RE: contributions for upcoming May 2004 meeting - ARID
This has been a very interesting thread in more ways than one. And this
seems like an appropriate place to bring out some other relevant
comments as well.
Who are the customers of 802.21?
Since 802.21 deals with Media Independent handovers, most of the content
is likely to be in more general terms, possibly abstract at times.
However for any implementation this would then need to be mapped into a
specific technology, be it for .11,.16, or any of the cellular
technologies. This should apply to most handover elements that 802.21
may define such as general media independent trigger model, link
information, etc.
From the ongoing thread it seems that this mapping is technology
specific and needs to be discussed/standardized in respective technology
specific WGs. Thus it seems that the customers of 802.21 may be other
technology specific WGs and standard bodies that need to support
handovers, as opposed to other direct implementers as in most other
cases. Does this seem correct?
If so, then the benefit of 802.21 may not be fully realized until this
mapping has been completed at least for a few specific technologies
(based on most viable cases). Also while doing the mapping to specific
technologies the normative aspects of 802.21(if any) need to be realized
as well. One would expect that these normative aspects should NOT be
overly compromised during any mapping optimizations that go on in other
technology specific WGs. In general 802.21 may need to have a much
larger interest in this technology specific mapping process...
Comments/Thoughts welcome.
Best Regards,
Vivek
Vivek Gupta
Intel Corporation
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-21@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of McCann,
Stephen
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 8:36 AM
To: 'S. Daniel Park'; 'stds-802-21'
Cc: ajayrajkumar@LUCENT.COM
Subject: RE: contributions for upcoming May 2004 meeting - ARID
Daniel,
This is a very interesting issue, and I think it may be
applicable to more than one WG.
The information that you would want to make available at the
APs (e.g. the ARID) is something that would seem to fit
within the scope of 802.21, where the benefits of having a
generic identifier that can be used over different
technologies to support this L2/L3 handover distinction and
what format this information should take can be discussed.
However, the way that this information is communicated, be
that over a 802.11, 802.16, other air interface will be
technology specific and should really be discussed within the
WG in charge of standardising that technology.
Within 802.11 this issue would be welcome within 802.11 WIEN
SG.
Kind regards
Stephen
> -----Original Message-----
> From: S. Daniel Park [mailto:soohong.park@SAMSUNG.COM]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 11:50 AM
> To: ajayrajkumar@LUCENT.COM; 'stds-802-21'
> Cc: 'S. Daniel Park'
> Subject: RE: contributions for upcoming May 2004 meeting - ARID
>
>
> Hi all
>
>
> At the previous meeting on March, I presented one issue
> which dealt
> with unclear handover indication between L2 and L3 and
> this solution
> defined a new ARID (Access Router ID) into the beacon to
> distinguish
> L2 handover from L3 handover. If different ARID, it means subnet
> change, then L3 handover is
> performed.
>
> The subject was as below:
> Awareness of the handover to be distinguished from a L2 or L3.
>
> I remember that chair and some guys required more general
> solution
> to solve this problem in the 802.11 and they worried
> about the newly
> defined value into the current 802.11 beacon, however I am still
> wondering how we can solve this ambiguous operation
> without 802.11
> spec. extension like ARID or similar value.
>
> So I am open to listen some comments/views on this issue.
>
> My major question is that
> [1] Do I have to propose this solution to the 802.11 WG
> since this
> problem is originated from the 802.11 spec. ?
>
> or
>
> [2] Is this 802.21 WG is right place to deat with this issue ?
>
> Regards
>
> - Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park)
> - Mobile Platform Laboratory, SAMSUNG Electronics.