Subject: [Mipshop] gauging consensus on FMIPv6 over specific link-layers

From: gabriel montenegro <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 20:49:54 -0700 (PDT)

Folks,

We'd like to gauge consensus on this deliverable which we added as a result of the 
WG meeting in Paris this summer:
 
Work on the application of FMIPv6 on two examples link-layers for advancement as
Informational RFCs:
          * IEEE 802.16e (and WiMax), and
          * 3G CDMA 2K networks

The complete draft charter (to be submitted soon to the ADs) is at:

http://www.geocities.com/gabriel_montenegro_2000/mipshop-charter.htm

All the deliverables are listed under the "Scope" section of that draft charter.

Comments?

-co-chairs

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

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 12:06:40 +0200

I generally support the idea of applying FMIPv6 over a specific
link-layer.  Thus I support WG item for FMIPv6 over 802.16e and WG item
for FMIPv6 over 3G CDMA.  However, I do have several remarks (see
below).  Probably INFORMATIONAL is the proper status indeed.

The main remark is about the overall benefits FMIPv6 could bring over
MIPv6.  We have discussed this extensively on this mailing list, August
and September.  None of the drafts proposed shed light over actual user
experience of a VoIP application being improved when using FMIPv6 (over
using simply MIPv6).  That is a point that should be clarified.  I am
hoping that applying FMIPv6 to more link-layers will help expose the
benefits of FMIPv6.  But if for some reason this work is going to be
just about another speculation on how a certain protocol *WOULD* work, I
think it is less useful.  Let's move on, help the user.

>           * IEEE 802.16e (and WiMax), and

I assume the question is about FMIPv6 over 802.16e exclusively, and FMIP
over 3G CDMA 2K exclusively.  (I speculate FMIP between an 802.16e oAR
and a 3G CDMA 2K nAR is not bound to give useful results.)

For the 802.16e FMIPv6, I grabbed the following draft:
draft-jang-mipshop-fh80216e-00.txt.

For 802.16 (not e) there is also draft-jin-ipv6-over-ieee802.16-00.txt
in the 16ng BoF, which presumably competes with the netlmm BoF/WG
drafts-to-appear.

I think having FMIPv6 over the (e) part before having simple IPv6 over
802.16 (non e) and mipv6 over 802.16e is probably premature.  Just a
feeling, maybe Chairs of these three groups have already a better idea
how the advancement will happen.

I also think that when 802.16e pcmcia cards will show up on the public
market inter-operable implementations will give useful feedback to
specifiers.  I guess these cards won't show up on the market in the next
6 months or so (WiBro included).

>           * 3G CDMA 2K networks

I grabbed draft-yokota-mipshop-3gfh-00.txt and I think this is the
intended draft.

Thanks,

Alex

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 11:10:11 -0700

I agree.

            jak