RE : Draft meeting notes for L3 Mobilty Bar BoF.

Hello,
From this notes, it is not quite clear what is going to be brought out to the IRTF. Could the chairs make clear statements about this?

Eric Njedjou

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Greg Daley [mailto:[email protected]] 
Envoyé : mardi 15 juillet 2003 11:47
À : [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc : [email protected]
Objet : [mobile-ip] Draft meeting notes for L3 Mobilty Bar BoF.


L3M Meeting notes.

17 July 2003, 22:00->

Please keep in mind that these notes have been
taken poorly, and most of the comments are
paraphrased.

Please indicate if I missed a point in your
(or someone else's) statements, or unwittingly
changed the meaning.

I know that Farid and a couple of other people
whose names I didn't fully catch made contributions.
I ask that you can relate your names to the appropriate statements  (although with my paraphrasing, this may be hard to do).

I cur

---------

Basavaraj Patil (BP):   We're here after NSIIM
       decided to pursue an IRTF group on Layer 3
       Mobility Management.
       We need to determine the boundaries of any work,
       and it may be useful to determine tools for
       optimization schemes.  At the moment we've discussed
       Handoffs/Signalling, but are interested in
       what makes sense to cover.  What is wanted by the
       group?

Gabriel Montenegro (GM):  At this stage we're moving toward
       defining a charter.  We've currently been presuming
       this goal is to cover the same general area as MIPSHOP,
       but not just restrict it to 2 or 3 optimizations.
       In this case we may want to reduce signalling and loss,
       or reduce latency and loss.   We'd probably require
       some standardized tools for MIPv4 and MIPv6 protocols,
       which can be used to measure these parameters.

James Kempf (JK): I think that we may also be interested in
       looking at some of the Seamoby experimental protocols.
       There's some perception that there's a gap between the
       MIPv6 and Fast Handover drafts.   I think this is a
       historic effect from the origin of Seamoby. This may
       be an opportunity to do some investigation which could
       narrow the gap between  Mobileip and Seamoby.  Later it
       may become a goal to start an IETF working group for
       v4/v6 mobility from the results of these investigations.

Charlie Perkins (CP): Does this cover mobility options?

BP:   if covered by MIPv4/MIPv6.

Rajeev Koodli (RK): We're basically talking about MN controlled
       handoffs.

JK:   Network assisted handoff is useful if the radio handles this,
       but needs investigation.

Greg Daley (GD): Does this mean MN does own global signalling?

CP:   Wouldn't cover MIPv4 in that case (gd aside: so, No)

Pekka Nikander (PN): There may be room for comparison to other
       protocols? HIP?

GN: <missed this>

PN:   Is comparing HIP/MIP not out of scope, although HIP is?

BP:   I think that for proposed work we need to determine what the
       benefit is to IETF?

PN:   Shouldn't we compare to SCTP, &etc?


Vern Paxson(VP): Mobile  IP framework is useful in determining
        the boundaries, so that the scope doesn't rathole.  I
        think that this provide a useful work area.

GM:    We're not really looking at hanges to the Macro Mobility
        space though.

BP:    In this case SCTP, MPLS Mobility, SIP out of scope.

TN (Thomas Narten): In the IETF we're not interested in widening the
        scope because of cycles.  In the IRTF we have to see if
        there's anyone wiling to do the research, and anyone willing
        to review their work.  This means that we don't want to widen
        the scope so that people are wrking on the same page.

JK:    It's worth seeing what rsearch questions have value in the scope
        of mobileip, and start spinning off research results into
        IETF WGs.   For this we need young researchers with much time
        to get interested and involved.   At a later time, the ADs
        can determine when it is time for technology transfer to
        an IETF working group.  the MicroMobility IRTF group did nothing,
        we need to focus in order to gain results.

RK:    What we need is able to be shown by MIPSHOP, MIPv6, MIPv4.

CP (extra paraphrase):  Can research results be used to revise drafts
        and RFC's?

