Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] WG Feedback Requested - differently asked

From: George Tsirtsis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 05:29:08 -0500

Ajoy,

Is it possible to tell us which parts?

Thanks
George

-----Original Message-----
From: Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1 [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 10:23 PM
To: [email-masked]'
Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] WG Feedback Requested - differently asked

Hello Phil,
We are implementing low latency handoff draft. Probably we 
will have some results by March. 
regards,
ajoy 

-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Roberts [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 2:25 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [mobile-ip] WG Feedback Requested - differently asked

Looks like I asked the wrong question.

So, here's the question I'd like an answer to:

- how many people are planning on this list are planning to *use* the MIP v4
low latency draft?  Please
identify yourselves.

Re: the other items.  The exchanges back and forth on the claims made about
the performance
of what's in the low latency draft don't seem to be getting us anywhere.
Could we have two
things:
1) discussions about who said and who claimed what off the list
2) results and rebuttals written up in draft format.  I know this takes
longer, but it's a lot
easier to point to that and read it than something that is thrown on the
list.

---

From: "Andrew T. Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 07:12:14 -0500

Folks:

All this talk about simulation - L2 triggered me:

Here is a paper on the performance comparison of
Cellular IP, Hawaii and Hierarchical Mobile IP
using the Columbia IP Micro-mobility Software (CIMS):

http://comet.columbia.edu/micromobility/

CIMS includes the ns-2 extension for all three
protocols for those interested in using it.

The paper that goes with the code is as follows:

A. T. Campbell, Gomez, J., Kim, S., Turanyi, Z., Wan, C-Y. and A, Valko
"Comparison of IP Micro-Mobility Protocols", IEEE Wireless Communications
Magazine, Vol. 9, No. 1, February 2002.

You can get a copy from:

http://comet.columbia.edu/~campbell/andrew/publications/papers/pcs2001.pdf

\begin{abstract}

We present a performance comparison of a number of key micro-mobility
protocols that have been discussed in the IETF Mobile IP Working Group over
the past several years. IP micro-mobility protocols complement Mobile IP by
offering fast and seamless handoff control in limited geographical areas and
IP paging in support of scalability and power conservation. We show that
despite the apparent differences between IP micro-mobility protocols, the
operational principles that govern them are largely similar. We use this
observation to establish a generic micro-mobility model to better understand
design and performance trade offs. A number of key design choices are
identified within the context of the generic model related to handoff
quality and route control messaging. We present simulation results for
Cellular IP, Hawaii and Hierarchical Mobile IP and evaluate the handoff
performance of these protocols. Simulation results presented in this paper
are based on the Columbia IP Micro-mobility Software (CIMS), which is freely
available from the Web (comet.columbia.edu/micromobility) for
experimentation.

\end{abstract}

Regards,
---
Andrew
http://comet.columbia.edu/~campbell