Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] Involvement w. 3Gs? (context transfer from Seamob y)

From: Phil Roberts <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 18:05:57 -0400

> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Kempf [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2001 5:54 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [mobile-ip] Involvement w. 3Gs? (context transfer 
> from Seamoby)
> 
> 
> A debate has been going on on the Seamoby list about how involved the
> MIP group should be with the 3Gs, but it looked like here was rather
> the right place to have it.

Hi Jim,

> 
> One issue that comes up to me is the following. The MIP group 
> has tried to
> work with the 3Gs over the last few years, and has had 
> moderate success
> with 3GPP2. They are using MIP, we have successfully developed several
> enhancements to their packet architecture more or less collaboratively
> together with them, they are committed to working together with us
> in the future, and we have good working relationships with 
> TSG-P members.
> 

A large part of this is due to the fact that there was significant cross
polination between the two SDOs, which is IMO a good thing.

> The same cannot be said of 3GPP. They have a competing IP mobility
> standard which they have continued to push. At an IEE 
> conference in London a 
> few weeks ago, a paper was given announcing a plan to do inter-GGSN
> GPRS transfer (called GPRX). The R99 spec for 3GPP specifies that this
> should be done through mobile IP, but no 3GPP vendor implements it
> and none of the mobile operators are deploying it. They have
> shown no interest in working with IETF to resolve this.
> Naturally, the next step is when 3GPP operators begin deploying 802.11
> networks, they start using GPRS for that as well.

I'm not sure this is all that natural.  I can't say that I've never heard
anyone propose something like this, but I don't think there are standards in
place from the 3GPP to facilitate this easily.  The GGSN has specified
interfaces to an MT and an SGSN and an MT has specified interfaces for the
air, to an SGSN, and to a GGSN (among other specified interfaces).  None of
these seem naturally detachable from the other, and don't seem
easily to allow an MN to speak to a router across 802.11.  One might think
the operators might find it easier to use some already existing IETF
protocols in a more creative way to enable this kind of service.

> 
> So the issue is, what should the IETF do about this (is there anything
> we *can* do)? It looks to me like 3GPP is now getting into the
> business of defining IP standards. Do we maybe have to recognize that,
> like STD0048 and STD0019 for NetBios, GPRS is becoming a de 
> facto standard and 
> try to bring it into IETF? Or should we rather be pushing 
> back on them in some 
> way to deploy mobile IP, like R99 says? Or should we simply 
> ignore them and 
> instead work on getting mobility integrated more deeply into 
> the IPng core, 
> hoping they will sink under the load of their spectrum auction debt?

Good questions to which I have no good answers.  Certainly we have some
immediate goals to complete the MIP specs.  I don't see a clear path for
bringing GPRS into the IETF - it has lots of tentacles.  What do you have in
mind?

> 		jak

---

From: "Phil Neumiller" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 17:43:44 -0500

Since I ah, sortof, kind-of started this rant, I had a few more words...

----- Original Message -----
From: "Phil Roberts" <[email-masked]>
> > business of defining IP standards. Do we maybe have to recognize that,

Actually, Jim just let them.  We know that the IETF defines the architecture
and standards for the global Internet.  Eventually, even 3GPP will realize
that they have little control over something as powerful and growing as
the global Internet.  What I am worried about is that we (the IETF) have
been "paying them too much attention [ESPECIALLY in the MIP WG]!".
Just ignore them!

Let us get on with fixing the parts of the global Internet that are not up to
snuff for carying voice and video and lets make IP mobility work for the
human race, not just the 3GPP fat cats!  I want every person on the planet to
have IP access and the only feasible way to do this is with inexpensive
wireless.  Much of the world has yet to experience the joy of the WWW
and the wealth of data internet access offers, this is by far a more important
and might I add humanitarian goal for the IETF to pursue and it will raise
the human spirit, standard of living, and provide opportunities for the
world economy.  I don't want to sound like a communist or socialist here,
I believe that capitalism can work just fine in this environment, on the contrary
what we have now is what amounts to "central planning" with the damn
spectrum auctions (taxes)!

> > try to bring it into IETF?

Why bring it into the IETF?  That seems pretty dumb.  Let them do
their thing, since they claim it is better anyway.  It is not consistent at
all with the architecture of the global Internet, therefore ignore it.  It
will be transient like every cellular and wireless infrastructure before it.
The Internet is not transient, it is the closest thing to being an immortal
architecture that we have (warts and all).

> >Or should we rather be pushing
> > back on them in some

No pushing necessary.  Lead by example.  Why have we not given more
attention to the UNII and ISM bands?  In the US their are tons of grass
root movements springing up in cities offering ISP wireless or even free
wireless access.

> > hoping they will sink under the load of their spectrum auction debt?

This sounds like the plan I have advocated for years, of course everybody
always yells at me for being a 3G hater when I say stuff like this.  What
happened to you James? :-)

-pdn

---

From: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 07:14:43 -0400 (EDT)

I agree with Phil below.  Let 3G (GP or GP2) do there thing and we do ours
and we lead where appropriate by example.  And its not like our house is
clean here.  We move way to slow these days.  If we hold up others they
will not wait for us and move forward as they should.

/jim

---

From: Arthur Ross <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 07:48:55 -0700

>happened to you James? :-)
He's begun to see the light!

   -- A