> Most wireless link protocols that provide robust dormant
> mode support have a
> separate dormant mode (aka paging) signaling channel that is
> extremely
> narrowband and requires very low receiver power to monitor.
> This channel is
> independent of the traffic channel over which IP traffic
> goes. Requiring the
> terminal to wake up periodically, bring up the traffic
> channel for an RA,
> then go to sleep again would result in considerably less
> power saving than
> if the separate dormant mode channel is used.
=> Of course, but it all depends on how often you do this. If we do it
every 30 minutes, it's not much of a drain, if we do it every hour it's
negligible and so on.
jak>> Dunno. Most of the terminal engineers I've talked to don't want to
bring up the traffic channel at all if the terminal is in dormant mode.
They're comparing that kind of a design to what they currently have where
dormant mode is entirely controlled by the circuit switched network. There's
no need to bring up the circuit switched traffic channel, everything is
handled through the narrowband paging channel. It's kind of like owning a
Toyota Prius (60 mpg) and somebody telling you that the next generation is
going to get the same gas milage as a Corolla (40 mpg). It's still better
than a Chevy Tahoe (maybe 12 mpg) but it's not a particularly compelling
tradeoff.
jak
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