BP/GM?: We may be interested in having short lived IETF WGs but the
        IRTF group would last longer.

TN:  <missed this>

BP:     There should be some independence between IETF WGs and the IRTF.

JK:     Occasionally with End-to-End IRTF group, the ADs would identify
         any relationships between research outcomes relevant to the WGs.

BP:  <missed this>

PN:     I think there is interest in determining the limits of
         MobileIP, for example, what signalling is going on?

Samita Chakrabati (SC):  We're interested in Route Optimization. What
         causes RO to work? Who initiates?

TN:     It's worth investigating RO as deployed in MIPv6.

Stephan :   I think we need to investigate these issues with realistic
          networks and evidence of how they work. With MIPv6 we saw a
         lot of features introduced with a high rate of churn of ideas.
         It may be worth agreeing on what is the minimum mobility
         requirement and then make additional changes to changes.

JK:     For this we need common radio access networks models, and ways
         for calibrating simulation models.  Then we can argue about
         the calibration of the models, until we agree on how the
         simulation models may be measured.

GM:     Have you looked at CMS? I'm not sure about it's availability,
         but it covers a lot of what we need.

JK:     I haven't used NS-2 but I have heard that there's a high
         learning curve on this.  Some people in our team have been
         using OPNET.

GD:     Our team has been using OMneT++ which is free for academic
         use.

JK(??):  We need to look at wide deployment and scalabilty.

??:  We need to see whether the temporary roaming into
          a hotspot (which may only last a few seconds) makes sense.

BP:      There is this issue for multiple interfaces: do you bind each
          interface ? How do you determine the separation of flows
          for flow binding updates?

JK:      This brings us close to  upper layers.  What's our boundary?


BP:  <missed this>

JK:      We'd be making decisions for routing, based on policy.

CP:      This sounds like multihoming to me.

(??):    Is there any work on how to use 802.11 preauth with
          mobility?  Is it possible to be proacive and do DHCP
          when moving to another subnet?

TN:      Does it make sense to make a list of things it would like
          to do?

VP:      The charter conveys the boundary of the scope, examples
          which illustrate this are fine, but may be better stated
          in another way.

TN:      Do we need some level of co-ordination to make sure that
          each area is covered?

VP:      How the group organizes has a lot of flexibility. It's OK
          if people are doing things by themselves so long as this
          is not taking from the productivity of the group.

CP:      We're in a situation where we don't ever see in the
          IETF WGs some work which is published in academic papers.
          For example there's an interesting analysis in Mobicom2003.
          Cedric did a good presentation on Piggybacking &etc.

GM:      It may be worth saying at the end of the meeting: Here are
          some interesting papers.

CP:      We have to be careful to review the research angle of
          each paper (so that we can evaulate their results
          objectively).

BP:      We canprovide a framework so people can work in with this
          Group's goals.

CP:      Maybe we can consider this WG a huge list of Masters'/
          Research projects.

BP:      There are some optimizations we can go on with now.

GM:      We will need some specific examples in the charter.
          for example, Seamoby, piggybacking schemes, LMM and
          candidate routers.

VP:      What I think we need now is to define a path toward
          charter convergence.

BP:      Are we looking at a closed or open IRTF group?

VP:      Open, based on the size of the community.

CP:      From my understanding IRTF meetings aren't bound to IETF
          meetings?

VP:      Yes that's the case.  There's a logistical issue in that IETF
          gives lowest scheduling priority to IRTF groups.  We may not
          be able to change this in the near term.

??:      Maybe it is possible to have 2 meetings, one at Infocom or
	Mobicom and one at IETF?

Organizational:  Description that WG chairs will request mailing lists
         through  IRTF chair.

CP:     Results for RO depend on traffic models.  What are we interested
         in?

JK:     mobility models we've been working on, we could talk about.

BP:     Traffic models help.

CP:     (unclear notes) traffic models may help , tha application may
         need, but not use


End of Meeting.