Re: [802.21] transport layer for MIH IS.
David: If it is a MIB type query, that is networks wants to get the latest BER,
then it is an SNMP based and will be treated through MLME, PLME, etc.
If it is data type, say terminal wants to get neighborhood info from network
because current active link is going down, it will have to go over user/data plane.
Please realize that over the air 802.16 gives higher priority to data over
management messages but we can't say the same for 802.11. With the future
802.11e attributes, I is fair to assume management messages will be queued
behind data messages.
Peretz Feder
On 1/20/2005 6:22 PM, David Xiang wrote:
> I mean how to transfer the IS through air-interface. Is the IS carried in IP
> play load which doesn't care what media interface carrier it or direct in L2
> payload of that specific media interface (e.g IE of MAC management message
> for 802.11, 16)?
>
> David
>
> On 1/20/2005 3:30 PM, David Xiang wrote:
>
>>When we consider the complexity of .21 implementation and interaction with
>>other media standard, we need to think of our transport layer for
>>information service exchange with network or peer, though it seems out of
>>scope of .21 from most of the proposals.
>>I saw two ideas of transport layer from the proposals: IP application, and
>>L2. I just want to get your thoughts on which one is better.
>
>
> Transport across network elements must be IP type, which of course is
> carried
> within L2 Ethernet frames.
>
> In .21 new Ethernet frames (type .21) is in scope, IP is questionable. It
> may be
> an IETF domain to pick form the .21 standard.
>
>
>>IP:
>>Pros: 1. Generic and less impact on other media standard,
>> 2. Give more implementation flexibility for .21 information service
>> and other requirements.
>> 3. More easy to be implemented.
>>
>>Cons: 1. slow
>> 2. Not reliable or robust as L2 transport, but IP application can
>> become robust with some good mechanisms.
>>
>>L2:
>>Pros: 1. faster
>> 2. More robust
>>
>>Cons: 1. Too rely on other media standard which may not good for .21
>> implementation.
>> 2. Not flexible, any time .21 do some changes on SI, it may request
>> all other media standard to do some changes too.
>>
>>Any thoughts?
>
>
> It is not one or the other, it will have to be both if we include MIH
> exchange
> between a station and MIH IS DB at the core network.
>
> The big question is how do we define the IP protocol associated with the
> exchange of IP messages between the terminal and the IS network element? is
> it
> an IETF follow up? or within the scope of IEEE802.21?
>
>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>David
>
>
>