Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] Protocol Decision Fixed?

From: "Hesham Soliman (ERA)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 20:18:22 +0200

>I'm hoping we don't restart the protocol selection process.  If there are
	>compelling reasons to do so we shall.  The requirements gathering is more of
	>a way to get some convergence on what is really needed in the protocol.
	>There has been a fair amount of reflection that has gone on since the
	>working group selected the HMIP approach.
	>
	>

	A requirements phase is usually gone through in order to define what
	the protocol needs to accomplish. Doing a requirements analysis
	subsequent to selecting a protocol is a bit like putting on your
	bathing suit after you've jumped into the water with your cloths
	on. :-) The tendency is to "cook" the requirements to satisfy the
	already selected protocol. IMHO, we are seeing a bit of that
	now, with the authors of the selected protocol arguing strenuously
	against including requirements which their protocol currently
	can't support. In addition, they seem to be getting support from one WG
	chair and an AD who may have some vested interest in keeping 
	the protocol decision fixed, despite the somewhat dubious technical 
	grounds on which it was selected in the first place. Meanwhile, those other 
	members of the working group who have spoken up have largely been arguing in the 
	opposite direction.

	If the IESG and WG chairs decide they want to keep the protocol
	decision fixed, then let's simply drop discussion of requirements
	and rubber stamp HMIP. I'm perfectly fine with that. There's no point in wasting 
	transcontinental bandwidth on email any further. Clearly, we're in the 
	"political" layer of the IP stack here. :-)

	=> These are some pretty rediculous accusations 
	you managed to come up with. Are you going to 
	accuse everyone who doesn't see your point of view
	as being part of a larger conspiracy ? 
	Stick to the technical argument james and if you 
	find that you're argument is no longer valid don't 
	start these accusations. Let's be professional.
	Try to understand that it is not just the "authors",
	the "WG chair"

	Since you brought up the topic, why are these 
	requirements suddenly rising suddenly against MIPv6 ??
	What is it that you don't like about HMIPv6 that made 
	you turn this requirements discussion around towards removing 
	it from WG ????

	Hesham

---

From: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 22:27:29 -0400 (EDT)

Just to clarify my input here as Hesham's note made me want to do this.
The LMM discussion to me is a requirements discussion for Mobile IP
operation.  Its end result will affect other protocols and methodologies.
I have not decided if Regional or HMIPv6 is the solution in my mind
technically.  Nor am I against HMIPv6 and in fact I like it.  But what we
decide about LMM will affect CT and the true goal in my mind Seamless
Mobility but I also think that requires pilc and sctp work to become a
reality in the stacks.

I don't agree with Karim that one LMM per cloud is all that will ever be
needed simply because the cloud will be too large in some cases as a metro
network (e.g. LA, Boston, London, Tokyo, Paris).

Also think about this.  I leave my office and I am mobile with my PDA
gambling on the horses and keep doing it in my car.  While heading to the
bar I hit another access router and then in the bar I hit their wireline
10MB xDSL access router and get a cheaper rate and jump off the metro cost
to the xDSL cheaper cost.  Still gambling in the bar on my PDA.  Then I
jump into a taxi to get home and hit the metro again.  Then I finally get
home watching the wagers on the last race in my house and now jump on that
Access Router at my home xDSL which is the cheapest rate for connectivity
via my access point in my house.  Win a million dollars and go to bed.

I would argue the above was all in the same cloud in metro LA and the
wager access was in the city seciton I work, party, and live in.  Its a
subset of the cloud.  And there were other subsets in the cloud (the car,
taxi, bar, home) which are LMMs.  

To answer Eriks question mails ago.  Yes there is a permanent CoA and a
bunch of more efficient CoAs within the subsets above which are used to
communicate to the CN wager machine.  All of this is possbile with MIPv6
too.  It will also make CT and Seamless Mobility more efficient within the
subset of the cloud metro LA.

Disclaimer - I am not a fan of gambling but do believe it will be one of
the predominant uses of wireless networks and as I don't believe vice is a
crime fine with me then ok to make profit from it.  Well what is the
predominant use of the Internet WEB? :-----------------) 

regards,
/jim