Hello Basavaraj,
Comments inline:
On 11/4/2011 9:05 AM, [email protected] wrote:
Unless you can make a clear and definitive case that the current LTE
solution does not work or scale or inefficient in terms of performance
or otherwise, it is difficult to bring about change.
Even with a clear case, it will be difficult to bring
about change.
Complexity has
its own benefits.. Its just a matter of who the beneficiaries are
Why don't we start from designing for the beneficiaries to be
the end users? Every strategy has beneficiaries, but yours is
in no way a useful criterion for design. Elminating electronic
communications and commerce would have very many beneficiaries,
as just one example. Enabling high-speed smooth handovers
between heterogeneous radio technologies would benefit some
people more than others. I'll be very surprised if [mext]
explicitly aims to protect complexity on the basis of your
argument.
Hence claiming complexity as the reason to consider alternatives is
an uphill task. If this complexity becomes an issue in terms of interop,
CAPEX/OPEX costs etc. that may trigger a revisit to the architecture.
What about the points I already cited:
Taking a look at S101 and S103, we can immediately
recognize that they are drastically more complicated,
restrictive, and operationally more expensive than
Mobile IP. Taking a look at S102, we immediately see
that 3GPP mobility management threatens to be different
for each class of application, with an unnecessary
per-application proliferation of servers, protocol,
permissions, traffic controls, configuration, and so on.
Taking a look at recent efforts towards WiFi offload,
we see the same trend of complication and software
hacks that could be avoided with proper IETF
approaches.
... and ...
.......... if we don't take action, we are
choosing a future that is ever more complicated,
non-extendible, non-flexible, radio technology
specific, application specific, and bug-ridden.
In short, everything we don't want the Internet
to be.
Do you disagree with _any_ of my claims above?
Regards,
Charlie P.
-----Original Message-----
From: "Charles E. Perkins"<[email protected]>
Organization: Wichorus Inc.
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 10:49:21 -0700
To: Jari Arkko<[email protected]>
Cc:<[email protected]>,<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group
Hello folks,
For several years now, I have been studying 4G wireless
network architecture and wondering why there is such a
disconnect between, say, LTE mobility management and
IETF mobility management. Mobile IP has a secondary
role, to say the least. IETF approaches may be seen to
have several inadequacies, and 3GPP approaches also show
some major problems. I think that it is important for
the IETF to devote some serious effort towards bringing
these two worlds together, because current directions
are leading towards an impossibly baroque, wasteful,
nearly impenetrable mess of complication. The effects
overall is loss of performance and opportunity.
Taking a look at S101 and S103, we can immediately
recognize that they are drastically more complicated,
restrictive, and operationally more expensive than
Mobile IP. Taking a look at S102, we immediately see
that 3GPP mobility management threatens to be different
for each class of application, with an unnecessary
per-application proliferation of servers, protocol,
permissions, traffic controls, configuration, and so on.
Taking a look at recent efforts towards WiFi offload,
we see the same trend of complication and software
hacks that could be avoided with proper IETF
approaches.
On the IETF side, we should specify:
- Integrated authentication for access control
as well as IP address continuity
- Location-assisted handovers (think MIIS / ANDSF)
- Modular/alternative security
- Signaling on control plane, user traffic on
data plane
- Alternative tunneling (GTP is simply not going
to die a quick death, to say the least)
- geez, the list does go on, but no one reads
long lists ...
...
I don't know if we already have 3GPP liaison, but
if we do the communication channels don't seem to
have had very much effect within the [mext] work
lately.
My fear is that if we don't take action, we are
choosing a future that is ever more complicated,
non-extendible, non-flexible, radio technology
specific, application specific, and bug-ridden.
In short, everything we don't want the Internet
to be. And, I am sure no one here doubts that
the Internet of the future is all high-speed
wireless. Where is the IETF going to be?
If the [mext] working group is shut down, there
is no natural place for this work to happen.
Therefore, I hope that [mext] would NOT shut
down, and instead recharter to tackle these
urgent problems.
Regards,
Charlie P.
On 10/28/2011 5:08 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
All,
We are making some changes to the working group. While we have
successfully published a large number of specifications in recent years,
recently it has been difficult to make progress in the group. The chairs
and ADs have looked at the situation and we believe we need a new focus
and a bit of new organization as well. We are terminating the working
group and moving the one remaining active work item to a new working
group, the "DMM" working group. Here's what is going to happen:
o Jouni Korhonen and Julien Laganier will become the chairs of the
group.
o The group will meet in Taipei (there is a MEXT slot in the agenda).
o The charter of the group will be changed to focus only on the
distributed mobility effort. We should discuss the details of this
charter change both on the list and in the meeting. The meeting agenda
should reserve some time both for technical discussions as well as the
charter discussion.
o Once the discussion on the list and in the meeting has finished, we
will rename the group to "DMM" and put the new charter in effect.
o If there are any other specifications that people would like to
publish beyond the distributed mobility work, we can offer to AD sponsor
them to RFCs outside the new working group. If there is some significant
new activity, we can create new working groups for that.
Comments and feedback and/or alternate suggestions on this plan are
welcome.
We would like to thank Marcelo for your many years of service in MEXT.
We could not have completed all the work we did without your energy and
push for high quality results. We would also like to thank Jouni for
taking on this new challenge, and Julien for continuing the work in this
space.
Jari and Ralph
_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
