Subject: [seamoby] L2/L3 Paging

From: "Martin, David P" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 08:35:21 -0500

At the meeting in Minnesota, there was a question that basically asked
"Should seamoby paging *require* L2 Paging be present".  Consensus was no
...  I think a better question to ask would be "Should seamoby *assume* that
layer 2 has knowledge of the location of the MN".  I think (perhaps I'm
wrong), that the answer to the latter question would be yes.

I'm not sure how you can have a link without knowing where you are sending
stuff.  I am a little concerned that the paging team may be attempting to
solve a very difficult problem that will never exist.

(Administrative note - Message sent to the seamboy list due to the workgroup
consensus issue)

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 08:10:20 -0800 (PST)

> wrong), that the answer to the latter question would be yes.

   I don't see why we should assume that. If a mobile
   is dormant, we probably know its last attachment 
   point, but that doesn't mean that the L2 must 
   track its movement accurately. In fact, I'd say
   that that should be an explicit *non-goal* as it
   would allow the MN to sleep for longer periods.

 > solve a very difficult problem that will never exist.

   This doesn't seem to hard: suppose you have a
   beacon which all dormant nodes listen too. To
   find a node, the last attachment point performs
   a search in the local paging area. When the mobile
   wakes up, it establishes a link to its current AP,
   and a tunnel to the old AP to scoop up the
   packet(s).

   What am I missing?

	   Mike