2.6.19 Common Radio Access Protocol Set (craps) bof

Current Meeting Report

CRAPS Monday, July 31, 2000

Chairs Pat Calhoun Pat.Calhoun@eng.sun.com
Phil Neumiller Phillip.Neumiller@Motorola.com

Reported by Matt Holdrege matt@ipverse.com

Scott Bradner, Area Director, reiterated the IPR Policy for the IETF. Even the mention of the technology in the meeting must meet the guidelines of RFC 2026.

CRAPS description
Many new radio link layers continue to emerge with different international tendencies Standards bodies for radio link layers are needlessly moving up the stack, e.g. BlueTooth There has b en a proliferation micro-mobility protocols, some proprietary and radio specific Utopian goal of CRAPS is seamless mobility across any RF link layer using IP based protocols that run over the global Internet.

This BOF will examine whether a WG should be chartered do define the protocol set enabling seamless handover that is common across all types of radio access points and base stations.

The WG is to reuse existing IETF protocols wherever possible

Wireless access to the global internet should provide for seamless roaming using a single protocol. The interfaces to AAA and QOS should be similar and unified at a least common compatible level.

Etc...(see slides))

Peter Lei, Introduction and open Issues with OBAST work
It was noted that the IETF will likely not impose requirements on layer 2 technologies. Neither would this group impose QoS or AAA changes.

It was noted that SCTP shouldn't be chosen before CRAPS has even selected a protocol.

It was noted that Mobile Access Nodes could also be Mobile Access Servers, however messy that may be.

Mike Needham, OBAST QoS <needham@rsch.comm.mot.com>
Mike discussed the need for QOS information to be propagated to a new MNAS after a handoff.

James Kempf, james.kempf@sun.com Scope of work regarding CDMA soft hand-off
Several discussions came up about layer 2 issues, but we didn''t have time to discuss them.

Gary Kenward gkenward@nortelnetworks.com, Open IP Network Infrastructure for Nomadic Services
Gary presented his ideas on the Open IP Network Infrastructure.

Yousuf.Saifullah, <yousuf.saifullah@nokia.com>
Common Radio Access Protocols Issues and Requirements
More concerns on link layer were expressed, but without resolution other than to say this is a BOF and everything is open to change.

Scott Corson <corson@isr.umd.edu>
Issues and Requirements found in Edge Mobility Architecture
Phil Karn asked if we were trying to replace the delivery mechanisms in CDMA. The reply was that we are not, in fact we are trying to bring such technology to other radio schemes.

John Loughney, john.loughney@nokia.com
IP based Signaling Needs in Radio Access Networks Requirements
John discussed the need for SCTP in the new IP RAN, and 3rd generation networks. A comment was made that we haven't reached the point where we can decide what transport we need, since we haven't started the work, yet.

Jyh-Cheng Chen, <jcchen@research.telcordia.com>
Wireless Diffserv
Jyh-Cheng discussed the QoS requirements for the wireless environment and proposed an architecture and preliminary protocols based on diffserv in which mobile users can seamlessly roam across different subnets and RAN.

BOF Comments
It was asked why we are here? We will not do architecture and we will not work on existing IETF protocols. So we should simply pick and architecture and develop the required protocol.

What about Mobile IP WG? Where is the line between CRAPS and Mobile IP?

We should abstract this work away from radio technology. The work here should cover both wireline and wireless.

Radio technologies are quite distinctive and as such must have unique methods for handling mobility. We should take advantage of some of the techniques that are used in radio networks.

There was too much presented today and we can't effectively choose what to do. Scott Bradner said we are not sure what to hum about (choose to start a WG) yet. We need to communicate with the Mobile IP people to make sure what we need to do.


None received.