AW: [802.21] Discussion on transport protocol selection for MIH!
Hi Vivek,
I would agree to your comments and say it is what we have to look in .21
But the point 2:
> 2] 802.21 defines the payload in both cases (both for L2 and L3
transports)
> for MIH services. This should work for different MIH users including
> different L3 and above mobility protocols as well.
I would say, "802.21 defines (single) payload which can be used for both the
cases..."
Regards,
Kalyan
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Gupta, Vivek G [mailto:vivek.g.gupta@intel.com]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 19. Juli 2005 11:10
An: Koora Kalyan Com Bocholt; Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1;
STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
Cc: mihep@eng.monash.edu.au
Betreff: RE: [802.21] Discussion on transport protocol selection for MIH!
Given the wide coverage of cellular and wimax networks the issue/problem
often turns out to be, how to detect the presence of wifi and how to decide
to switch over to wifi? In the below case seems like the Information
Service may not be very helpful in detecting the presence of wifi anyway.
Seems like you may have to detect presence of wifi by traditional (beacon
scan/probe) means anyway, unless the cellular network can give you some hint
about presence of a wifi hotspot. And again after detecting the presence of
wifi you may have to resort to L2 to pull up information pertaining to
appropriate network selection.
In general during discussions in 802.21, some of the requirements that
emerged are as follows:
1] Need to enable both L2 and L3 transports
L3 may be primarily used for 3G networks (where it is more difficult to
modify L2 in a timely manner). L2 enabling in case of 802 networks is
relatively less difficult and needed in certain cases.
2] 802.21 defines the payload in both cases (both for L2 and L3 transports)
for MIH services. This should work for different MIH users including
different L3 and above mobility protocols as well.
3] Other requirements for L3 transport:
a] How do you discover the presence of MIH services (IS, CS, ES etc.) and
capability at L3?
b]Any security considerations
c] If an IP based transport is used we may need to select appropriate port
numbers if we end up selecting different protocols for carrying (IS,CS,ES)
payloads. Not sure if we need much else beyond this:
BR,
-Vivek
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Koora Kalyan Com Bocholt [mailto:kalyan.koora@siemens.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 12:11 AM
> To: Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1; Gupta, Vivek G; 'STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org'
> Cc: mihep@eng.monash.edu.au
> Subject: AW: [802.21] Discussion on transport protocol selection for MIH!
>
> Hi Ajoy,
>
> let me put up an other scenario where it is also not possible to get
> information over higher layer.
> Let us assume you have an IP connection over a cellular interface like
> 3GPP and your in a foreign country. You come up to a hotspot where you
> don't have any knowledge of the ISPs over there. Further, it is possible
> that some come up and some go down time to time. In this case how does
> the cellular provider knows about the hotspot? Or do you assume that all
> the ISPs at hotspots do have some agreements with the cellular ISP? Some
> of them could be just 'local' ISPs using firewall/NAT/masquerading
> techniques and are not interested in cellular providers.
> In this case too, you may have the possiblity to handover to the hotspot
> ISP if you find any suitable provider.
>
> Regards,
> Kalyan
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1 [mailto:ASINGH1@motorola.com]
> Gesendet: Montag, 18. Juli 2005 17:07
> An: 'Gupta, Vivek G'; Koora Kalyan Com Bocholt;
> 'STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org'
> Betreff: RE: [802.21] Discussion on transport protocol selection for MIH!
>
>
> [Gupta, Vivek G]
> Actually the difficulty is for the first time, when you are powering up or
> in an un-initialized state or don't have any of the links connected. At
> that
> time which initial link to select may be an issue. But then you could
> always
> have a default radio/link to use in such cases.
>
> Ajoy-> Yes, but that is initial call setup scenario. Do we really need
> Ajoy-> any seamlessness during initial call setup?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gupta, Vivek G [mailto:vivek.g.gupta@intel.com]
> Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 9:45 AM
> To: Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1; Koora Kalyan Com Bocholt;
> STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: RE: [802.21] Discussion on transport protocol selection for MIH!
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-stds-802-21@ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-21@ieee.org]
> On
> > Behalf Of Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1
> > Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 6:36 AM
> > To: 'Koora Kalyan Com Bocholt'; 'STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org'
> > Subject: RE: [802.21] Discussion on transport protocol selection for
> MIH!
> >
> > Hi Kalyan,
> >
> > I would like to comment on one of your statement here.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Ajoy
> >
> >
> > If we select higher layer protocols (eg. layer 3), it is
> > difficult for the IS to be delivered before a generic layer
> > related connection is established (if we consider IP, then
> >
> > Ajoy-> If you have multi-link mobile, you can use IP transport of
> > connected link to obtain information about neighboring link.
> [Gupta, Vivek G]
> Actually the difficulty is for the first time, when you are powering up or
> in an un-initialized state or don't have any of the links connected. At
> that
> time which initial link to select may be an issue. But then you could
> always
> have a default radio/link to use in such cases.
>
>
>
>
> >