IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Seamoby] CAR Discovery Requirements

"James Kempf" <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com> Mon, 14 January 2002 18:06 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA10216 for <seamoby-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 13:06:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA16814; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 12:50:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA16785 for <seamoby@optimus.ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 12:50:16 -0500 (EST)
Received: from docomolabs-usa.com (fridge.docomo-usa.com [216.98.102.228]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA09335 for <seamoby@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 12:50:14 -0500 (EST)
Received: from T23KEMPF (dhcp126.docomo-usa.com [172.21.96.126]) by docomolabs-usa.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with SMTP id g0EHnXS01636; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 09:49:33 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <00b801c19d23$99a750e0$7e6015ac@T23KEMPF>
From: James Kempf <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com>
To: Govind Krishnamurthi <govs23@hotmail.com>, John Schnizlein <jschnizl@cisco.com>
Cc: seamoby@ietf.org
References: <4.3.2.7.2.20020114113728.03782008@diablo.cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Seamoby] CAR Discovery Requirements
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 09:47:56 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: seamoby-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: seamoby-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Context Transfer, Handoff Candidate Discovery, and Dormant Mode Host Alerting <seamoby.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: seamoby@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

John,

> It would require resolving which users are subscribers of which
domains,
> or complex inter-domain roaming and billing reciprocity.
>
> While it seems reasonable to avoid locking mobile stations into a
single
> domain, the policy interactions of requiring multiple-domain discovery
> would make the task much more difficult at the start.
>

I'm not quite sure I understand the reasoning behind this statement. How
does
inter-domain CAR discovery complicate roaming and billing reciprocity
any
more than simply statically configuring the inter-domain CAR routers?

            jak


_______________________________________________
Seamoby mailing list
Seamoby@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby

v2.35.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status