Subject: [seamoby] Consideration on L3 paging area

From: Yoshihiro Ohba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 17:50:49 -0400

I've noticed that the definition of "paging area" is ambiguous in the
DMHA requirement document.  Actually, it is not clear to me whether
the paging area mentions L3 paging area or L2 paging area.

I want to interpret it as the L3 paging area instead of L2 paging area
in order to be more generic.  Otherwise, the Tracking Agent and Paging
Agent defined in section 5 (Functional Architecture) cannot exist if
underlying L2 technologies do not have L2 paging (thus there is no L2
paging area), which seems to be unnecessarily restrictive.  The notion
of L3 paging area would also be useful for separation of L2 dependent
stuff from DMHA protocol, which would simplify the DMHA protocol
specification and increase the degree of freedom in implementation.

If such an interpretation is allowed, the next issue is what the
mapping between L3 paging area and L2 paging area should be.  It seems
that the mapping is entirely implementation issue, and I want to make
it out of the scope of DMHA specification.

Comments?

Yoshihiro Ohba

---

From: NAKAJIMA Nobuyasu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 15:15:25 -0400 (LDT)

Hello,

Though the definition of Paging Agent in RFC3154 (paging requirement)
is ambiguous when we consider what message the Paging Agent sends
out, I think that DMHA's Paging Agent should send IP paging message
out to alert the dormant host.

This means that some entity which converts the IP paging message to L2
paging message is necessary (if L2 paging is utilized). I think that
taking the converting function out of DMHA's Paging Agent is a good
idea, because at the same time, we can take out the implementation
issue that how Paging Agent deals with L2 paging.

Comments?

Nobuyasu
-----
Nobuyasu Nakajima
Toshiba America Research, Inc.