Re: [802.21] contributions for upcoming May 2004 meeting - L2.5 Concrete Model ?
On 5/4/2004 2:11 PM, Johnston, Dj wrote:
> This is true. I think the scope for success or failure in this scenario
> depends on a number of factors. I certainly think 802.21 has the ability
> to deliver the information needed for a smooth handoff. A fast handoff
> requires some predictive information.
>
> In contrast, I am in a cube within propagation distance of 4 research
> projects doing wacky things with 802.11, a qualification lab and an
> actual useable 802.11 network. My laptop has a real problem deciding
> which one to use, especially when the signal to the non useful nets is
> much better than the useful net. My laptop could really use information
> on which networks it should ignore, which one it should attempt to
> connect to and what VPN client it should run for any particular network.
This seems to be a deployment issue since a 802.11 card would be configured to
Tx/Rx on a specific ESSID at any given point in time.
>
> There's also bluetooth and GPRS available to me, with manual selection
> on my part. Again 802.21 could enable a policy driven engine to pick the
> right interface.
Yes, this policy driven engine would be an answer to the correct
make-before-break selection.
-ajay
>
> This may be something of a worst case scenario, but its real and more of
> this sort of problem will arise as wireless LAN and MAN systems become
> more widely deployed.
>
> DJ
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike MORETON [mailto:mike.moreton@st.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 11:00 AM
> To: Johnston, Dj; STDS-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: RE: [802.21] contributions for upcoming May 2004 meeting - L2.5
> Concrete Model ?
>
>
> Dj,
>
> I'm typing this at home, and my laptop is currently connected to
> ethernet, while also being associated with WLAN. It doesn't seem to be
> a problem (as long as I don't disconnect the etherenet!) but just being
> associated may not provide enough information for a fast handoff.
>
> Mike.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Johnston, Dj
> Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 5:46 PM
> To: STDS-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: RE: [802.21] contributions for upcoming May 2004 meeting - L2.5
> Concrete Model ?
>
> I always assumed that we might have to forego a make before break
> LAN-WLAN handoff, unless the user, or an over elaborate dock eject
> handle provided the predictive information.
>
> Of course, if I was docked, and in some 'high performance' mode, I might
> keep the WLAN associated, just in case we undocked.
>
> To respond to Daniel's point, I think this is a primary scenario. It is
> the scenario that motivated me to propose the study group work in the
> first place. I suffer from a lack of effective LAN-WLAN handoff several
> times a day. Fixing it is likely to provide a good improvement to the
> user experience of docking laptops.
>
> DJ
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-21@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Mani,
> Mahalingam (Mahalingam)
> Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 9:33 AM
> To: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [802.21] contributions for upcoming May 2004 meeting - L2.5
> Concrete Model ?
>
>
> As standards stand today it is not simple. Special case configurations
> can make this scenario simple (such as a common mobility-aware bridge
> for WLAN and wireline).
>
> In general, wire-line to wireless seamless handoff is less trivial (as
> some smart heuristic is needed to overcome break-before-make issue -
> especially w.r.t. latency-sensitive sessions and applications) than
> WLAN-to-wireline make-before-make paradigm.
>
> -mani
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-stds-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG [mailto:owner-stds-802-
>>21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of S. Daniel Park
>>Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 10:37 PM
>>To: 'Gupta, Vivek G'; stds-802-21@IEEE.ORG
>>Subject: RE: contributions for upcoming May 2004 meeting - L2.5
>
> Concrete
>
>>Model ?
>>
>>My intentional scenario is a mobile office.
>>We have to use a wired connection with
>>several management applications on the
>>PC. It is to enhance the security aspect
>>and central contralability especially
>>authentication, thus I generally use a
>>ethernet to access internet in my office.
>>Let's assume we are about to leave our
>>desk toward meeting room or elsewhere
>>for a while and we still need to maintain
>>our connection and application. Then we
>>need to switch our interface to the WLAN
>>automatically if it's available.
>>
>>it's too simple ? or anything else ?
>>
>>
>>Regards.
>>
>>- Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park)
>>- Mobile Platform Laboratory, SAMSUNG Electronics.
>>
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: owner-stds-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>>>[mailto:owner-stds-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Gupta,
>>>Vivek G
>>>Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2004 12:01 AM
>>>To: S. Daniel Park; stds-802-21@ieee.org
>>>Subject: RE: contributions for upcoming May 2004 meeting - L2.5
>>>Concrete Model ?
>>>
>>>
>>>Daniel,
>>>
>>>Can you comment on the application under consideration and the usage
>>
>
>>>scenario when transitioning between wired Ethernet and Wi-Fi. It
>>
> would
>
>>>be interesting to see if "make before break" is required in such a
>>>case or if "break before make" can give the same user experience.
>>>Local
>>
> L2
>
>>>triggering can help in this case, but it may be more of a local
>>
> client
>
>>>side implementation issue.
>>>
>>>We plan to have an update on our triggers proposal for the May
>>>meeting, which should help out with some of this.
>>>
>>>Best Regards
>>>-Vivek
>>>
>>>Vivek Gupta
>>>Technical Editor, 802.21
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: owner-stds-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
>>>[mailto:owner-stds-802-21@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of S. Daniel
>>>Park
>>>Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 11:32 PM
>>>To: stds-802-21@IEEE.ORG
>>>Cc: 'S. Daniel Park'
>>>Subject: contributions for upcoming May 2004 meeting - L2.5 Concrete
>>
>
>>>Model ?
>>>
>>>Hi 802.21 folks
>>>
>>>Aside from the ARID, I am opening another issue
>>>on the L 2.5 (not sure it is a general term. but I
>>>just heard it from the DJ when attending the
>>>previous .21 meeting).
>>>
>>>Before mentioning that, I am saying one reference
>>>which is a handover between 802.3 (called Ethernet)
>>>and 802.11. This scenario is may included in the
>>>.21 technical requirement document and will be
>>>presented in coming .21 meeting on May.
>>>
>>>We (Samsung electronics) are developing this
>>>solution in our several device such as laptop,
>>>hand-help PC and PDA, and it will be done soon
>>>(maybe until the next month). Of course it is not
>>>lab scale. I mean it is a real commercial product.
>>>
>>>Above all, for this solution, I have to consider
>>>both L2 and L3 at the same time and almost
>>>functions are being implemented above L2 (e.g.,
>>>extended device driver with L2 triggering). Thus
>>>I'd like to call that as L2.5 but I don't have any
>>>concrete definition and function (reference) model
>>>now. If I can get L2.5, it would be very useful.
>>>
>>>I am wondering how we can clarify the definition
>>>of L2.5 and it is a inside scope of the .21 WG ?
>>>
>>>Or is anyone defining the reference model or
>>>related work about L 2.5 ?
>>>
>>>If yes, I would see it in this meeting.
>>>
>>>I believe it will be a valuable model for doing
>>>a media independent handover among several
>>>L2 techniques.
>>>
>>>Thanks in advance.
>>>
>>>- Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park)
>>>- Mobile Platform Laboratory, SAMSUNG Electronics.
>>>
>>