Re: [Seamoby] proposal on next steps in paging

[Yoshihiro Ohba <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 01:06:07PM -0600, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
> Jim,
>   I am going to  be positive and conciliatory as much as I can. Please see
> Yoshi's email, he also has a strong point there.
>   The satisfactory resolution I think relies on an agreement in
> architecture. Let's agree on an architecture based on the entities defined
> in RFC 3154 and then I do not care who does the editing.
>   Considering the different pieces of IP paging protocol, the right
> architecture would place the entities as follows:
> DMA- takes care of paging registration, packet capturing in dormant mode
> and starting the paging. Therefore DMA must be placed high in the
> architecture possibly together with the Paging Agent. DMA could be mapped
> to the MAP of hmipv6 in case of domain-based mobility or paging, or DMA
> could be mapped to HA of mipv6 in case of home agent based paging.
> TA- tracks the mobility in dormant mode. see below.
> Paging areas. Whereever available, L2 paging areas must be used. L2 paging
> areas are under the subnet. We must define how to interface with L2 paging

One technical thing.  L2 paging area as well as L3 paging area is
orthogonal to IP subnet.  While there is a case in which an IP subnet 
contains one or more L2 paging areas, there may be other case in 
which an L2 paging area covers multiple IP subnets.

Yoshihiro Ohba

> areas. In here paging triggers can prove useful. L2 paging areas can
> probably be better utilized with the help of paging triggers.
> On links with no L2 paging areas we must define L3 paging areas. L3 paging
> areas must be IP subnet based. We must define how to interface, configure
> L3 paging areas. Paging triggers can have some limited use here.
> Paging Agent. Paging agent is placed somewhere in the Internet. It
> interacts with DMA and then takes care of paging. Therefore the paging
> agent behaviour can be defined based on the paging areas (L2 or L3).
> TA- tracks the mobility in dormant mode. In case of L3 paging areas, TA
> must be on the subnet. In case of L2 paging areas TA becomes less
> important.
>   We may develop an architecture document before going on the details of
> the protocol in an ununderstandable rush. Once we have the architecture, I
> think that the protocol design will follow smoothly and will deal with the
> PDUs and on-link support for dormant mode and time-slot based paging and so
> on..
> 
> Regards,
> 
> James Kempf wrote:
> 
> > Behcet,
> >
> > >   There is a very important issue with the way paging protocol
> > assessment
> > > was concluded, i.e. one of the candidate proposals was not eliminated
> > in a
> > > way which is not acceptable. As I said in one of my previous emails,
> > the
> > > assessment result is moot.
> > >   I do not we can proceed without this issue being resolved
> > satisfactorily.
> > >
> >
> > I had taken from your previous email response on this topic that you
> > were
> > willing to work with Marco and the working group to assure
> > that the Seamoby protocol reflected the work in
> > draft-guri-seamboy-lahap-00.txt,
> > which I presume is the source your discontent. And also to work with
> > me and whoever else is interested in moving toward finding an IETF home
> > for
> > the L2 trigger work on paging which you've been doing. However, it now
> > seems that this is not the case.
> >
> > What do you consider satisfactory resolution?
> >
> >             jak
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Seamoby mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby
> 
> --
> Behcet
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Seamoby mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby
> 

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