Subject: Re: [MOBILE-IP] Are requirements required?

From: "Hesham Soliman (EPA)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 09:19:40 +1100

Hi Sandy,

> > The mobile IP working group is not taking fast handoff from its charter.
> > We've consolidated the charter to consider mobile IP based approaches
> only
> > and we hope to end up with two approaches to doing fast handoff based on
> > mobile IP - one for v4 and one for v6.  The other working group that is
> > being proposed may investigate alternate approaches that are not based
> on
> > mobile IP.
>
> In my mind, fast-handoff = micro-mobility.  In your
> definition,  fast handoff = (some mechanism based on
> Mobile IP) whereas micro-mobility = (some mechanism
> not based in Mobile IP).  Is this correct? If so,
> can you explain what are the necessary conditions for
> a mechanism to be classified as being "based on
> Mobile IP"?  This is too vague.
>
        => I was guessing that's what was on your mind, may I ask why
        fast handoff = micromobility ?
        If we can achieve the performance targets that we're aiming for
        using MIP and some extensions wouldn't that be better and much less
        complex than inventing new protocols ? Let alon saving years of IETF
work ?

        In the second session for MIP WG in Pittsburgh, Andrew Campbell
mentioned
        that he was a co-author on a paper that did an evaluation /
comparison of the various
        mobility management schemes. I've read that paper, and on the
handoff issue, it was
        concluded that there were no significant differences between HMIP,
CIP and HAWAII.
        Andrew also mentioned that in is presentation.
        I may also add that the simulations in that paper did not consider
the Fast Handoffs
        draft (draft-elmalki- ...) which adds improvements to standard HMIP.

        So when I hear this direct association between micro mobility and
fast handoffs, I get
        a bit confused.

---

From: Sandy Thuel <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 15:16:24 -0400

RE: [MOBILE-IP] Are requirements required?Hi Hesham,

Sorry I didn't get to your email sooner.
  => I was guessing that's what was on your mind, may I ask why
  fast handoff = micromobility ?
  If we can achieve the performance targets that we're aiming for
  using MIP and some extensions wouldn't that be better and much less
  complex than inventing new protocols ? Let alon saving years of IETF work
?

  I think we have a terminology problem that is causing all this confusion
so let me take a stab at defining these terms based on your comments and
please correct me if I have misunderstood you:

  fast handoff support: approaches to enhance the handover performance of
Mobile IP by using existing Mobile IP mechanisms possibly with some
extensions.

  micro-mobility support: approaches to enhance handover performance of
Mobile IP by defining new protocols that work in conjunction with Mobile IP
while not adhering to conventional Mobile IP mechanisms.

Is this a reasonable definition for starters?  If so, we can then discuss
the relative merits and disadvantages of each.

Thanks,

Sandy