Subject: Re: [MOBILE-IP] 3g wireless HLR/VLR Issues

From: Thomas Eklund <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 18:48:34 +0100

-----Original Message-----
From: Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 1999 6:51 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [MOBILE-IP] 3g wireless HLR/VLR Issues

In both PN-4286 and 3G TR 23.923
we continue to see the existence of the location registries of HLR and VLR
and
SS7 signalling. Only the proposals like Cellular IP and Hawaii do not
contain those
in their architectures.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
You cant compare protocols from a system with protocols that don't reside in
a system (CIP and HAWAII). These protocols are far from being part of a
system and if they are going to be used in some kind of system they will
have to handle for instance both the security and AAA or HLR/VLR
functionality. Both tries to solve the micro-mobility and do so in two nice
fashions.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

  My question no 1 is if HLR/VLR and SS7 will outlive all IP networks of
future.
  My question no 2 is both PN-4286 and TR 23.923 talk about FA which
disappears in IPv6,
so what is the new architecture for Mobile IPv6?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
MobileIPv6 is the enabler  for true end-to-end QoS and security. Its is also
the the solution for true " always connected" mode.
If you talk about FA in mobile IPv6 you have to specify what kind of
functions you are after...
- FA handles address managemt in mipv4 and that is handled by the router in
mipv6.
- the FA can also "save" the address-space because you share one FA
allocated address for all the mobiles in the foreign network, but there is
no need for that in IPv6.
-If you want hierarcical mobility management, you still have to add it to
both mipv4(thema, reginal tunnel mgt etc.) and mipv6 (actually I'm writing a
proposal now which I call Mobility Management Agents, MMA)
- link termination in FA, that is done in the mobile node in mipv6
- note that there is  several things that mobile ipv6 can handle better like
no problems with private address and ingress filtering routers, better route
opt., better integration with IPsec etc...

 /Thomas Eklund, SwitchCore

---

From: "Andrew T. Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 14:56:29 -0800

You cant compare protocols from a system with protocols that
don't reside in a system (CIP and HAWAII). These protocols
       are far from being part of a system and if they are going to be
used in some kind of system they will have to handle for
       instance both the security and AAA or HLR/VLR functionality. Both
tries to solve the micro-mobility and do so in two nice
       fashions.

Interesting observation, but .....

I think Cellular IP's main contribution is scalable location and
mobility
management, e.g., support for active and idle users, explicit paging,
etc.
and a single protocol that scales from LAN to MAN coverage. These
features are, however, orthogonal to other features usually associated
with micro-mobility: fast and seamless handoff, even QOS,
etc.

The design goals of Cellular IP are much broader than 'fast handoff'
(as Charlie pointed out Mobile IP can be engineered to run fast).
So while Cellular IP is strongly positioned to support micro-mobility
it is more far reaching in its ambitions. However, I don't claim it
is as a fully fledged cellular IP system (small 'c') with all the bells
and whistles
you imply in the word "system" (above). We can, however, build and
leverage,
rather than reinvent: AAA, security, etc, to build a "system". There
is nothing 'fundamental' from stopping us doing this?

---

From: Jari T Malinen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 13:24:26 +0200

> I think Cellular IP's main contribution is scalable location and mobility
> etc. and a single protocol that scales from LAN to MAN coverage.

About scalability argumentation in draft-gomez-cellularip-perf-00, section 3.4,
the experiment searched variable sized user populations with linear and
binary-tree route lookups. However, if we consider that the users are
mobile, the probability that we also need to update the search structures
grow with growing population. Hence, if we use a balanced search structure
(e.g. bin-trees, tries etc.), we may need to lock them, or at least the
updating percolations should affect the speed of using the search structure
as compared to a search-only use.
Thus, a search-only measurement suggests a stationary state not so probable
with thousands to millions of users. Furthermore, the use of routing
caches is not unknown to network-layer IP forwarding engines, either.
Thus, the paging scalability advantage as compared to network-layer
regional mobility approach is not clear to us from that text. This may,
however, be off-topic to the list, so we have hesitated to speak of it..

> These
> with micro-mobility: fast and seamless handoff, even QOS,  etc.
>

Regards,

Jari Malinen (http://www.cs.hut.fi/~jtm)
Researcher, HUT/CS Lab. Tel. +358 9 451 4774, fax +358 9 451 5351.

---

From: Claude Castelluccia <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 12:48:34 +0100

Jari T Malinen wrote:
> regional mobility approach is not clear to us from that text.

Hello,

actually by combining paging with some kind of regional or
hierarchical Mobile IP you can save quite a lot
of signaling bandwidth and avoid the paging scalabity issue you
are talking about...

Have a look at the TR "Extending Mobile IP with Adaptive Individual
Paging"  (http://www.inrialpes.fr/planete/people/ccastel/rt99.ps) for
more details on this work.

Comments are welcome,

regards,

Claude.

----------------------------------------
Claude CASTELLUCCIA, INRIA Rhone-Alpes
ph:  +33 4.76.61.52.15 (fax: 52.52)
http://www.inrialpes.fr/planete/