Subject: [Mip4] Proposed fast handover specification for Mobile IPv4

From: "Charles E.Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 12:48:48 -0700

Hello folks,

We've built and tested an alternative scheme for
fast handovers for Mobile IPv4.  It is adapted
from FMIPv6, and works well.

The document has been submitted as an individual
contribution, but we would like to see it adopted
as a working group document within the [mipv4]
working group if there is interest.

The -00 draft is available at:
   http://people.nokia.net/charliep/txt/fmipv4/fmipv4.txt

I'm not sure if there would be any interest on
the [mipshop] mailing list; if not, please excuse
the unnecessary distribution.

Regards,
Charlie P.

-- 
Mip4 mailing list: [email-masked]
    Web interface: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4
     Charter page: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/mip4-charter.html
Supplemental site: http://www.mip4.org/

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 18:35:07 -0700

Charlie,

In the absence of any vendor interest in implementing this and operator
interest in deploying it, I think this draft belongs in MOBOPTS. I don't
believe the charter is restricted to IPv6.

            jak

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Charles E.Perkins" <[email-masked]>
To: "Mobile IPv4 Mailing List" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "MIPv6 Signaling and Handoff Optimization Working Group Mailing List"
<[email-masked]>; "Rajeev Koodli" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 12:48 PM
Subject: [Mipshop] Proposed fast handover specification for Mobile IPv4

> _______________________________________________
> Mipshop mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop
>

---

From: "Charles E. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 19:27:30 -0700

Hello Jim,

I never heard of a rule that restricted discussion within a working
group to only those topics specified by ?operators? and ?vendors?
(Whatever happened to IETF being composed of individuals??)
Besides that, there's only been a few hours since I submitted my
e-mail to the working group.  I didn't expect to generate any
noticeable support in that amount of time...??

It might take a little bit longer.  People might be interested
to take a look, and decide for themselves whether further
action is at all warranted.

I submitted the e-mail to [mipshop], because the protocol
resembles a protocol of interest there.  I submitted the e-mail
to [mip4], because I thought there might be some interested
parties.  I agree that [mobopts] might be a good discussion
forum also, but I'm not used to sending out messages to so
many mailing lists at once.

Regards,
Charlie P.

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 20:01:52 -0700

> noticeable support in that amount of time...??

MIPSHOP was formed to take a specific set of fast handover drafts to
experimental, then move them to MOBOPTS. The intent of forming MOBOPTS was
that future questions of handover optimization for Mobile IP would be
discussed there. The reason for doing this work in IRTF given at the time
MOBOPTS was formed was because there was no interest in the vendor and
operator community for deployment, because there were significant research
questions about the technology. To my knowledge, I haven't seen any evidence
that these questions have been answered to the extent that there's a
protocol ready for standardization. Therefore, I believe MIP4 and MIPSHOP is
the wrong venue for this draft.

Besides, I don't see anything in the MIP4 charter about experimental work of
this type. The charter is very explicit about being restricted to work that
is relevent to deployment, with the exception of the existing LLMIPv4. To
me, that means "vendor and operator interest", 'cause that is what drives
deployment. For this draft to be discussed in MIP4, a charter revision would
be required. For it to be discussed in MOBOPTS, similarly, the current
charter would need to be expanded to include new drafts beyond the specific
set explicitly listed in the charter, and I believe that would conflict with
the original goal of forming MOBOPTS.

Sorry to be so strict about this, but I've seen WGs get into trouble in the
past by defocusing, ignoring their charter, and engaging in research work.

            jak