Subject: [mobile-ip] New I-D in L3 trigger based MIPv4

From: Youngjune Lee Gwon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 13:30:04 -0800 (PST)

We have submitted a new I-D on L3 triggered MIPv4 predictive
handoff. We'd like to have discussion in the WG regarding the
document. Your comments and critiques are appreciated.

You may view the I-D at

http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gwon-mobileip-l3mp-mipv4-00.txt
 
Thanks,

----------------------------------------------
Youngjune Gwon          [email-masked]
Research Engineer
Mobile Internet Laboratory 
DoCoMo Communications Laboratories USA, Inc.

And, the Truth will set you free.  - John 8:32
----------------------------------------------

---

From: "Atsushi Takeshita" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 22:11:20 -0800

Hi.

While some low latency handoff methods assume the use of "L2 trigger",
this I-D shows that the trigger can be L3-based.
Please give us comments and critiques.

Regard,
Atsushi Takeshita

---

From: Pat Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 08:41:11 -0800 (PST)

> this I-D shows that the trigger can be L3-based.

well, this isn't exactly something that we didn't know about. CDMA2000 does in
fact use Layer 3 messages to "extend" the L2 signals to the foreign agents.
This is necessary because the L2 termination point and the FA are not
colocated.

I believe that we've also discussed doing something similar for non colocated
802.11 APs and Foreign Agents.

> Please give us comments and critiques.

I think it would actually make alot of sense to define a standard L3
signalling method to do this, but wonder whether this really belongs in *this*
WG, as opposed to, say, Seamoby.

PatC

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 09:25:23 -0800 (PST)

> WG, as opposed to, say, Seamoby.

   I sort of wonder whether it belongs in IETF at all.
   Traditionally, if you want L3/router functionality
   at a particular place, you -- ta da -- put a router
   there. Defining L3 backhaul for each and every L2
   along with all of their idiosynchracies seems like
   a pretty horrifying prospect. It's not like basic
   routing functionality is all that hard to come by
   these days.

		Mike

---

From: Youngjune Lee Gwon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 11:04:55 -0800 (PST)

Pat,

I'm sure MDM is still a scope of MIP WG. I'm only trying to define a L3
based mechanism that can be used for predictive MIP handoff. I believe the
MDM in RFC2002 is yet insufficient for this purpose. 

While defining a new L3 signaling format may be redundant, my view on 
the cost of using router advt for the mobility prediction (described in
this draft) may be too high. 

Thanks,