Subject: RE: [Seamoby] Dormant Mode Location Tracking by Mobility Protocol Issues

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 10:44:58 -0600

>There is an assumption in the above that the mobility protocol is MIP.
The IRTF is working on a micromobility routing protocol, and we would like the
paging solution to work with that as well.

James, as it is, we have problems with existing requirements. Now, you are bringing new requirements into the table. :)  

Please check the requirement 4.8.

4.8. Support for Existing Mobility Protocols

   The IP paging protocol MUST specify the binding to the existing IP
   mobility protocols, namely mobile IPv4 [2] and mobile IPv6 [3].  The
   IP paging protocol SHOULD make use of existing registration support.

Regards,
Srini

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

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 08:56:58 -0800

> James, as it is, we have problems with existing requirements. Now, you
are bringing new requirements into the table. :)
>    IP paging protocol SHOULD make use of existing registration
support.

There is also requirement 4.7:

4.7. Independence of Mobility Protocol

   Recognizing that IETF may support multiple mobility protocols in the
   future and that paging may be of value to hosts that do not support a
   mobility protocol, the IP paging protocol MUST be designed so there
   is no dependence on the underlying mobility protocol or on any
   mobility protocol at all.  The protocol SHOULD specify and provide
   support for a mobility protocol, if the Host supports one.

This requirement was explicitly inserted to accommodate a micromobility
protocol. Also, note that
the requirement says "for hosts that do not support a mobility
protocol."

Basically, this discussion has been touching on the following
architectural points I have been trying to make:

   1) base paging protocol independent of mobility management that
supports dormant mode alerting but no location tracking.

   2) mobility management protocol additions and changes plus some hooks
in the paging protocol that support location tracking via DMA and TA.
For hosts that don't support a mobility management protocol, some kind
of support for DMA and TA independent of mobility management.

Point 1 satisfies most of requirement 4.7, point 2 satisfies requirement
4.8 and the part of 4.7 that says that hosts without access to a
mobility protocol should be supported.

            jak