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

[Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]>]

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.

[e-mail] wrote:

>>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
>[e-mail]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby
>

-- 
Behcet Sarikaya
Network Strategy Group, Mobile Networking Team
Alcatel USA M/S 026
1000 Coit Road  PB7
Plano, TX 75075 USA
Email: [e-mail]
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]