Subject: RE: [seamoby] 4G BOF?

From: MORAND Lionel FTRD/DAC/ISS <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 10:43:33 +0200

Hi,

What do you really called "4G"? 1G, 2G, 3G were used to refere to new radio
access technologies in mobile (cellular) networks. Find a global solution
for seamless handovers between different types of access networks doesn't
imply to find a new access technology and a new access network design. 4G
doesn't have to used in opposition to 3G or each time a new solution is
proposed.
BTW, I don't think that Seamoby was supposed to deal with 4G but to solve
micromobility issues raised with MIP (whatever the definition of
"micromobility" is). To simplify the problem, one can say that the aim was
to ensure a fast and reliable handoff between two IP access points (IP base
stations, routers, etc.). But maybe I'm wrong and I missed something...

-----Original Message-----
From: Gopal Dommety [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 3:26 AM
To: gary kenward; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [seamoby] 4G BOF?

I was referring to  "non-carrier class mobility" in the statement Phil made
and not "carrier class packet data".
As for your comment of IP vs ATM that is another matter. 

A comment about the concept of 4G BOF. It might help to 
put some bounds on the problem(s). 

-Gopal

>  What is "non-carrier class" packet data? Answer: compare IP with ATM.

>Gary
>
>On Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:27:02 -0700, Gopal Dommety wrote:
>
>>  At 11:52 AM 19/04/01 -0500, Phil Neumiller wrote:
>>  >I think we MAY need a 4G BOF, i.e. what SeaMoby was supposed to be
>>  >as opposed to what it became.  This would be working on the global
>>  >Internet architecture for the purpose of improving global wireless
>>  >handovers of all types (primarily data, then QoS).  A primary goal of
>this
>>  >work group could in fact be the large scale deployment of MIP (this
>being
>>  >ironic) by focussing on NON-carrier class mobility, 
>>  
>>  
>>  what is non-carrier class mobility?
>>  
>>  >i.e. growth of wireless
>>  >access and handovers would take primary precedence over things like
>>  >AAA, security, QoS, etc.
>>  
>>  I am a bit confused. Could you elobrate?
>>  
>>  -gopal
>>  
>>  >This would not conflict with MIP or SeaMoby (now son of MIP) since
>>  >these WGs are now ALMOST exclusively working on 3G network
>>  >applications of MIP, IMO.
>>  >
>>  >-pdn
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________________
>Send a cool gift with your E-Card
>http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/

---

From: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 06:54:28 -0400 (EDT)

Hate to be a pain folks.  But if we want to talk about reqs for 4G BOF or
what 4G means and is next steps thats one thing and I don't think thats
our charter is it?

But to talk about it like it exists as 3GPP Release 5 or the 3GPP2 specs,
which are specs that EXIST and I have to use them to implement production
software and hardware, is absurd.  

If someone knows of a 4G spec I can write code to or even system integrate
a solution with as I can with 3GPP or 3GPP2 please share it with me.

Otherwise why are we discussing 4G?  I vote for the chair to kill this
conversation unless we do what I said in my first sentence or something
like it. 

/jim

---

From: Gopal Dommety <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 10:10:00 -0700

Looks like Phil posted and disappeared. I see no point in discussing this further.

BTW: I was not advocating for the BOF. I was only trying to understand what is problem the
originators of the email had when they said 4 G. anyway, I am out of this.

-Gopal

---

From: Patrice Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 11:17:46 -0700 (PDT)

> conversation unless we do what I said in my first sentence or something

Unfortunately (well, fortunately for me), I was on vacation, and am now trying
to catch up. I agree that our list seems to be subjected to unnecessary
pollution. 

May I kindly request that people that have mutual BOF ideas either exchange
them on [email-masked], or some other list.

We really need to concentrate on the work on our charter.

PatC