RE: Proposal to change aspects of Neighbor Discovery

2006-09-20 Thread Pars MUTAF
Selon "Manfredi, Albert E" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I think Pars' point is not restricted to L2 mechanisms, though. No > matter what layer has to wake up a dormant host, bandwidth will be > consumed at multiple base stations to achieve this? > Yes that's right. Thanks! pars > Bert > > > > -

Re: Proposal to change aspects of Neighbor Discovery

2006-09-20 Thread Pars MUTAF
Selon James Kempf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > So here's a counter example. > > Suppose there is an IP based but wireless link layer specific protocol that > lets BSes communicate about dormant mode hosts. When a host goes into > dormant mode, all BSes in the paging area learn about it via the protocol.

Re: Proposal to change aspects of Neighbor Discovery

2006-09-20 Thread James Kempf
Right, but that's not my point. My point is that it's possible to concieve of link specifric mechanisms that make filtering work. Furthermore, this is all hypothetical. The other SDOs are going to do it however they want to anyway, and they, ultimately, are the ones who control how paging wo

RE: Proposal to change aspects of Neighbor Discovery

2006-09-20 Thread Manfredi, Albert E
I think Pars' point is not restricted to L2 mechanisms, though. No matter what layer has to wake up a dormant host, bandwidth will be consumed at multiple base stations to achieve this? Bert > -Original Message- > From: James Kempf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, September

Re: Proposal to change aspects of Neighbor Discovery

2006-09-20 Thread James Kempf
So here's a counter example. Suppose there is an IP based but wireless link layer specific protocol that lets BSes communicate about dormant mode hosts. When a host goes into dormant mode, all BSes in the paging area learn about it via the protocol. When paging happens, this protocol is used b

Re: Proposal to change aspects of Neighbor Discovery

2006-09-20 Thread Pars MUTAF
Selon James Kempf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > There is an assumption here that the "L2 paging system" is run off the AR. > This is not necesarily the case. It won't be for Wimax, for example. Hello, OK. The discussion about Wimax now ;-) But this should be orthogonal to our problem. In paging, in gen

Re: Proposal to change aspects of Neighbor Discovery

2006-09-20 Thread James Kempf
There is an assumption here that the "L2 paging system" is run off the AR. This is not necesarily the case. It won't be for Wimax, for example. jak - Original Message - From: "Pars MUTAF" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "James Kempf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Erik Nordmark" <[EMAIL

Re: Proposal to change aspects of Neighbor Discovery

2006-09-20 Thread Pars MUTAF
Selon James Kempf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Why can't the BS simply filter the RA? It looks at the IP packet header, if > the packet was sent to All Hosts Multicast and it's ICMP RA it drops that > packet for those mobile nodes that are dormant. Because by the time the BS received the RA, the host

Re: Proposal to change aspects of Neighbor Discovery

2006-09-20 Thread James Kempf
Why can't the BS simply filter the RA? It looks at the IP packet header, if the packet was sent to All Hosts Multicast and it's ICMP RA it drops that packet for those mobile nodes that are dormant. jak - Original Message - From: "Pars Mutaf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "James

Re: Proposal to change aspects of Neighbor Discovery

2006-09-20 Thread Pars Mutaf
On Mon, 2006-09-11 at 20:02 +0200, Pars Mutaf wrote: > Hello, > > The issue was raised again in 16ng, so I'm trying to help > moving forward on this issue. (I dropped out my dormant mode > reliability concerns for future work, but I hope this has > complemented the discussion.) > > I have a coup