Subject: RE: [seamoby] Micromobility Problem Statement ISSUE 2

From: Kulwinder Atwal <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 23:41:46 -0500

3. Is a protocol required to locate the FA handling a 
> particular mobile?

Maybe, I am missing something here.  But if the mobile is made responsible 
for its own movement, by requiring to:

1. Stay active if it wants real-time flows. 

2. Periodically transmit between dormant periods and re-associate with an
AP, if it wants to recieve a message.

3. Go completely dormant if it does not want to recieve a message.

4. Store the last AP/FA address and furnish it to the new AP, so it can
avoid the need for FA paging.

The problem I have with paging is its scalability.  What bounds are we
placing on how far a mobile can drift?   

Can the mobile do the ridiculous? Locate the other side of the planet and
cause a planet-wide page?  How many kWatts are we allowing the network to
expend to allow the mobile to save a few microWatts?  I think there needs to
be reasonable cap on how much network resources a mobile can consume.

???

Maybe, by saying "micro-mobility" the paging area is a sub-metro area.  But,
to ensure that, we need a time limit on how long the mobile can be dormant.
Which means the solution to the paging problem is 2 + 4 above.

- Kulwinder.

> 
> So are the above two points what Micro-mobility is all about?
> 
> PatC
>

---

From: Pat Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 21:06:52 -0800 (PST)

Perhaps I wasn't clear. When multiple FAs support an AP, and the mobile moves
to a new subnet (and AP), how should the new FA know *which* FA supported by
the old AP should be used. If the mobile informs the FA, then we have Mobile
IP with no fast handoff. In the pro-active case, the new FA needs to issue a
handoff-request to the old FA. This is known through a link layer message
(perhaps this is communicated via IP from the AP) to the FA.

Hope this is clearer, but I doubt it.