Re: [802.21] contributions for upcoming May 2004 meeting - L2.5 C oncrete Model ?
We are an IEEE standards group. I would think that, the very fact that one would
have to bank on a particular vendor to disclose "what they can disclose" should
make this a non-starter.
-ajay
Chair, IEEE 802.21
On 5/5/2004 1:25 PM, Iyer, Prakash wrote:
> Vladimir - short answer I believe is yes - and improving. A monitoring
> Microsoft person should step up and comment to whatever extent they can
> disclose.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-21@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Vladimir
> Yanover
> Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 9:54 AM
> To: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [802.21] contributions for upcoming May 2004 meeting - L2.5
> C oncrete Model ?
>
> Ajay and All,
>
> I have a question on the scenario under consideration.
> Is there a candidate "intelligent entity" in the architecture of e.g. MS
> Windows? I mean part of Windows that communicates to multiple MACs
> [network adapters], feels their state [connected/disconnected] and
> switches binding relationship IP <=> adapter from one adapter to
> another. I am interested to learn more on the issue.
>
> Thanks
>
> Vladimir
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ajay Rajkumar [mailto:ajayrajkumar@lucent.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 9:26 PM
> To: STDS-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [802.21] contributions for upcoming May 2004 meeting - L2.5
> Concrete Model ?
>
>
> Mike, DJ,
>
> It may not be as bad as it sounds. The key in Mike's scenario is that
> the laptop is "associated with WLAN" simultaneously with its ethernet
> connection.
> Because
> of its active association with WLAN an "intelligent entity" above
> various MACs would have collected sufficient information and then
> subsequently can make a decision to switch over to WLAN as and when LAN
> connection goes down.
>
> In fact, the scenario may be even simpler/faster if the two interfaces
> are on the same subnet (DJ's office scenario)!
>
> -ajay
>
> On 5/4/2004 2:00 PM, Mike MORETON wrote:
>
>>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.
>>>>
>>>
>
>
> This mail passed through mail.alvarion.com
>
> ************************************************************************
> ****
> ********
> This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
> PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals &
> computer viruses.
> ************************************************************************
> ****
> ********
> This mail was sent via mail.alvarion.com
>
> ************************************************************************
> ************
> This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
> PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals &
> computer viruses.
> ************************************************************************
> ************