Re: [802.21] IS scenario presentation for 07.28.2005 call
Hi Ajoy,
Please find my answers inline.
Regards,
Andrea
Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1 wrote:
>
> Andrea,
>
> I have few questions about the proposed scenario:
>
> a. Does you scenario allow communication between two NMIs
> (i.e., between serving NMI and candidate NMI)? If not then how does
> sNMI know the dynamic capability of neighboring access network?
[AF]
The underlying assumption for the scenario is that IS Information Elements
evolve slowly enough to allow the ISS to maintain a reliable representation of
the values of those elements for all neighboring access networks. In other
words, it is assumed that the Information Elements that one would find at an NMI
can typically be reliably supplied by the ISS that covers that NMI's network.
This removes the need to exchange IS Information Elements between NMI's.
Please note that the scenario does not make specific assumptions regarding the
means by which the ISS obtains and maintains a consistent picture of the
networks within its range.
Whether or not the two network elements that include the two NMI's can still
exchange faster-changing data that pertain to other MIH services (e.g., ES),
which I believe is what you call "dynamic capability of neighboring access
network", is beyond the scope of this IS scenario.
[\AF]
>
> b. What kind of information is exchanged between
> NMI and IS Server? Few examples will be useful.
[AF]
A typical example would be NMI querying ISS about Information Elements that
pertain to neighboring access networks.
[\AF]
> c. Is it possible for mobile node to query IS Server through
> NMI or it directly queries ISS server?
[AF]
The model of the current picture implies direct querying of the ISS with no
involvement of the NMI (except, of course, for packet switching purposes).
The model could be further expanded by introducing server-proxy capabilities,
where the MMI addresses all IS queries to the first L3/4-enabled NMI in the path
from the MMI to the ISS. In that case the role of the IS_c reference point would
also be extended, because it would now be used for proxy-related exchanges
between the ISS and the NMI.
Whether or not to enable this and other extended capabilities in the IS
communication model should be a topic for discussion for the group. Time
permitting we are planning to submit another slide to stimulate such discussion.
The intent of the model in the current picture is to define a very simple
scenario over which it is possible to build broad consensus, after which more
detailed discussions regarding specific features would become much easier to
manage.
[\AF]
>
> Regards,
> Ajoy
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-21@ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-21@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Andrea Francini
> Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 3:19 PM
> To: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: [802.21] IS scenario presentation for 07.28.2005 call
>
> Hi All,
>
> A .ppt file presenting a proposal for a scenario and protocol requirements for
> MIIS was just uploaded on the 802.21 website for discussion during the 9-11pm ET
> "Higher-Layer Requirements for IETF" adhoc teleconference today. It can be found
> in the September folder ( http://www.ieee802.org/21/sept05_meeting_docs/ ), with
> the following name: 21-05-0326-00-0000-IS_scenario.ppt .
>
> Best regards,
>
> Andrea