Subject: [seamoby] work that "needs" to get done and where

From: Phil Roberts <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 09:13:46 -0400

> 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

At the seamoby meeting in Minneapolis I thought it was pretty clearly
explained that there were two activities that needed to be done as a
follow-on to the seamoby mm design team.  One was to investigate the art
formerly known as host routing (mobile hosts and networks not changing their
IP address or subnet prefix) and the other a list of requirements for the
MIP working group to compare the protocol sets there against.  The first was
suggested as an IRTF work item because at least in part the routing ADs are
concerned about the scalability of such an approach.  I took the token to
produce a problem statement for that for the IRTF to look into.

The second was for the seamoby mm design team to come up with a set of
things which they believe an mm protocol MUST do and throw it over to MIP to
see whether the set of protocols in MIP can do those things.  I haven't seen
much activity on this.  John sent out an email asking for volunteers
recently I believe - don't know whether he got any response.  So it seems
some useful work could be done on that.

I don't recall anyone suggesting that all micromobility work go to the IRTF.
That's not to prevent anyone from sending a few work items to someone over
there.

Phil

---

From: Pat Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 07:06:14 -0700

> produce a problem statement for that for the IRTF to look into.

This is correct.

> That's not to prevent anyone from sending a few work items to someone over

Correct. If people want to do this, then they are free to contact the IRTF
routing chair to start this activity. However, as Phil mentions, the 
proposal from seamoby was constrained to the discussions in the MM conference
calls, and portions of the resulting MM problem statement.

PatC