Subject: Re: [seamoby] Yet Another BOF?

From: James Kempf <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 16:01:14 -0800

Phil,

I think you are being much too pessimistic. Dana and Mike Thomas have raised
some significant issues regarding the interaction between MIP and routing. 
Thought
the rhetoric and accusations have been flying, there is the kernel of some 
serious questions that need to be addressed. In particular, the interaction 
of RSVP and MIP that Mike has identified in his draft are serious, since 
RSVP was designed with standard routing protocols in mind, not with MIP. 
Perhaps they can be fixed by aggregated RSVP, perhaps not (after reading 
the aggregated RSVP draft, I
have my doubts).

In any event, working out the details and pinning down exactly what can and 
can't be
done using MIP will be what tips the balance of whether a routing based 
micromobility protocol gets done or not. If you look in the paging draft, 
ultimately, we determined that it would be possible to do most everything 
using MIP, but practical considerations and the complexity of doing it 
argued for a modest IP paging protocol. Something similar may happen for 
micromobility as well.

So...hang in there!

                 jak

PS: regarding fiber in Nebraska and New York, the point is, New York 
probably has
the fiber, and the ROI of laying it in Nebraska probably isn't big enough 
(especially
considering the telco financial condition these days) to do justify it. 
Just as with paging, you need to give the people doing the network 
engineering some flexibility
without overwhelming them with options.

At 05:50 PM 2/27/01 -0600, [email-masked] wrote:

>After a brief history with mobility BOFs,  I am convinced that they are of
>limited use.  Perhaps an
>informational RFC is a better approach (not my idea).  I am convinced that 
>many
>of us (perhaps
>Gary, (Andrew, James, John, Peter, and the other OBAST disciples:-))) that
>wanted to build true
>all IP based, edge oriented, routers with wireless cards, with a standardized
>backhaul, some
>how got muscled out of the IETF by the powerful forces of the MIP and MANET
>groups.  We
>played nice, let them hack up the charter into what is now a tenuous set of
>problem statements
>dangling on the edge of existence.
>
>I for one find it difficult to contribute or create in this type of 
>forum.  Its
>completely stifling.  We need
>to throw out all the assumptions and start from a clean slate.  We need to
>consider the implications of
>ultra-wideband, widespread deployment of MMDS/LMDS, OFDM, hybrid fiber 
>wireless
>schemes and
>how they interact with mobility, and the failure of 3G.  I am tired of arguing
>about the minutia of where
>an FA lives or whether its macro or micro mobility.  They will all likely be
>irrelevant in the forth coming
>world of glass pipes everywhere (its easier to lay glass in Nebraska than 
>in NYC
>James :-)).
>
>Some folks have approached me about another BOF.  I am convinced it would 
>NOT be
>a good thing.
>An informational RFC COULD provide a way to articulate some ideas in a way 
>that
>at least gets them
>documented and shared.  Some other folks have approached me about this 
>concept.
>I am in favor
>of this.  How about a seamoby4g mail list?  Anybody interested in a 4g seamoby
>list?  This would
>get all the off charter dreamware chatter off the seamoby list.
>
>As for the SeaMoby WG, at this point I don't know.  We have to see what 
>happens.
>It looks to me
>like SeaMoby is becoming MIP's newborn cousin at this point.  Hopefully, late
>term abortions aren't
>allowed.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Phil Neumiller

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 17:50:34 -0600

informational RFC is a better approach (not my idea).  I am convinced that many

I for one find it difficult to contribute or create in this type of forum.  Its
completely stifling.  We need
to throw out all the assumptions and start from a clean slate.  We need to
consider the implications of
ultra-wideband, widespread deployment of MMDS/LMDS, OFDM, hybrid fiber wireless
schemes and
how they interact with mobility, and the failure of 3G.  I am tired of arguing
about the minutia of where
an FA lives or whether its macro or micro mobility.  They will all likely be
irrelevant in the forth coming
world of glass pipes everywhere (its easier to lay glass in Nebraska than in NYC
James :-)).

Some folks have approached me about another BOF.  I am convinced it would NOT be
a good thing.
An informational RFC COULD provide a way to articulate some ideas in a way that
at least gets them
documented and shared.  Some other folks have approached me about this concept.
I am in favor
of this.  How about a seamoby4g mail list?  Anybody interested in a 4g seamoby
list?  This would
get all the off charter dreamware chatter off the seamoby list.

As for the SeaMoby WG, at this point I don't know.  We have to see what happens.
It looks to me
like SeaMoby is becoming MIP's newborn cousin at this point.  Hopefully, late
term abortions aren't
allowed.

Thanks,

Phil Neumiller