Subject: Re: [seamoby] Arch discussions in IETF

From: Pat Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 12:38:59 -0800 (PST)

> We have said countless times that IETF does not define architecture.

Correct.

> However
> MIP did. Many of the problems people have with MIP are with its basic
> architecture, not the protocol.
> Why can't their be an architectural debate on MIP in the IETF (not protocol).
> There are boxes defined.  There is a CN, a MN, an HA, a set of routers. 
> Lets talk about how these
> need to play in today's modern residential and business deployments. 

As far as I'm concerned, MIP hasn't discussed architectures. If they had the
Mobile IP team would also be doing AAA, Qos And lots of other protocols. My
point all along is that piece parts are done within different WGs, and it is
the manufacturer's job to put the pieces together. 

My experience with this format has been most successful.

> Why do
> we always
> have to cater to cellular?  Why do the cellular guys get most the say? 

And where does this come from, may I ask? The only reason why you are probably
seeing more cellular stuff than anything else is because the cellular guys are
coming to the IETF and stating their requirements. Once we see people from
IEEE, Bluetooth and other relevant SDOs, I suspect you'll see more interest in
those areas as well.

However, as far as I know, the cellular guys do not have more say, they are
just the only ones present.

>  The
> Internet has
> new stuff like FTC, VoIP, SLP,  RSVP, diffserv, and new radio access
> technologies that
> can enable different types of mobility architectures.   Is an HA still a good
> idea in every scenario?  Why?  Can we talk about this?  If not why not? 
> Inquiring minds want to
> know.

and who exactly stated that one cannot talk about this??? Certainly not me. I
stated that arguments like "too slow" are hard to justify (unless you have
proof, and Andrew claimed 2 IETFs ago that MIP was as far as Cellular IP). If
there are problems with Home Agents, then the requirements should show this,
right?

> 
> Here is an example.  Why do I always need to use MIP?  Let's say I have a
> community of
> VPN's defined to interlink residences that interoperate with mobility (a
> bunch of families
> allows their mobiles to operate in each other's premises), i.e. mobile hosts
> are allowed
> to seamless travel within theses spaces but only in theses spaces (could be
> set up
> in hotel rooms, conferences, etc).  The COA changes but there is no HA.

ok, if that's what MM is, then great. 

> I have lots of scenarios like this.

and they aren't being ignored. Sure there are some Mobile IP folks that want
to protect their investment, but that is not the charter of this WG. We are
here to design a MM, but first need to identify the problem space. The -01 is
a really good start, and I suspect that -02 will be even better.

PatC

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 13:46:27 -0600

We have said countless times that IETF does not define architecture.  However
MIP did.
Many of the problems people have with MIP are with its basic architecture, not
the protocol.
Why can't their be an architectural debate on MIP in the IETF (not protocol).
There are
boxes defined.  There is a CN, a MN, an HA, a set of routers.  Lets talk about
how these
need to play in today's modern residential and business deployments.  Why do we
always
have to cater to cellular?  Why do the cellular guys get most the say?   The
Internet has
new stuff like FTC, VoIP, SLP,  RSVP, diffserv, and new radio access
technologies that
can enable different types of mobility architectures.   Is an HA still a good
idea in
every scenario?  Why?  Can we talk about this?  If not why not?  Inquiring minds
want to
know.

Here is an example.  Why do I always need to use MIP?  Let's say I have a
community of
VPN's defined to interlink residences that interoperate with mobility (a bunch
of families
allows their mobiles to operate in each other's premises), i.e. mobile hosts are
allowed
to seamless travel within theses spaces but only in theses spaces (could be set
up
in hotel rooms, conferences, etc).  The COA changes but there is no HA.

Thanks,

Phil

I believe that the problem statement does have some things that Mobile IP will
have a REALLY hard time handling. However, as I have stated numerous times,
statements like "MIP is too slow" just doesn't cut it. Let's get to the meat
of the requirements, and then we can identify whether MIP can do the job.

PatC