Subject: RE: [Seamoby] Moving forward with paging

From: "Pat R. Calhoun" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 13:23:44 -0800

Simple IP is a CDMA2000 service. It requires a nailed up PPP
connection to gain IP access to the network, and doesn't provide
roaming capabilities.

Do we need to care about stationary mobiles (as viewed by the
network)?

PatC

- -----Original Message-----
From: James Kempf [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 12:18 PM
To: Behcet Sarikaya; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Seamoby] Moving forward with paging

[...]
>   If we are talking about mobility protocol independent IP Paging 
> protocol as there are two IPs it makes two right there. I believe
> that  MIP independent IP Paging protocols for v4 and v6 have to be
> defined  because there will be demand and interest for cases like
> Simple IP  service of CDMA2000, etc. IPv4 and IPv6 being fairly
> diferent means 
we'd
> better define them in separate IDs, although one approach could be
> to  concentrate on one first (maybe v6 version). Then the
> requirement 4.8  will be violated.
>

I am even more puzzled by this conclusion. What is Simple IP? What
does that and the fact that IPv4 and IPv6 are different have to do
with supporting existing mobility protocols, which is what
requirement 4.8 is about?

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 13:48:30 -0800

> connection to gain IP access to the network, and doesn't provide

So this sounds like an L2 issue to me, right?

> Do we need to care about stationary mobiles (as viewed by the

There is some interest in supporting paging for nonmobile hosts.
I think this would be easy to support with the architecture I
outlined, since the host essentially has no mobility protocol,
is not moving, and so any mobility hooks simply don't get used.

            jak

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