Subject: RE: [seamoby] Yet Another BOF?

From: James Kempf <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 12:07:30 -0800

Hi Gary,

I think you missed what I said about paging.

If you read the paging problem statement draft carefully, you will see that 
practically
everything that a paging protocol would do could be done by MIP. The 
problem is,
it would result in a considerable complexity increase, and would compromise
the utility of dormant mode for the mobile. Thus the conclusion, a paging 
protocol for IP would be a benefit.

If the MM folks can demonstrate the same w.r.t. to mobility, particularly 
for security and QoS, then I think a case can be made for an MM protocol. 
With all due respect to the MM design team and to John, the draft editor, 
the draft did not present such a clear case (at least, not the 00 draft, I 
have yet to read the 01 draft), at least not to me.
If the mobile IP proponents are making these statements, then it is 
incumbent upon the MM proponents to say: "Oh yeah? Show me how!". If they 
can't come up with a solution, and a sketch of an MM solution is simpler, 
then MM is clearly the way to go. The solution doesn't have to be complete, 
even a simple description is usually enough to see whether the MIP solution 
would be more complex or compromise particular requirements. However, if in 
the end, the mobile IP solution is good enough, in the
sense that it satisfies the requirements, and the working group agrees, 
then its no good going off in a huff and accusing the mobile IP proponents 
of stonewalling.

I have no problem with giving the MM design team more time, since the 
problem is more complex (and I hope the IESG will agree), but, in the end, 
I expect to see a technically based analysis, including requirments and how 
mobile IP can't solve them. It's OK to dream, but the rubber hits the road 
when you have to explain to skeptical engineers why your completely new 
solution will replace the existing solution in which they've invested much 
design and perhaps even implementation effort.

                 jak

At 01:18 PM 2/28/01 -0500, Gary Kenward wrote:

>James:
>
>   I think you miss Phil's point. It's all simply a matter of
>software, and no doubt, with enough extensions, modifications,
>and bit twiddling, we could turn ARP into some version of a
>mobility protocol (or any other protocol, heck, there are still
>people working on mobile wireless ATM).
>
>    The frustration comes because with each attempt at a
>problem statement, MIP proponents come forth and state:
>"oh, well sure, we can make MIP do that". No problem statement
>for MM will ever be sufficient if this is the nature of the game.
>
>With all due respect,
>Gary

---

From: "Gary Kenward" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 15:19:26 -0500

Sorry Phil, I guess I misunderstood. The email in the front of my
mind from Phil didn't discuss paging, he was making a general argument.

My apologies for being confused.

Gary

> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Kempf [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 3:08 PM
> To: Kenward, Gary [WDLN2:AN10:EXCH]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [seamoby] Yet Another BOF?
> 
> 
> Hi Gary,
>

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 16:02:39 -0500 (EST)

anything that includes the text "That excludes vanilla MIP as a solution"
does not look like a requirements discusison to me 

why is it so hard to discuss what the actual requirents are without
talking about solutions?

Scott

---

From: Kulwinder Atwal <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 22:01:52 -0500

3.2 MANET / Ad-Hoc Networking Comparison

   The MANET WG in the IETF has an important charter to create a
   protocol for mobiles arranged in arbitrary and highly dynamic
   associations.  This work is striving for robust and highly scalable
   routing solutions.  Currently, MANET is not considering fast or
   seamless handover.

   In many instances, for example small residential networks found in
   the home, the network may be relatively small and has far less
   dynamics.  The network may still have a requirement for fast and/or
   seamless handovers. For this reason there may be some overlap
   between SeaMoby and ad-hoc networking solutions.  Therefore, SeaMoby
   MUST be able to co-exist gracefully with any MANET solutions
   algorithm that does become standardized.

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 6:51 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [seamoby] Yet Another BOF?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.  

In the Micro-mobility draft the following section appears:

3.2 MANET / Ad-Hoc Networking Comparison

   The MANET WG in the IETF has an important charter to create a
   protocol for mobiles arranged in arbitrary and highly dynamic
   associations.  This work is striving for robust and highly scalable
   routing solutions.  Currently, MANET is not considering fast or
   seamless handover.

   In many instances, for example small residential networks found in
   the home, the network may be relatively small and has far less
   dynamics.  The network may still have a requirement for fast and/or
   seamless handovers. For this reason there may be some overlap
   between SeaMoby and ad-hoc networking solutions.  Therefore, SeaMoby
   MUST be able to co-exist gracefully with any MANET solutions
   algorithm that does become standardized.

Comments:

Why 'MUST' SeaMoby be confined by MANET/MIP?  
If SeaMoby does its job there will be no need for MANET in local mobility.
If SeaMoby does its job there will be no need for MIP in local mobility.

Are we forgetting that devices in the home are low cost?
Why would any vendor support MIP, MANET and Seamoby to do one thing: moving?
Why would any Bluetooth vendor support three protocols when the same vendor 
can go to the Bluetooth SIG and use the work of a SIG WG to get one
protocol?

The title of the section says ,"Comparion", but states a mandatory
requirement.
By making MANET a 'MUST' requirement for Seamoby is a sure way to see that
Seamoby is 
never deployed.

I would like someone the justify the opening statement in section 3.2:

   The MANET WG in the IETF has an important charter to create a
   protocol for mobiles arranged in arbitrary and highly dynamic
   associations.

Is the MANET charter more important than the SeaMoby Charter?

What is an "arbitary association" and how does it differ from mobility?

What is the timescale for "highly dynamic associations"?

- Kulwinder.