Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] LMM Requirements

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 12:22:26 -0500

James,

>James wrote:
>Hi Raj,
---cut------
>So the authors
>will tend to argue against any requirements that the working group
>brings up, just as they would if a free requirements discussion 
>were made prior to the draft. But, since the draft has working group
>status, it becomes harder for the working group to make changes because
>one has to convince the authors rather than achieve working group
>concensus. 

WG consensus is what matters. If the WG convereges on a concept, that
is not supported by the authors, it will still be included in the WG
document/solution. I do not believe that you have to convince the
authors; you just have to build WG consensus. 

>My impression is that has been the case with the hierarchy
>requirement in the current situation. 

I do not believe we have WG consensus yet (other than a few views) on
this issue. Maybe we need to do a consensus call on just this
requirement and hope that we have a wider response. So if we were to
do a consensus call on this requirement then the question to the WG
would be:
1. Is support for multilevel hierarchies a requirement for LMM?
2. A single level of hierarchy is sufficient as the requirements for
LMM can be met by engineering the network right.

Do you agree with the above if we were to do a consensus call...

>		jak

-Basavaraj

---

From: "Charles E. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 09:24:04 -0700

Hello Basavaraj,

> 1. Is support for multilevel hierarchies a requirement for LMM?

I would say yes.

> LMM can be met by engineering the network right.

I could also say yes to this question also, as you have phrased it,
if "right" is interpreted in a particular way.  If "right" is interpreted
instead to mean "according to the best possible technology" then I
would disagree.

======================================================================

The problem is not whether restriction to single-level hierarchy CAN
be done, it's whether it SHOULD be done.  And to me it is obvious both
that the restriction CAN be made; in fact, the current restriction is
to zero levels, which proves that one level can be done.

To re-re-reiterate:

- Multilevel topologies are much more natural from the standpoint
  of how networks will actually be laid out

- There are performance gains to be had

- Making the restriction to single-level hierarchy doesn't buy much,
  if anything, in terms of protocol simplification.  Besides, if protocol
  simplification is a goal, we should first eliminate basic mode.

Regards,
Charlie P.