Subject: RE: LINK update

From: Phillip Neumiller <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 07:33:09 -0400

Hello Mariee,

Thanks for the pointer to the BOD work, I have not looked
at this before since I thought it was all ISDN related,
but I will take another look.  Satellite links are pretty
different from terrestrial links, i.e. point to point,
doppler etc.  I guess I am more interested in the large
variety of MAC schemes that are in use and planned for
terrestrial RF and how THESE would interact with IP layer
QoS.  More comments below.

> 
> I do follow the Mobile IP group and yes some of the proposed 
> Seamoby and
> Mobile IP mechanisms are interesting. What do you propose? 

I am not sure.  It seems that the IETF works better when problems
are chopped into tiny pieces allowing generalization to occur later.
To me this seems like a long way to go about producing generalized
solutions, but in the end, with patience, I guess we get what
we want??? 

What I mean is that we can watch what happens in the MIP draft,
and perhaps what goes on in SeaMoby with generic L2 triggers, and
perhaps MANET and come back to any PILC implications later??  
I would prefer to work this problem in reverse and gather requirements
in the sub-IP area for all these WG concerns though.  As I have
stated on the SeaMoby list, cells (coverage areas) are likely to
get smaller and smaller (no matter what you are deploying) and 
mobility is likely to increase.  This combination will lead to
the need for even faster handoffs.  MIP is not the solution here
and a "tight" coupling between MAC QoS and IP layer QoS will most
likely be required to sustain QoS links seamlessly.

> Reference them in
> LINK? Add a LINK section on those proposals? 

Again, I am not sure since these things are still being born and
"figured out" in those WGs.  I guess if PILC people could recognize
a need for a "generic triggering mechanism" that would be more
ammunition for the creation of a WG in the sub-IP area.  I would
really hate to see different under-belly triggering mechanisms get
developed for MIP, MANET, SeaMoby and PILC, not to mention the 
QoS WGs (and possibly security too!). 

> Maybe one thing 
> that could be
> added to LINK is the issue of some cost function that 
> includes link status

I like this.  However I would try and generalize it a bit so that
it could be useful to a wide croud, i.e. the WGs named above. 
I think it is OK if LINK is not strictly wireless, although my 
feeling has always been that wireless is sufficiently different
to deserve its own treatment.

Best regards,

Phil