Re: [Seamoby] state of the IP micromobility protocols

Hi Artur,

I am not sure if you came across the draft below which proposes a context
transfer extension to cellular-IP micromobility protocol.
A new version of this draft will soon be submitted to IETF with examples.
Nevertheless I do agree with the issues you are rasing concerning the lack
of activity towards an RFC on the IP micromobility protocols!

        Title           : Context Transfer Extension to Cellular-IP
        Author(s)  : M. Georgiades et al.
        Filename    : draft-georgiades-seamoby-ctecip-01.txt
        Pages         : 13
        Date           : 2003-7-1

This Internet draft enhances cellular-IP mobility protocol with a
Context Transfer mechanism aiming to further optimise the handoff
operation in mobile networks. Within a cellular-IP domain, during the
handoff from one cellular-IP base station to another, cellular-IP
packets could be  used to initiate and transfer authorised context
from the previous cellular-IP base station via the cellular-IP
gateway to the new cellular-IP base station. This draft presents how
the context transfer extension introduced could facilitate in
reducing latency and packet loss by avoiding the signalling required
between the mobile node and the new base station  in  re-establishing
the desired state information.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-georgiades-seamoby-ctecip-01.txt

Cheers,

Mike

Artur Hecker wrote:

> hello seamoby!
>
> i'm sorry for my intervention. i'm currently studying the IP
> micromobility protocols proposed so far (Cellular IP, Hawaii, MIP-RR,
> EMA, IDMP, etc.) but i'm suprised to see that there hardly has been any
> activity in this sector since 2001: all the drafts seem to be expired,
> no RFCs have been published to my knowledge and there are hardly any
> publications on this topic anymore.
>
> so, what is the current state of the IP micromobility protocols? are all
> the problems considered to be more or less solved or has there been a
> consensus on a general change of the approach?
>
> please provide me with some information on this topic.
>
> thank a lot for your time!
>
> artur hecker
> ENST Paris
>
> _______________________________________________
> Seamoby mailing list
> Seamoby@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby