and applaud this decision.  This has been a problem
for a long time now.   The IETF solution for those who are upset is to hold a
WG BOF, and try to figure out what that non-mobileip puzzle piece is shapped
like.

                              Cheers,
                                  Steve

---

From: Laurence Rose <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 09:52:04 -0500

Regarding our proposal which is aiming to support micro mobility as well as being
based on
Mobile IP v4 where it is supposed to be ... ?
 http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rose-mobileip-smm-00.txt

Regard
Laurence Rose

REgar

---

From: Steven Glass - Solaris Software <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 17:20:46 -0400

>
> Regarding our proposal which is aiming to support micro mobility as well as
> being based on
> Laurence,

    I'm not exactly sure the official policy, but my educated guess is if this
is already an individual submission to the mobile ip working group, it can
stay where it is until the BOF I mentioned becomes a working group, and forms
a charter.  If that charter encompases your draft, then it becomes
draft-rose-<newwg>-smm-00.txt.  If not, your draft doesn't need to be a
working group submission to become an RFC, though it's certainly harder to get
feedback.

                              Cheers,
                                  Steve

---

From: Andrew Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 11:36:51 -0400

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

---

From: Sandy Thuel <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 12:22:50 -0400

> protocols and solutions that are based on Mobile IP v4 and v6.

 Can someone please explain CLEARLY how you determine whether or not
"protocols and solutions" are based on
Mobile IP and are therefore, within the scope of the
mobileip WG charter? (e.g. do they have to be rfc2002
compliant?)

Thanks,
Sandy

---

From: Craig Cameron <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 18:37:55 +1000

From the Route Optimization in Mobile IP Draft,

>cut---------------------------------------
  Similarly, when any node (e.g., a foreign agent) receives a tunneled
  datagram, if it has a binding cache entry for the destination mobile
   node (and thus has no visitor list entry for this mobile node), the
   node receiving this tunneled datagram may deduce that the tunneling
   node has an out-of-date binding cache entry for this mobile node.
   In this case, the receiving node SHOULD send a Binding Warning
   message to the mobile node's home agent, advising it to send a
   Binding Update message to the node that tunneled this datagram.  The
   mobile node's home agent can be determined from the binding cache
   entry, because the home agent address is learned from the Binding
   Update that established this cache entry.
>--------------------------------------------------------------

How does the old FA have a cache entry for the mobile?  If it is
only detunnelling packets then why does it have to maintain a binding
cache entry for the mobile?

I seem to be missing the crucial detail: how does the old FA know the home
address of the mobile (that just moved)?  Is it set up when the first packet
sent goes through the home agent via a triangular route -> original
tunnelled packet's destination is the home address?

Thanks

Craig
4th year Elec Eng, University of Melbourne