Subject: [seamoby] Micro-mobility Issues for IESG to Consider

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 08:30:59 -0600

Fellow SeaMobites,

1).  If the IESG  is looking for Justification for Micro-mobility

     A).  We may look no farther than the justification used for
                        fast handoff work in the MIP group.
                B).  The justification for micro-mobility is precisely the same
                       as that used for fast handoff (i.e. at this point stricly
                       an emotional appeal since no hard data currently exists).
                C).  All the very same logical arguments apply.
                D).  Should it be stricly SeaMoby's burden to dig up the
                        hard data?  If so it should be explicitly stated in the
                        charter that we are to conduct analytical modelling,
                        simulations, and measurements of controlled
                        experimental testbeds of MIP, micro-mobility options,
                        and interaction MANET alternatives.  This may actually
                        get us somewhere useful.

2).  Since Pat is heavily involved in the fast handoff work, and he is
       going to argue the case for SeaMoby micro-mobility:
       [Please NOTE: I am not making any accusations of Pat ]
                A).  Do we have a case of the fox gaurding the hen house?
                       (Please don't go non-linear Pat (I want the group to seem
                         unbiased on the surface))
                B).  Should a micro-mobility "fanatic" chosen by the WG join
                       Pat in the IESG justification discusssion?

I apologize for my last Email's rants against GPRS and UMTS.  I could
have just as well have chosen Bluetooth or cdma2000.  My message
is not to build empires around layer 2 technologies which is all too
common these days.  As for the rest of the rant, well I hope it was
entertaining and not boorish.  The first part and the last part were
dead serious and I hope were not ignored.  The silence has been
deafening, hence I have sent this Dale Caregie-ized follow-up.

Thank you,

Phil Neumiller.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 19:42:23 +0200

Phil,

>                       an emotional appeal since no hard data 

MIP has been deployed, at least in lab situations, by many 
companies.  Fast Handoff is an enhancement to an existing
protocol based upon experience.  MM isn't really in the 
same league (yet).  I don't see any parallels between the
two (useful parallels, at least).  If we want MM, then
we need to justify it on its own merits.

John

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 15:41:05 -0600

Hi John,

Comments are below.

>companies.

1).  I believe in the world, the US based carrier Nextel has
     the largest Mobile-IP installed base.  They are using
     Motorola/3Com equipment.

2).  The second largest installation is also in the US and it
     is Sprint, also a combination of Motorola/3Com equipment.

[If somebody has other data please correct me]

3).  In both cases, I believe their metropolitan subnets are just
     big subnets, i.e. the subscriber's can not roam off the
     edge, i.e. there is never a mobile IP handoff!  So these
     are not very good testbeds.  [again please correct me if
     I am wrong]  I would cc Phil Roberts to get the data but
     he has just left Motorola!

>  Fast Handoff is an enhancement to an existing

4).  It is clearly not based on customer installed base
     experience John, at least for the largest installed
     bases in the world.

5).  Regarding parallels.  IMO they both do the same thing
     in the requirements sense NOT in the PROTOCOL SENSE.
     They both reduce or stop signallignalling upstream to
     the home for or foreign agent, they both make handovers
     qualitatively more seamless (nobody has numbers!).

So I disagree.  I say it is just as justified as Fast handover
and presents a viable alternative to fast handover.  In fact
it presents a solution for implementations where there is
no mobile IP infrastructure in place like perhaps in home
networking situations, camping trips, remote automobile
scenarios, dozens of other adhoc situations.

Thanks,

Phil Neumiller

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 09:22:46 -0600

This really great information Dave.  May I ask your source?  Also, could I ask
for some more information from you?  Like do you have any performance stats
perhaps?

Thanks,

Phil Neumiller

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 18:05:19 +0100

Hi,

My understanding is that Charlie only replied about Mobile IPv4, not
Mobile IPv6.  See my answer about Mobile IPv6.

> > Can MIP work effectively on and with:
> > Mobile Access Network Gateways?
> Why not?  I would say yes.  Do they offer care-of addresses?
> 
> > Mobile Routers?
> Here the answer is "yes", depending on how you would like to
> inject routes into rest of the Internet for the mobile portion
> which is to be served by the mobile router.

As far as you are dealing with mobile routers, you are also dealing with
a complete mobile network.  

Mobile networks can be supportted by Mobile IPv4; however,  I would say
that the solution described in RFC2002 is not scalable.

Mobile networks are NOT SUPPORTED by today's Mobile IPv6.  The reason is
because the Home Agent does not know how to redirect packets to hosts
behind the mobile router.  See my draft
http://www.inrialpes.fr/planete/people/ernst/Documents/draft-ernst-mobileip-v6-network.txt
for a comprehensive explanation of the problem.  However, Mobile IPv6
only require minor extensions to support mobile networks, and this is
also covered in the draft. 
 
> > Mobile Nodes?
> > Mobile Hosts?
A node is whether a host or a router.   Mobile IPv6 does not distinguish
between host and router.   Therefore, MIPv6 support both of them (but
not what is behind the mobile router as said before).

> > Mobile unaware nodes?
> No.

In my solution to support mobile networks in MIPv6, hosts located in the
mobile network are unaware of the mobility of the mobile network.  Thus,
mobility of the network is transparent to them, and mobility is entirely
managed by the mobile router.
 
> > Ad Hoc mobile networks?
> No.

In Mobile IPp6, ad-hoc networks may be connected to the Internet through
a mobile router. In this case, the solution described in my draft might
help.

Thierry.

--
* mailto:[email-masked]  Tel +33 (0) 4 76 61 52 69 
* INRIA Rhone-Alpes Projet PLANETE       (fax 52 52) 
* and MOTOROLA Labs Paris
* http://www.inrialpes.fr/planete/people/ernst/Welcome.html