Re: [Seamoby] Defining Paging Area

"James Kempf" <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com> Wed, 19 December 2001 18:00 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 NAA02856 for <seamoby-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 13:00:59 -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 MAA21865; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 12:36:17 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA21835 for <seamoby@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 12:36:15 -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 MAA02294 for <seamoby@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 12:36:10 -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 fBJHZ3812589; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 09:35:03 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <007a01c188b3$450ae530$7e6015ac@T23KEMPF>
From: James Kempf <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com>
To: Pars MUTAF <pars.mutaf@inrialpes.fr>
Cc: Kar Ann Chew <k.chew@eim.surrey.ac.uk>, seamoby@ietf.org
References: <Pine.SOL.4.43.0112181555170.5355-100000@haskins.ee.surrey.ac.uk> <00af01c187eb$cac66af0$7e6015ac@T23KEMPF> <3C20A42F.1002FBC1@inrialpes.fr>
Subject: Re: [Seamoby] Defining Paging Area
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 09:33:27 -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

Pars,

> > One of the major advantages of IP paging over strictly L2 paging is
the
> > ability to do dynamic paging area configuration.
>
> So, if IP paging becomes a real success, this may have a major
> influence on the way the L2 engineers and cellular operators think?
> I mean, in this case L2 paging areas may disappear in the future?
> (the role of L2 being dormant mode support in a given subnet).
>

It is hard to tell, of course, but I think there are reasons for having
L2 paging support that are independent of static paging areas.
Having a separate paging channel that can contact the mobile
when it is in dormant mode and a paging area beacon channel
may result in better power efficiency on the mobile, for example.

What I hope will disappear are the static Location Area Identifiers
that are tied to GGSN/PDSN, i.e., to a particular subnet. These
are essentially data paging areas in the 3G standards. Static
subnet to paging area mappings tend to constrain network topology,
since they push for larger leaf subnets. Particularly with micro-
or picocells, flexibility in network design might lead to better
routing efficiency.

There is also the issue of multiple wireless interfaces on a
single device. What if there are 5 wireless interfaces on
a device? Confining the details of handling 5 different
L2 paging protocols to the last hop and letting IP
handle the details in the network seems like the correct
abstraction level, and is the traditional role IP has
played in hiding the details of L2.

            jak




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