Subject: [seamoby] comments on the micro-mobility problem statement draft

From: "Shahrier, Sharif M." <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 11:20:43 -0500

Dear John and Colleages,

I have read the draft on the "micro-mobility problem statement", and would
request the following changes be made. I think this draft is to undergo a
revision before its presented to the IESG, and thus I am requesting the
changes to be made. Thank you.

Sharif Shahrier

1.	After the second paragraph in section 1 "introduction", I would like
the following paragraph to be added.

	Mobile networks are expected to provide a high rate of data
transmission, combined with high mobility. The highest transmission rate
could be up to 2 Mb/s, for both uplink and downlink segments as dictated by
the 3G standards. For the future 4G, 5G, etc. standards,  the date rate will
be even higher. In addition,  the network has to support many types of
traffic bearers, including both real-time and non real-time services. The
network has to keep account of the location of the  mobile host (MH) as it
moves around the mobile network. This problem statement proposes to develop
new protocols that combines high data-rate with high micro-mobility.  The
new protocol could  conceivably manage micro-mobility withn a single
sub-network, or across mutilple sub-networks.

2.	In section 1.1 "scope": I want to add:
	Possiblities include:

	Mobility where the user's routable IP address does not change.
	Mobility where the user's rouable IP address does change.

	I believe the second sentence is necessary because the mobile may
move to a different access router.

	I also request to add the following:

	Where mobility may be:

		Within a sub-net.
		Across muliple sub-nets.

3.	In section 1.2 "problem statement add the bullet to the list of
considerations:

		*	Buffering to minimize packet delay/loss during
handoff.

4.	Section 1.3

	In the definition of Local Mobility, it is stated that the "IP
address must not change".

	This has been stated several times throughout the document.

	With the permission of the WG, I would like to re-phrase this
definition.
	I request that the mandate "IP address must not change" be dropped,
so people can persure solutions where the IP address may change, but not
frequently. 

	Thus, I would like to re-phrase two sentences in the Local Mobility
definition as follows:

	The movement of an IP devise without requiring frequent changes to
its routabe IP address.

	and similarly,

	.....and IP subnet routable IP address) do not change frequently.

	In a similar contex, I would like the definition of "Local Mobility
Domain" to be reworded as follows:

	.....routing IP  address assigned to a Mobile Host or Mobile Router
serving a Mobile Network does not change frequently.

	Section 4.1

	And also,  I would like to remove the sentence:

	"The IP address of a mobile host remains fixed regardless of
its........"

	Even with local mobility restricted to a single domain, there maybe
handoffs between 2 different access routers (ARs). Each AR may be part of
the same sub-net, i.e. attached to the same ANG, or they may belong to
different sub-nets, i.e. attached to two different ANGs.  In either case, it
is assumed that an AR has its own IP address.
	Asssuming that a MN is associated with the address of the AR to
which its currently attached to a handoff from one AR to another will
involve a change in IP address.

	Refer to the architectural diagram on p. 5. AP's connected to the
same AR will utilize the same IP address. Thus when a MN handoffs from one
AP to another AP which are connected to the same AR, the IP address does not
change, However, when a handover occurs from one AP to another AP which are
connected to different AR's there will be a change in IP address. It is
assumed that in a mobile network these changes will occur infrequently,
however the definitions that I indicated should be changed to account for
this (seemingly infrequent ) possibility.

	Section 2.1

      In the "Mandatory" section there is a bulleted item :

		*	Use Mobile IP WG protocols for mobility between
local mobility domains.

      I would like to completely remove this bulleted item. There has been
several  
      proposals that make use of 
      Mobile IP for "roaming" between 2 domains, namely cdma2000/Mobile IP
and 
      Hawaii. However other protocols do not use Mobile IP, and thus would
be excluded 
      As ( future) candidates for seamoby  if this bullted item were not
removed. Hence, I believe we should stay neutral on this issue, and allow
all types of proposals to be evaluated in the seamoby group.

      Section 3

      Minor changes requested here:
      Local Mobility will interwork with Context Transfer and Paging.

      And also add the bullet:

		*	paging
g