RE: [802.21] contributions for upcoming May 2004 meeting - L2.5 Concrete Model ?
See some comments below inline.
Best Regards,
Michael Williams
IEEE 802.21 Vice Chair
|-----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.
Just for the sake of open mindedness... we could have the network attachment point cut off your PHY or your MAC (or both), or you could cut it off. Either end could signal the other of the impending event with a predictive trigger if its policy permitted.
If one is going to undock, you know it and it seems like an easy task to engineer either s/w or h/w to allow your foreknowledge to provide the advance notice in an unburdensome way.
If someone trips over the .3 wire or an intermediate power cord, then there is no predictive trigger, so the notification is from the L2 to L3 within each endpoint's stack. We may be unassociated/unconnected to any network at that point and the issue becomes DNA I think.
The Make of Make before break could conceivably originate from either endpoint of the link couldn't it?
|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.
> >