Subject: RE: [seamoby] IRTF mm problem statement

From: Phil Roberts <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 22:02:16 -0400

OK.  I'll keep answering then.  You don't seem childish or dense, I just
didn't think the thread was going anywhere and have other deliverables
elsewhere.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phil Neumiller [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 7:51 PM
> To: Phil Roberts; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [seamoby] IRTF mm problem statement
> 
> 
> Hello PhilR,
> 
> > Hi Phil,
> >
> > I see that in the list from the mm problem statement there 
> is something
> > about discovery of network/link/access point 
> characteristics, but nothing
> > like what you were talking about in the email I responded to.
> 
> Can you point out what this is.  I can't tell from your 
> response what you
> are talking about specifically.

This is the one I had in mind:

    *  How to discover the bandwidth, cost, error rate (and other
       properties) of candidate Access Links.
    
> 
> >
> > Re: host routing.  The first item does seem to describe 
> host routing,
> > doesn't it?
> > >        Mobility maintaining the same routable IP address 
> of a mobile
> > >        node or mobile network.
> 
> No, not to me, at least not from the explanations I have read.

When this was discussed with the ADs, this was the item that was converged
on as a nonstarter, because of issues of scalability in terms of forwarding
table size and propagation of routing updates as in the following two
questions from one of the posts in the thread.  Hence the idea of sending
this to the IRTF for evaluation.
> 
> > Isn't that exactly what you end up with?  An entry in the 
> forwarding table
> > of the current router and the previous router for that 
> mobile's specific
> > address which did not change, and a mechanism for 
> propagating that info?

> A). Why do you conclude that there is a route propogation 
> solution needed
>       already?
> B).  There are other possible solutions right?
> C).  The mobile may very well need to communicate with the newAR long
>        before a route can be "propogated".
> D).  Why aren't tunnels discussed as an option?
> E).  What if that new router is also a mobile node?

Hard to comment on all of these.  If the criteria is that the mobile keeps
the same address as it moves through the network as in this from the
original mm problem statement: "Mobility maintaining the same routable IP
address of a mobile node or mobile network" then it seems like evaluating
the scaling of forwarding table entries and propagation of routing table is
at least part of what needs to be investigated.

There's certainly more to enabling mobility than this particular problem,
but the scope of the work for the IRTF is this I believe.

Phil

> Best regards,
> Phil

---

From: "Phil Neumiller" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 21:27:49 -0500

Hi Phil,

OK I see.  I have several comments on this below.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Phil Roberts" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Phil Neumiller'" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 9:02 PM
Subject: RE: [seamoby] IRTF mm problem statement
> > Subject: Re: [seamoby] IRTF mm problem statement

<snip>

> this to the IRTF for evaluation.

1).  How can ADs come to convergence withouth WG consensus?
2).  I thought the work group convergence and consensus is what matters?
3).  All the drafts I have read on this subject do NOT make the "source routing"
       solution a big point in their drafts?
4).  How come the ADs get to decide how to write this problem statement for
      the IRTF on micro-mobility and not the MIP and SeaMoby WGs????

> but the scope of the work for the IRTF is this I believe.

There certainly is.  There is tons of stuff in the drafts that you have referenced
and stuff you have not, i.e. list traffic.  It seems you are just reacting to
AD desires and not WG consensus - and I realize since you are a chair that
it is difficult for you to comment on this.  For this reason I think chairs should
not write drafts and in particular I think you should recuse yourself from this
particular draft.  I would much prefer a work group created draft to be given
to the IRTF.  Please thank the ADs for their input Phil.

Thanks,

Phil Neumiller

---

From: Pat Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 06:58:38 -0700

Well, here we go again.... :(

> 1).  How can ADs come to convergence withouth WG consensus?

Well, the draft put together by Phil was the output of the MM work. I 
participated in some of the conference calls, and host based routing
protocols was mentioned on many occasions. Now, some of you
seem to want to discuss other methods, and that's fine, but the result
of the MM work was in fact a host-based approach.

Dana, the MM DT lead, participated in the Minn meeting (as did Phil R and
the MIP WG co-chair), and Dana discussed the various ideas in the MM
space, all of which are in the problem statement. The biggest one of
concern to the IESG was a new protocol based on host routes, because of
its possible scaling problems. So the IRTF chair stated that they would
be interested in looking at *this* problem space. If the problem space
has changed since the ID was put out, then take it to the IRTF. We are
done here.

