Subject: RE: [Seamoby] Examples of CAR discovery

From: "Govind Krishnamurthi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 19:41:31 -0500

Henrik,
I am assuming nothing. I'm merely pointing out that the GAARs can
be discovered by the AR along with their capabilities. This is part
of CAR discovery. The other part being matching these capabilities
with the requirements of the MN. All I'm saying that it is possible
to do that in the AR too.

>Govind wrote:
> > So now you agree that the AR can hand over the list of GAARs and
> > their capabilities to the MN (maybe only pass on those which satisfy
> > the MN requirements, which is what CAR discovery was originally about).
>
>Here you seem to assume that one single AR has the full list of GAARs.
>I would argue that a flexible and scalable solution would have the final
>list of GAARs be composed from sublists provided by multiple ARs and the
>MN.

[Govind] This may be possible.

>It may be technically possible for all Currently Active Access Routers to
>transit their GAAR sublist to the MN, who transmit the lot together with
>its own GAAR sublist to one particular AR, who runs some algorithm and
>returns the result to the MN.
>
>But it certainly doesnt't seem either sensible or optimal to me.

[Govind] WHat do you mean currently active Access routers? The MN is
currently attached just to one AR and we are talking about the GAARs of
this currently attached AR to which the MN may potentially handoff too.

Second, I agree what you propose is neither sensible not optimal.
But I don't think anyone is suggesting that. To do this we have to
go into solution space. But transmitting the GAARs and their capabilties
to the MN has its bandwidth and power constraints too.
I am not arguing against one another. All I'm saying is we shouldn't
totally reject AR based CAR discovery now.

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.

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

---

From: "Henrik Levkowetz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 02:22:20 +0100

Govind,

Govind wrote:
...<snip>...
> [Govind] This may be possible.

Ok.

> this currently attached AR to which the MN may potentially handoff too.

No, no, no, you cannot assume that only one of the N possible interfaces
the MN may have is in use. At any given time, zero, N or any number in
between of the interfaces may be in use, and may provide different lists
of GAARs. Additionally, the MN's interfaces scanning for APs may result
in GAARs which are not on any of the other lists.

> totally reject AR based CAR discovery now.

Ok.

I'm arguing that we should reject CAR discovery which is not MN centric.
The ARs will (must!) have their role in this, but an AR centric scheme
does not seem to make sense, and I believe that it would be good to get
that established.

	Regards,
		Henrik

---

From: "Henrik Levkowetz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 02:22:20 +0100

Govind,

Govind wrote:
...<snip>...

Ok.

Ok.

	Regards,
		Henrik