RE: state of the IP micromobility protocols

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 protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of
Artur Hecker
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 5:14 AM
To: [email protected]
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. 

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? :-)


>>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.
> 
> 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.

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).

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


thanks a lot

artur hecker
ENST Paris



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