1. IETF 73 – Minneapolis – SIPPING Requirements for vertical handover of multimedia sessions using SIP draft-niccolini-sipping-siphandover-05 Saverio Niccolini, S. Salsano, H. Izumikawa, R. Lillie, L. Veltri, Y. Kishi Presented by: Jan Seedorf Acknowledgments to: Ashutosh Dutta, Salvatore Loreto, Henning Schulzrinne and Henry Sinnreich

2. IETF 73 – Minneapolis – SIPPING What are we talking about? “Terminal Mobility” (as opposed to “Session Mobility”) [*] –“Session mobility” using SIP has been discussed in SIPPING [draft-shacham-sipping-session-mobility] now in RFC editor queue (waiting for GRUU) “Terminal mobility” could be considered as a sub-but- special-case of “Session mobility” –BUT some requirements (e.g., vertical handovers, fast switching, etc.) need special requirements and considerations THEN: this draft [*] Schulzrinne, H. and E. Wedlund, "Application-Layer Mobility Using SIP", ACM Mobile Computing and Communications Review Vol.4, No.3, July 2000.

3. IETF 73 – Minneapolis – SIPPING Reference scenario (as in the draft)

4. IETF 73 – Minneapolis – SIPPING History and changes from -04 Presented -04 at IETF 72 –and received comments… Addressed these comments –Added references to history of SIP mobility discussion in IETF (citing draft- itsumo-sip-mobility-req) –Introduced definition of terminal mobility and session mobility extracted from the "Application-Layer Mobility Using SIP" by Schulzrinne and Wedlund –Added references to 3GPP work on Voice Call Continuity (VCC) and Multimedia Session Continuity (MSC) –Clarified that the draft addresses terminal mobility and its special requirements –Provided an explanation about the relationship of this work with draft- shacham-sipping-session-mobility –Added references to papers comparing mobility management approaches at different levels

5. IETF 73 – Minneapolis – SIPPING Objectives of this work Address special requirements of “Terminal Mobility” using SIP and document them –as in SIPPING scope Provide a comprehensive reference of related work –assuring alignment of requirements –avoiding duplication of work already done

6. IETF 73 – Minneapolis – SIPPING A proposal Open the door to interested people to contribute –should this work be addressed in a design team? regular conference calls to advance and align the work present at IETF 74 and move to WG item Questions to answer –Is the work interesting for SIPPING? –Do we agree on requirements?

7. IETF 73 – Minneapolis – SIPPING Annex

8. IETF 73 – Minneapolis – SIPPING Requirements (the basics) The handover solution should be as fast as possible –The goal is to provide a "seamless" handover with no interruption perception from the user point of view The handover solution should not require a support in the different access network (no “network level mobility” e.g. MIP/MIPv6) –The access networks are only required to provide IP connectivity so that mobility support can be rapidly deployable No special support from Correspondent Hosts (CHs) –CHs should be basic User Agents (UAs) with basic SIP capabilities If this requirement is not fulfilled there is the need to change all SIP terminals to support the handovers of Mobile Host The handover solution should be compatible with NATted networks –NAT discovery should not increase the handover delay

9. IETF 73 – Minneapolis – SIPPING Why a new solution? There are solutions out there, why do you require a new one? –need to be faster service disruption as small as possible, bound to 0 –do not want to rely on network capabilities –do not want to rely on correspondent host capabilities –need to be NAT-independent More details in the additional requirements in the draft (here only 15 minutes) –details currently not addressed with available solutions

10. IETF 73 – Minneapolis – SIPPING References (running code?) Currently four available (independent) “solution” drafts –http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-salsano-sipping-siphandover-solutionhttp://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-salsano-sipping-siphandover-solution running code available at http://netgroup.uniroma2.it/twiki/bin/view.cgi/Netgroup/MMUSEProjecthttp://netgroup.uniroma2.it/twiki/bin/view.cgi/Netgroup/MMUSEProject –http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-izumikawa-sipping-sipbicasthttp://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-izumikawa-sipping-sipbicast –SIP-based terminal mobility implementation at Telcordia Applied Research –SIP-based terminal mobility implementation at Columbia University The authors of the solution draft teamed up in the requirement draft to define a common set of requirements Solutions to this problem have been designed and implemented (At least) 3 (known) independent implementations –NEC Laboratories Europe, University of Rome “Tor Vergata”, KDDI Labs/Motorola –2 of them tested interoperability already in 2006 NEC Laboratories  University of Rome “Tor Vergata” Results of implementation and tests on operational networks documented –PIMRC conference, Sept. 2007 –IEEE Wireless Personal Communications, Nov. 2007 –IEEE Wireless Communications, Apr. 2008 –WCNC 2008, April 2008 –Trial with Italian operators