RE: [802.21] Question today about upper layers
We might want some flexibility here. Having a lower layer autonomously
switch links w/o considerations for cost ($$), whether it makes sense to
single-home or multi-home, account for user preferences etc. does not
seem appropriate - and certainly not in all situations. Having MIH
generate triggers that facilitate handovers is one thing; specifying how
MIH can use policies to switch links at this layer is avoidable in
802.21. That said, with the base primitives, none of the implementation
scenarios that people are thinking about will be precluded.
-Prakash
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
[mailto:owner-stds-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Peretz Feder
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 2:48 PM
To: STDS-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802.21] Question today about upper layers
Greg:
I am of the opinion thet MIH commands lower layers to switch a link and
in
conjunction inform upper layers to take care of the IP signaling over
the new
selected link.
Example switch 3gpp2 to .11 interface and make the MIP signaling at
layer 3
perform MIP re-registartion with the new COA and old MIP address. So I
am with you.
The counter argument will be what if moblity is done at the Application
layer?
i.e. SIP mobility?
Peretz Feder
On 3/14/2005 5:12 PM, Greg Daley wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here's my question from today about
> upper layer protocols.
>
> Have you considered if specifying direct
> interfaces to upper-layers will cause confusion?
> Wouldn't it be better to delegate this upper-layer
> trigger function to L3?
>
> Greg