Subject: RE: [Seamoby] state of the IP micromobility protocols

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 13:44:36 +0200

Hi Artur,

> at the IRTF's home page i can only see the mail list discussions. is 
> there some kind of repository for documents, or do the people still use 
> this strange draft-concept of the IETF? :-)

Much of the information had been published as internet drafts.

> > I'd like to add to this point.  It seems that there was much interest
> > in micromobity before the popping of the Internet/telecom bubble.  Recently,
> > most of the interest in the topic has gone.  At present, I don't see
> > much driving the need for micromobility, however if there is significant
> > interest in the topic, I'd be interested hearing it.
> 
> i'd immediately agree that at the moment it's a better problem for the 
> IRTF than for the IETF. what i don't get is the real reason why the 
> interest has gone. john, could you perhaps explain your point with other 
> than financial reasons? those are quite evident; however, public 
> research usually does not care a lot about the commercial applicability 
> (see e.g. the years of L3 multicast research :)) as long as 
> there are ideas.

Some of the interest in micromobility was based upon the assumption
that the demand for mobile data was greater than what it currently is.
Many of the solutions using L2 mobility seem to be sufficient at the
moment.  This leads to a general assumption that macromobility may
be sufficient in the near-term.  The IETF is geared towards solving
near-term problems, and this is why (IMO) macromobility is enough.

> my problem is the following: i would like to work on IP micromobility 
> protocols because i personally tend to think that there are a lot of 
> unresolved questions (e.g. in the security area). but it perturbs me to 
> see that "the interest is gone" - that was also my own observation in 
> the original mail. so, why has it gone generally? (not specifically in 
> the IETF.) (i understand that this list is perhaps not the 
> best place to ask, sorry).

Why is the interest gone?  Probably because the funding is gone.  But I would
note that the IP Mobility Optimizations work in the IRTF may be a good place to
look at some of the issues.

http://www.irtf.org/charters/mobopts.html

> lets periphrase: can i still publish on IP micromobility if i have some 
> interesting points/results or would everybody just laugh? :-)

Of course, though the SeaMoby WG is in the process of trying shutting down.

John

_______________________________________________
Seamoby mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby

---

From: Nakhjiri Madjid-MNAKHJI1 <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 13:12:50 -0600

Hi,

John's comments about the subject were very on the point and true.
Beside the economical reasons, there was the L2 issues that could not
be resolved in IETF. You might want to look at the brand new IEEE 802.21 
group for related issues!!

Madjid

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
Artur Hecker
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 5:14 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Seamoby] state of the IP micromobility protocols

hi again

thank you very much for your quick replies (especially to michael, eric, 
james and john.)

as expected, i have some more questions though...

>>There was some work in the IRTF Micromobility Research group, but they have
>>been dormant for about a year. There is a new IRTF MOBility OPTmizationS
>>(MOBOPTS) Research Group that might be a possible venue.
> 
> 
> About the IRTF Micromobility work - this was a small team that was under
> the Routing Research Group.  We held a few meetings (at IETF meetings) but
> the work sort of petered out. 

>>In general, the work in the IP micromobility area seems to be primarily at
>>the research level, and there are not, to my knowledge (which may be
>>incomplete) any plans for near term deployment (either commercial or
>>experimental) or product in this area. Hence, it seems like a 
>>better problem for IRTF.
> 

(see e.g. the years of L3 multicast research :)) as long as there are ideas.

the IETF.) (i understand that this list is perhaps not the best place to 
ask, sorry).

thanks a lot

artur hecker
ENST Paris