Subject: RE: [seamoby] IRTF mm problem statement

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 10:03:46 +0300

Hi Hesham,

> 	=> I think Phil N point was that you do not need to custom
> 	build protocols for specific L2's. Instead abstracting the 
> 	common features of these L2s and considering that in the 
> 	MM design. Makes sense to me. What's wrong with that ?

It makes sense to me, but where are we going to do this?  Is
this part of an API, routing protocol or signaling protocol.
I think the burden of proof is upon those who wish to have it.

br,
John

---

From: "Phil Neumiller" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 05:38:48 -0500

Hi John,

I am going to respond to your messages in reverse order.

----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 2:03 AM
Subject: RE: [seamoby] IRTF mm problem statement

> I think the burden of proof is upon those who wish to have it.

There is a new sub-IP work area that has been created in the IETF.
This is an area where some of the work can be done.  I believe that
specifically, sub-IP issues that relate to RF are numerous, and in
many cases COMMON to most RF L2s.  I believe Kulwinder
(Bluetooth BOF co-chair) has come to the conclusion that an abstract
triggering mechanism for handoff is desirable.  This would be one
very good place to start.

The IRTF is going to look at micro-mobility, but so far just one
"solution" has been proposed to study by the IESG.  I think
we can write drafts for other unknown issues with respect to
mobility and give them to the IRTF.  I have stated countless time
with absolutely no rebuttal that mobile IP itself is not well understood
in the scaling (how local is local mobility), performance (how fast is fast),
and interaction with ANY proposed micro-mobility protocol.  To
me this seems like an important area for the IRTF investigate.

Furthermore, whatever micro-mobility will become, it will need to
cooperate with both MIP and MANET routing algorithms.  It
seems of paramount importance to me to understand what this
interaction is.  If I could draw a Venn diagram in ASCII I would
show three areas, MIP, micro-mobility-solution-X, MANET,
each with some overlap.  What is the overlap?  When is using
one solution more desirable than another?  How does one SWITCH
from using one to the using the other?

Since, Phil R's appears to be reciting the IESG party line, I think it
would behoove the SeaMoby WG to construct a few IRTF recommendation
drafts of its own.  I am making these arguments to give the SeaMoby
workgroup a voice in this process.

I think I agree with you John, no-one does SEEM interested?  I don't
understand why.  This is a crucial piece of the WHOLE IP seamless
mobility puzzle.

Thanks and best regards,

Phil Neumiller