Subject: RE: [seamoby] IETF Architecture Work (RANT)

From: Phil Roberts <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 14:02:24 -0400

> > Mobile IP has been moderately, but not hugely successful.
> > That is, there have been millions of units deployed, not tens
> > of millions like there should have been.  One place where it
> > _could_ be more widely deployed is with new wireless networks,
> > and 3GPP* certainly qualify as standard bodies for new wireless
> > networks.  They are IETF customers.
> 
> I am going to respectfully disagree Charlie.  It *COULD* have been
> already deployed massively over WPAN and WLAN technology
> had we ignored the cellular concerns of AAA and QoS and minutes
> of use carrier class requirements and gone rapidly with a data only
> model.

What exactly was missed that kept it from being massively deployed?  I don't
recall us turning down any request for work that would help enable that
deployment, but perhaps you can point some out?

---

From: "Phil Neumiller" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 14:59:45 -0500

Hi Phil R.

I will take a stab at answering.  I am officially off on a rant now so *try*
not to respond unless of course you need to defend yourself. :-)

> deployment, but perhaps you can point some out?

1).  As James has pointed out repeatedly, it is the IETF's job to preserve,
      cherish, and extend the architecture of the global Internet.  When
      did it become the IETF's job to work for other SDOs?  IMO, the
      MIP WG has catered almost exclusively to cdma2000/3GPP2 and
      UMTS/3GPP for the last 1 1/2 years or better.  I could be wrong
      but that is my opinion.  In fact, some of the work that was not expedient
      for 3G was handed over to SeaMoby (and now the IRTF).

2).  A real goal that SHOULD be on the MIP charter (again this is IMO)
      is to make itself go away, i.e. MIP should be once and for all absorbed
      into the router fabric of the global Internet since the work is routing work
      and should stay routing work decoupled from other issues that are related
      to mobility.

      Distance Vector approaches like BGP4 and RIP have clearly proven
      themselves in fixed routers and will probably make a strong showing in
      pre-commercial MANETs shortly.  What does this mean to MIP?
      Apparently not much.  Its  quite possible that some BGP-like monster
      could really becomes the routing algorithm for all devices whether fixed
      or mobile and the utility of a home agent could be nullified.  Is this a
      concern of the MIP group?  It seems like maybe things like this SHOULD
      be on the charter to me since they are the things that have to do with
      the architecture of the global Internet itself.  Improvements to the global
      Internet in its support of mobility help everybody on the planet not just
      the 3G fat cats.

3).  I fail to see how continuing to tie security issues, QoS issues, AAA
      issues directly into the routing protocol implementation of MIP help to
      acheive the important goal of getting it universally deployed in the
      global Internet (not just a bunch of private cellular networks).  (again this is IMO).

Please take all this with an industrial sized canister of NaCl since it was a
and still is a rant.

Best regards,

Phil N.