RE: stds-802-16-mobile: Handoff document

["Itzik Kitroser" <itzikk@runcom.co.il>]

Avi and All,

 

The soft HO procedure you suggesting, in which the MS is communicating with more than one serving BS,

seems to have several implications:

At the PHY level, the MS need to have the ability of simultaneously receiving data from two BS.

This may require two receivers at the MS, for the SC and OFDM solutions,

and I can think on solutions with one receiver for OFDMA (but with some requirements on BS synchronization).

Probably existence of two receivers at the MS will remain as an option, but still I think that this

issue should be tackled.

 

From MAC perspective, there are also some issues, for example the CID, since the CID domain

is local per BS, there could be some CID duplicates (based on current DL MAP structure) if the MS

did not registered yet with the new BS.

 

I will try to address this issue in my initial draft, and encourage other members to do so as well.

 

Also, not related but important, I did not mentioned this in my initial document: If anybody has insights

about the relevance of 802.11f - Inter AP protocol as a reference to our Inter BS backbone communication,

please provide an input.

 

Thanks,

Itzik Kitroser.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-16-mobile@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-16-mobile@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Avi Freedman
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 3:35 PM
To: stds-802-16-mobile@ieee.org
Subject: Re: stds-802-16-mobile: Handoff document

Itzik and HO-AH

I agree that the term Soft handover is not clear enough. It seems to me that in Vladimir's C80216e-03/01, it means a soft transition, that is with no break or failure of service, while hard HO requires a new NW entry. I think we should distinguish betwee the mobility management level and the data level.  I understand the term soft handoff in the data level, namely that the data is communicated between the MS and the network via more than one base station.  In that level there could be more than one serving BS.

 

Avi

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Itzik Kitroser

To: stds-802-16-mobile@ieee.org

Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 10:22 AM

Subject: RE: stds-802-16-mobile: Handoff document

Dear Avi and all,

 

I agree with Avi.

 

I thought that "soft" and "hard" terms should be provided with relevant context in order to prevent

misinterpretation of the terms.

The items 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 were a way to insert the "soft" and "hard" HO as given by Vladimir Yanover in C80216e-03/01

without stating the explicitly "soft" and "hard" terms.

 

There was no explicit decision to exclude soft handoff, and I think that considering soft handoff is relevant and should be made,

by providing with it the relevant context.

 

Itzik Kitroser

 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-16-mobile@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-16-mobile@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Avi Freedman
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 9:50 AM
To: stds-802-16-mobile@ieee.org
Subject: stds-802-16-mobile: Handoff document

Dear Handoff ad-hoccers

 

I have been looking at the document Itzik had complied.  I haven't seen any mentioning of the possibility of soft handoff.  Was there any decision to exclude it?  Soft handoff is not necessarily CDMA, you know, and it might provide an advantage.

 

Avi Freedman