Subject: RE: [seamoby] IRTF mm problem statement

From: "Glenn Morrow" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 10:15:50 -0500

Pat,

I was responding to the explicit verbage in the document about NOT exploring
the use of BGP and OSPF. I was simply trying to indicate that perhaps the
group should not limit itself in this manner. I felt that in order to do get
the point across, I had to give at least a rough example of how you might be
able to use these protocols to help solve part of the problem and how an MM
protocol can work with these protocols in a synergistic manner. 

It seemed to me that the verbage in the document about these protocols was
perhaps making an assumption it shouldn't have. i.e. that BGP and OSPF would
have to be used to install per-node routes and that the scaling problems of
MANET would be inherent.

That was the only point I was trying to make but you are right it was
delving into a possible solution space.

Thanks for checking me on that.

Glenn

-----Original Message-----
From: Pat Calhoun [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 9:37 AM
To: Morrow, Glenn [RICH2:C330:EXCH]
Cc: Phil Roberts; [email-masked]'
Subject: Re: [seamoby] IRTF mm problem statement

On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 09:39:22AM -0500, Glenn Morrow wrote:
> Phil,
> 
> I'm sorry about not getting comments to you sooner. One point I believe
> people have misunderstood about using the other routing protocols such as
> OSPF and BGP is as follows:
> 

It seems like more of the comments that I have seen so far have been very
solutions based. Given that this draft is a problem statement to the IRTF,
which will result in a research project, should we really be getting into 
protocol details? At this point we need to kick off the research activities,
and try to stay away from how the problem can be solved.

So, let me ask the following question. Could the interested parties 
provide comments on how the draft could express the problem better, as 
opposed to how a particular protocol could, or couldn't, solve the
problem. 

Thanks,

PatC

---

From: "Phil Neumiller" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 10:17:34 -0500

RE: [seamoby] IRTF mm problem statementPat,

In some senses, I agree in others I disagree.

The micro-mobility solution, if it is to exist will have
to be sandwiched between Mobile IP and MANET.  I would like
very much for the IRTF to explore what those lines in the
sand are.  Yes, the nature of these types of discussion WILL
BE solution oriented because we have tons of solutions DONE
in MIP and MANET.  It makes a whole heck of a lot of sense
to me, to look at the solutions we have, namely MIP and
MANET and finds the deficiencies, inadequacies, and boundaries.
This is of paramount importance to the micro-mobility
problem statement.

Thanks,

Phil

----- Original Message -----
From: Glenn Morrow
To: Pat Calhoun
Cc: [email-masked]'
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 10:15 AM
Subject: RE: [seamoby] IRTF mm problem statement

Pat,

I was responding to the explicit verbage in the document about NOT exploring the use of BGP and OSPF. I was simply trying to
indicate that perhaps the group should not limit itself in this manner. I felt that in order to do get the point across, I had to
give at least a rough example of how you might be able to use these protocols to help solve part of the problem and how an MM
protocol can work with these protocols in a synergistic manner.

It seemed to me that the verbage in the document about these protocols was perhaps making an assumption it shouldn't have. i.e. that
BGP and OSPF would have to be used to install per-node routes and that the scaling problems of MANET would be inherent.

That was the only point I was trying to make but you are right it was delving into a possible solution space.

Glenn

-----Original Message-----
From: Pat Calhoun [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 9:37 AM
To: Morrow, Glenn [RICH2:C330:EXCH]
Cc: Phil Roberts; [email-masked]'
Subject: Re: [seamoby] IRTF mm problem statement

Thanks,

PatC

---

From: Pat Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 08:23:02 -0700

> have to be used to install per-node routes and that the scaling problems of

Given that this draft is still on my to-do list, I should have read it prior to
sending my e-mail :( If what you say is true, I agree that perhaps ruling out
specific routing protocols MAY be a tad premature.

Phil, what are the reasoning?

Thanks,

PatC