Subject: RE: [Seamoby] Deadline Approaching: WG Last Call for Paging Assessment Draft

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 17:18:31 -0600

>May I disagree on this? LMM is not Seamoby protocol. Alternative 2 is 
>stating clearly that we follow the developments in Mobile IP WG and 
>align Seamoby paging protocol with the LMM of choice in MIP WG. This 
>creates a dependency. We already have a dependency by using MIP. What is 
>wrong with another one?

I disagree. The fate of the paging protocol usability must not depend on whether (or when) a particular LMM is accepted in MIP WG or not. Instead, let's accept the dependency on mobility and limit it right there, without extending it to a particular LMM (or trying to align it to that of MIP WG). Let's develop a common solution - non-LMM based and a generalised LMM based or one that fits both.

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

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 17:51:39 -0600

A solution with no LMM means HA based paging, HA based paging is not 
scalable and it is inefficient. As you admit it has to be used only when 
no LMM agents available.

   LMM for Mipv4 seems to be done-deal, the only problem is right now at 
MIP WG is LMM for Mipv6 and I am sure it will be resolved very 
fast..There is no point and I do not think MIP WG would allow trying to 
develop an alternative.
 
  Alternative 2 is a win-win for all. If agreed, it enables both MIP 
based and Simple IP based solutions to be developed. Alternative 2 
requires harmonization within each and with MIP WG. This is the right 
approach, I think.

-- 
Behcet Sarikaya
Network Strategy Group, Mobile Networking Team
Alcatel USA M/S 026
1000 Coit Road  PB7
Plano, TX 75075 USA
Email: [email-masked]
Phone: (972) 477 2794 Fax: (972) 519 2460

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 16:32:32 -0800

> scalable and it is inefficient. As you admit it has to be used only
when

Why is sending a packet that initiates paging (not the paging itself) to
an
address in the foreign network from the HA more inefficient than sending
packets
to an active MN at a foreign network CoA from the HA?

                jak