Subject: Re: [seamoby] Arch discussions in IETF

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 11:36:21 -0600

Hi Raj and Phil,

  I think the critical question for micromobility (mm) branch of the
Seamoby WG is
to be or not to be, i.e.
whether another routing protocol for mobility is required. Presently we
have the MIP and
the Manet routing approaches.
  The alternative seems to be per-host routes or host-based routing. I do
not think there
has been another breakthrough proposal significantly different. We all know
Cellular IP and
Hawaii proposals. Recently there is probably another one based on extending
OSPF with
host-based routes.
  Of course there are a lot of details but I think this is the crux of
Seamoby mm problem.

--
Behcet

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 10:02:55 -0800 (PST)

I don't think this quite captures the finesse on
the issue. I don't believe that the proper framing
of the question is whether a new routing protocol
needs to be invented or not: it may very well be
that there is nothing to be done on the _routing
protocol_ front to support injecting host routes
if that's the ultimate solution. There may be work
needed to support _signaling_ a router that it
needs to change how a subnet is reachable.

I know this is hair splitting, but I think it's
important to separate out that it's quite possible
that the heavy lifting can already be done by
current protocols, and that all we need is the
ability to trigger them to happen. You might call
that a "routing protocol" too, but it ought not
evoke the fear and loathing that postulating a
Routing Protocol should.

		 MIke

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 10:02:55 -0800 (PST)

MIke

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 10:02:55 -0800 (PST)

MIke

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 19:42:06 -0600

Phil,

Comments inline:

>Hi Raj,
>
>>Phil,
>>
>>I do not see anyone saying that Mobile IP is the only solution for all
>>scenarios that require mobility. I am sure there are many scenarios
>>that Mobile IP may or may not be the most optimal solution. If Mobile
>>IP is unable to work as well as anything else you may have in mind
>>for specific scenarios, then why deploy Mobile IP in such scenarios?
>
>Then where might these other solutions be standardized in the IETF?

Seamoby??? Some other WG (MANET, Mobile IP, New WG)? Or is it the
IRTF that 

Do these kind of scenarios and problems get covered in the mobility
management problems statement I-D? If you believe this kind of
mobility currently does not have a WG in the IETF that deals with it,
then maybe that's what Seamoby should do. 

>Would this fall under the classification of micro-mobility even though
>the "so-called" COA or routing prefix does indeed change?  I guess what
>I am getting at is there may be cases of infra-structure-less mobility
>where the COA changes but there is no HA.  Would this be micro or
>macro mobility?
>

The terms micro and macro mobility are overloaded and perceptions are
different w.r.t where micro mobility ends and macro mobility
begins. The non-existence of an HA has no implications on whether you
are dealing with micro or macro mobility. I mean do you consider macro
mobility as only those cases wherein the MN sends a binding update to
the HA?

>>Can you be more specific on the kind of environments and requirements
>>that these environments have that would make it impossible for Mobile
>>IP to work in.
>
>Sure.  Specifically, I am very interested in portable devices that will
>find there way into homes.  Wireless appliances, MP3 players, digital
>radios, digital security devices, gaming units, VoIP devices, etc.  I
>am also interested in these types of devices that may be used in small
>to medium business that may not have large infrastructures in place.
>

Is there any limitation in terms of having Mobile IP support for such
devices? And why would you not be able to have Mobile IP in whatever
infrastructure exists (either in the home network or the small
business)? Are you concerned with the fact that if you have Mobile IP,
then you need an HA at the least (in the case of IPv6)? 

>Thank you,
>Phil Neumiller
Regards,
-Basavaraj

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 11:36:21 -0600

Hi Raj and Phil,

--
Behcet

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 11:36:21 -0600

Hi Raj and Phil,

--
Behcet

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 10:02:55 -0800 (PST)

MIke

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 10:02:55 -0800 (PST)

MIke