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

From: James Kempf <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 15:36:17 -0700 (PDT)

Hi Phil,

>> 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?
>
>

I've got no easy answers either, unfortunately. Trying to bring GPRS
into IETF at this point would probably not work, as you say, yet I
don't think we can ignore it.

Maybe we can look into doing something like IPng is doing with their
interim meeting, in which they've invited some 3GPP SA2 members to
attend. We should probably at least be trying to get a dialog going 
somehow.

		jak

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 17:54:32 -0500

James,

>
>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.
>

You are aware I suppose of liasions between the IETF and the 3Gs. 
And the 3G bodies are not unaware of Mobile IP but, "You can lead a
horse to the water but...."

>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.
>

That's a good thing no doubt and especially for the Mobile IP WG and
the protocol in general if it has to have a chance at being deployed
on a large scale.

>The same cannot be said of 3GPP. They have a competing IP mobility
>standard which they have continued to push. 

Just because 3GPP does not use Mobile IP as the mobility protocol in
the architecture, you cannot say that they have been any less
co-operative with the IETF. And you do agree that there is nothing
preventing running Mobile IP on top of 3GPP networks....
So if Mobile IP is deployed in the Internet and other IP networks on a
large scale, you can think of the GGSN as your default router from the
MN and still do Mobile IP.

>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.

Do you have any insights into why they would want to specify a new
mechanism (GPRX)? After all as you said the R99 spec does include
support for an FA in the GGSN and inter-GGSN transfers could be
handled between the FAs. I am sure the Mobile IP WG would be able to
satisfy the requirements for an inter-GGSN /FA transfer that are
specific to 3GPP. Anyone here care to throw some more light on GPRX
and why you cannot do this with Mobile IP?

>Naturally, the next step is when 3GPP operators begin deploying 802.11
>networks, they start using GPRS for that as well.
>

Now I think you are starting to be a bit paranoid :)

>business of defining IP standards. 

I disagree. I do not believe that 3GPP is interested in defining IP
standards (Period).

>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?

If there is enough clamoring for Mobile IP support (lots of PDAs,
laptops and mobile devices running Mobile IP client software) , then
operators will ensure that the R99 network does support Mobile IP (I
guess you mean support an FA at the GGSN). I mean seriously how
difficult is it for a vendor to incorporate an FA in the GGSN? Maybe
some of the GGSN vendors can speak up and say if their GGSN does
include an FA and Mobile IP support.

>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
>

My view is that Mobile IP can and does address the needs of IP based
mobile networks. If we can get the specs done from our side, we can
pretty much leave trying to force someone to adopt it outside the
scope of the WG. So we should focus on getting a good solid spec for
mobility (If you build it, they....) 

-Basavaraj

---

From: Ken Rehbehn <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 11:04:24 -0400

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Clifford [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 10:00 AM

... good stuff snipped ...

> As to why it was decided to use these non-Internet mechanisms, I don't
> expect there's a technical reason.
> 
> tim

I think they used internet mechanisms.  Just not the ones the folks on this
list would prefer!

The reason for this decision is based on the business context.  The group
that did this was the operator community that was attempting to solve a
problem.  They did so in a forum conducted long after the standards for GPRS
were baked.  They needed to take advantage of currently shipping
functionality to solve the roaming problem.  No changes could be expected in
handsets.  The consequence is that they turned to BGP4 routing "glue" and
other internet-based mechanisms.  The solution seems to work but is quite
limited to the specific problem they tried to address.

Replacement of handsets and infrastructure is a wicked problem if you have
to answer to shareholders.

---

From: James Kempf <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 09:18:41 -0700 (PDT)

>to answer to shareholders.

GSM operators I've talked to say that they figure on a 3 year replacement
time for handsets, and that handset backward compatibility is not
a big issue for them.

On the other hand, the US is different. One person in 3GPP2 told me
they expected their analog phone in their car that they bought in the early
1980's to continue working indefinitely.

		jak

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 09:21:52 +0300

Hi James,

> 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? 
> integrated more deeply into the IPng core, hoping they will sink under 
> the load of their spectrum auction debt?

As I understand it, the current 3GPP architecture (release 99) is more or
less an access network for the Internet (at least the packet side, that is).
Also, I think that this was a design goal.  IMO, the IETF does not need
to care about this.  Mobile IP will be able to run over the 3GPP 
architecture - this is not an optimal solution for sure, but I don't
see why some folks seem threatened by this.

I'd propose that we (the IETF) continue to work on providing good IP-based
solutions.  I think that the future will be with MIPv6 and we should get
this finished ASAP!  It is very hard to get other SDOs to use protocols
which are not finished.

best regards,
John

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 09:44:55 +0300

Hi Jim,

> >Replacement of handsets and infrastructure is a wicked 
> >problem if you have to answer to shareholders.
> 
> GSM operators I've talked to say that they figure on a 3 year 
> replacement time for handsets, and that handset backward 
> compatibility is not a big issue for them.

I'd still think that a portion of their customers won't
change, and they will still need to support them (some
countries do require such things).  Further more, infrastructure
is expensive and you cannot expect things to change so 
quickly.  You cannot say the Internet is any better, otherwise
we should all have IPv6 addresses already.

best regards,
John

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 16:22:58 +0300

Hi Tim,

> My point that there wasn't a technical reason for the GSM not 
> using Internet technologies was mostly in fact that there's less 
> familiarity with the Internet and its protocols.  I'll let the 
> conspiracy theorists worry about the other factors.

Exactly.  I actually meant to expand upon your point.  I just wanted 
to emphasize that there is less familiarity with Internet protocols
in many cellular groups.  

I really don't think that any SDO wants to take anything away from
the IETF or the Internet.

best regards,
John