Subject: Who wants seamless handovers anyway? was RE: [seamoby] draft-iet f-seamoby-ct-reqs-02.txt

From: Phillip Neumiller <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 08:21:32 -0500

Hi,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> 
> Doesn't this all boil down to the applicability AAA, CT, MIP, NSIS
> for seamless inter-operator, vertical handovers?  :)

Hopefully not.  There is a small but growing movement to make better use
use of the unlicensed bands (with high bits/Hz/sq meter) MAC protocols.
The ISP model is more appropriate, i.e. you pay for access but that's
it.  The IP pipe to the big I is the "service", i.e. no Telco/cell-like
operator needed.

Question: Who want's seamless handovers anyway?  
Question: Between what AND what?

I understand the term "vertical handover" to mean inter-technology hand-
over (especially from a subsumed pico-cell in(out)to a larger container
cell).  Multi-mode 11a/11b radios will be coming out soon with multiple
MACs, but these are likely to be limited to hot spot and hot region
communication in the near term.

802.11b and Bluetooth have lots of problems and don't provide good 
mobility.  The problems have been identified for the most part, but the 
fixes will take time to get into these MACs (if it is deemed worthwhile).
Multi-hopping with these MACs is  problematic and putting QoS on them is
currently near impossible due to inherent unfairness issues.  It is
really time to revisit MAC land with some improvements for seamless
mobility and as Barani mentioned there is work in the IEEE on handoff
stuff.  However, there is also work needed on the MACs (or to create
a new one) better suited for mobility and ad hoc networking. 

Handing off between cellular systems and WLANs/WPANs (at least with
today's MACs) is not all that useful and will not scale that well.  I 
know I sound like a curmudgeon, but I have looked pretty closely at
this possibility.  If you believe otherwise, can you explain why this
is useful and more importantly where (and how it could be profitable?)

> Given the fact that many of the applicable protocols for such
> a solution are not RFCs yet, I would like to suggest that such 
> a solution is very interesting (for sure), but I think the
> IETF would have a hard time standardizing such a beast.

Yes, we probably need some scrappy start ups to revolutionize free
wireless Internet for the masses not dissimilar from what Linux
has done with OS's.  Even in the U.S. this would be fought tooth and
nail and would likely lead to massive disruption in the operator's 
home turf.  The war has already been waged, its just that wireless is
a new battlefield between the "bellheads" and the Internet "freedom
fighters".  :-)

> Rather, I think getting about 10 smart engineers in a room
> together for a couple of months could get a pretty impressive
> demo together.

Its been done.  Its been shown and demoed.  Now what do we do?

73s,

Phil 
****************************************************************************
This e-mail is intended only for the addressee named above and may contain
confidential, proprietary or privileged information. If you are not the
named addressee or the person responsible for delivering the message to the
named addressee, please inform us promptly by reply e-mail, then delete the
e-mail and destroy any printed copy. The contents should not be disclosed to
anyone and no copies should be made. We take reasonable precautions to
ensure that our emails are virus free. However we accept no responsibility
for any virus transmitted by us and recommend that you subject any incoming
e-mail to your own virus checking procedures.