IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Seamoby] CAR Discovery Requirements

John Schnizlein <jschnizl@cisco.com> Mon, 14 January 2002 18:22 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 NAA11002 for <seamoby-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 13:22:04 -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 MAA17384; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 12:57:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA17343 for <seamoby@optimus.ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 12:57:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: from wells.cisco.com (wells.cisco.com [171.71.177.223]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA09806 for <seamoby@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 12:57:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from JSCHNIZL-W2K1.cisco.com (rtp-vpn2-595.cisco.com [10.82.242.83]) by wells.cisco.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_14041)/CISCO.SERVER.1.2) with ESMTP id JAA21368; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 09:57:14 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020114125144.00bab0b8@diablo.cisco.com>
X-Sender: jschnizl@diablo.cisco.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 12:56:10 -0500
To: James Kempf <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com>
From: John Schnizlein <jschnizl@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Seamoby] CAR Discovery Requirements
Cc: seamoby@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <00b801c19d23$99a750e0$7e6015ac@T23KEMPF>
References: <4.3.2.7.2.20020114113728.03782008@diablo.cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
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

At 12:47 PM 1/14/2002, James Kempf wrote:

>> 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?

It is not increasing the complexity of roaming and reciprocity that 
worries me, it is the potential that requiring discovery be inter-domain 
would complicate the discovery (by drawing in these difficult issues).

John


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

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