So, let's be a little easier on PhilR here, please. He is ONLY communicating
what the rest of you spoke about during the various conference calls, and
agreed to have in the problem statement. I realize that the problem statement
also includes other problem areas, and I believe that we are handling each
one of the them, but in a different way.

> 2).  I thought the work group convergence and consensus is what matters?

The DT agreed on the MM problem statement.

>        solution a big point in their drafts?

what "drafts"? The only one that really matters here PhilN is the MM 
problem statement.

>       the IRTF on micro-mobility and not the MIP and SeaMoby WGs????

Not the ADs, the DT did.

> and stuff you have not, i.e. list traffic.

Here you are correct. Lots of stuff have happened in the list since the draft
was sent out. And I believe that the place where this will be discussed is in
the IRTF. However, I am not sure that it would be correct for PhilR to 
interpret mailing list threads, and assume that there is concensus. So, 
what he has done is taken data from the MM problem statement, and assume
that people will contribute to the IRTF process, and provide their input.

Again, if you have specific text to change/add/delete, then propose it. But
if it is to propose an approach, let's have those discussions in the IRTF.

>  It seems you are just reacting to

sigh.
[ignoring the unsolicited accusations]

Again, please see above. PhilR simply took stuff from the MM problem
statement. The draft he has put together includes what was discussed in
Minn. between the chairs, ADs, IRTF and MM DT team lead.

PatC

---

From: "Phil Neumiller" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 08:57:02 -0500

Hello Pat,

I did work hard in this space since it is of extreme interest to me.
Please take another look at SeaMoby MM problem statement.
Host routes are not mentioned in ANY spot as a recommended
solution.  I see this as an IESG/AD interpretation or reading
between the lines.  As for the other drafts I mentioned they are
all listed in Phil Rs draft.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Pat Calhoun" <[email-masked]>
> protocols was mentioned on many occasions.

Yes, I participated in them too.  Host based routing is not mentioned in
the draft!!!

> has changed since the ID was put out, then take it to the IRTF. We are

OK so the TRUTH of the matter is that the IRTF decided apriori that they
were interested in a host based routes solution.  I can live with that.  I just
like honesty in advertising, that's all.

Thanks,

Phil

---

From: Pat Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 07:15:57 -0700

> I did work hard in this space since it is of extreme interest to me.

that I do know, and thank you for it.

> Please take another look at SeaMoby MM problem statement.

perhaps I should... it's been a while :)

> all listed in Phil Rs draft.

ok, perhaps, and also mis-interpreted by Dana and Phil R :( Host
based routes was in fact what was communicated by Dana to the IRTF
chair.

> were interested in a host based routes solution. 

No, that's what they were told.

PatC

---

From: "Phil Neumiller" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 09:09:42 -0500

I want to apologize to PhilR for being a pain, I didn't mean to shoot the
messenger.  I THOUGHT this was an attempt to go around the WG
by the IESG or the IRTF.  As it turns out it was Dana's Phil R's interpretation
of the draft (s) as explained to the IRTF. I can live with this, I am glad that
the truth of the matter is out.

For the record, I do believe OTHER "solutions" were discussed  AND
I believe there are OTHER issues that warrant investigation as I have
tried to explain in the VERY long (too long) of a thread.

I am dormant on this now, and appreciate you explaining this Pat.  I welcome
other SeaMoby WG members to comment.  I will not complain about this
any more.

Thanks,

Phil

---

From: Pat Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 07:24:38 -0700

> tried to explain in the VERY long (too long) of a thread.

and these other solutions can, and should, be discussed in the IRTF, once 
the research activity has begun.

Thanks,

PatC

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 09:08:03 -0700 (PDT)

> Yes, I participated in them too.  Host based routing is not mentioned in

   Correct. The use of "host routes" was an
   unfortunate short hand for "small subnets
   that we knew wouldn't scale across AS's,
   but that's OK because MIP will take care
   of that level of mobility."

 > like honesty in advertising, that's all.

   Huh? Now I'm really confused. The problem isn't 
   host routes, per se -- they're just the pathological
   case. The scaling problem is when you try to propogate
   those small prefixes outside of some contained area,
   usually an AS. My take on the MM stuff is that
   the interesting part of this is allowing mobile
   hosts and mobile routers to treat their
   mobility like normal routing topology changes
   within an AS.

   I sure hope that what Pat said is not true
   because focusing *only* on host routes fundamentally
   misses the point, and certainly wasn't the
   sentiment of the MM problem statement.

		Mike