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

From: James Kempf <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 14:53:33 -0700 (PDT)

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.

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.

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.

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?

		jak

---

From: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 07:11:06 -0400 (EDT)

3G Rel 5 has to much on their plate to add MIPv6.  Rel 6 will have it.
Also they don't define IP protocols.  Also I don't think we should take
more on here in the IETF our plate is already full.  

/jim

---

From: "Paik, Eun Kyoung" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 16:15:15 +0900

���, 

아래 메일에 보면 3GPP2가 MIP를 사용한다고 하는데 
MIPv6에 대한 얘기는 어떻게 되가고 있는지 알아봐다오.

3GPP2에서도 MN이 IP address를 사용하니 ?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Jim Bound
> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 8:11 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [mobile-ip] Involvement w. 3Gs? (context transfer 
> from Seamoby)
> 
>

---

From: "Paik, Eun Kyoung" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 21:43:27 +0900

Would you let me know what the conference or the title of the paper was ?

Eun Paik

> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of James Kempf
> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 6:54 AM
> Subject: [mobile-ip] Involvement w. 3Gs? (context transfer from Seamoby)
>