Subject: RE: [seamoby] Single sentence problem statements

From: Patrice Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 13:07:43 -0800 (PST)

> 
> 1).  There is a concern that A GFA/FA in every AP may not scale or even
>        be desirable in extremely inexpensive access point devices.
> 
> 2).  There is a concern that putting an FA essentially everywhere would
>       add a lot of complication to what could be a relatively simple micro-
>       mobility handover.
> 
> 3).  There are some thoughts that micro-mobility could possibly be handled
>        completely my MNs (as I am sure have been discussed in MIP ad
>        nauseum in the past.
> 
> Pat ,our chair, has a firm grasp on this issue, since one of his main chores
> as a WG chair is to avoid redundancy with other WGs.

Correct, and one of the co-authors of the v4 fast handoff work, so I am quite
familiar with the ongoing work :)

I believe that the MM folks have raised some interesting questions about
MIPv6's reliance on IPSec, and the fact that a fast handoff will require an
IKE exchange. So, minimizing such exchanges will in fact provide the perceived
fast handoff :) Of course, the MM folks could explain what they are doing much
better than I could (I am just an observer).

PatC

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 14:46:05 -0600

>
> The issue here is not only "solving the problem" but also
> "solving it in a right way".
>
>    => Agreed. .. fully, but what is wrong about the above ?
>    Shouldn't this be part of the problem statement. Perhaps
>    it was discussed before ? I would appreciate a reference if it
>    was.

Hello Hesham,

I think what you are getting at here is that you think that the SeaMoby MM work
is
completely redundant with MIP fast handoff work right?  You may be absolutely
correct in the long wrong.  Then again you could also be wrong.  Part of the
exercise the SeaMoby WG has been given by the IESG is to determine IF a
light weight micro-mobility protocol solves problems NOT solved by MIP or
perhaps solves problems in a more efficient way than MIP++.  I don't think it
is safe to assume that all the SeaMoby micro-mobility design team members
have done a detailed examination of all the current fast handoff MIP drafts.  It
is my understanding that many of the people participating on the list have a
cursory understanding of the fast handoff drafts (and if they don't, they should
get one).  Some folks on the list have brought up some problems that the
work in progress may have.  I will try to recall some of them here.

INT
Dana,
If your reading this thread, it might be nice to add a perceived problems with
MIP(+fast handover) section to the problem statement draft.
IRET

Pat ,our chair, has a firm grasp on this issue, since one of his main chores as
a WG chair is to avoid redundancy with other WGs.

Perhaps if you examined the MM draft you would see that what is being done
in SeaMoby at this time is to articulate problems that MAY require
micro-mobility.  It is not SeaMoby's current job to to examine existing,
proposed,
or dreamed up solutions.  I am not sure I could ascertain from you statements
what it is you wanted added to the SeaMoby micro-mobility problem statement.
I have included the brief problem that I believe caught your eye for reference.

To avoid extraneous latency and signalling overhead caused by
MIP, a light weight micro-mobility protocol running on the edges
of the global Internet is required for handovers that do not
require an updated MIP COA.