RE: stds-802-16-mobile: Handoff and Sleep Mode Ad-hoc: Continuation of discussion
Dear Changhoi and all,
I'm bit delayed with redrafting the new version of the
handoff and sleeping mode working document.
Since I don't want to hold the process, lets continue with
the discussion.
Changehoi, please find my opinion regarding the items you
have raised:
> 2. MS initiated Sleep to Awake mode change and its
corresponding messages
> 3. TRF_CFN message(MSS to BS) for BS initiated Sleep to
Awake
> mode changes corresponding messages
> 4. PDU sequence numbering when transiting sleep to awake
mode
> 5. SLP_REQ transmission and number of retrying when
saturating
> maximum window value of MSS (sleeping interval)
> 6. Sleep and Awake mode changeing approval and rejecting
> 7. Control and data traffic indication when transiting
sleep to awake mode
MSS initiating sleep mode is already defined in the standard,
in my opinion, the only change which should be done is to
emphasis that the BS may send unsolicited SLP-RSP message to
initiate sleep mode, without the need of an MSS to response
(to reduce TX power), the state machine should be exactly as
in the case of MSS initiating sleep mode, just without the
SLP-REQ message.
I disagree with the idea of using sleep mode as a traffic
control function, the MAC has many other mechanisms to
facilitate such functionality. The main drive of the current
design of the sleep mode is to enable efficiency in terms of
power consumption while reducing any potential delay which
can be cause of being in sleep mode.
The current mechanism has enough flexibility, by using the
sleep mode parameters, min,max windows and listening time,
that enables fine tuning of the sleeping mode with respect to
the specific traffic, services and system requirements of
each system.
All, I would be glad to hear some more thoughts about this
issue.
Also, I would like to discuss the last item in our list, e.g.
contribution C80216e-03_30r1, dealing with reporting of
scanning results of the MSS to the BS (Periodic reporting and
event triggering reporting).
Best Regards,
Itzik.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-16-mobile@majordomo.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-16-mobile@majordomo.ieee.org]On
Behalf Of
> Changhoi Koo
> Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 10:52
> To: Itzik Kitroser; stds-802-16-mobile@ieee.org
> Subject: Re: stds-802-16-mobile: Handoff and Sleep Mode Ad-
hoc:
> Continuation of discussion
>
>
> Dear Itzik and all
> Thanks for constructive your comments and decision
> I think that there was no strong objection for the basic
concerns
> and operation of the sleeping mode. e.g BS initiated Awake
to
> Sleep mode changes and its response operation. So I believe
that
> this item is almost closed and we can move next stuff.
> Followings are some of individual items to be described and
> proposed in the contribution 31. I'd like to know how are
you
> going to handle following items
>
> 1. BS initiated Awake to Sleep mode change and its
corresponding
> message (being discussed)
> 2. MS initiated Sleep to Awake mode change and its
corresponding messages
> 3. TRF_CFN message(MSS to BS) for BS initiated Sleep to
Awake
> mode changes corresponding messages
> 4. PDU sequence numbering when transiting sleep to awake
mode
> 5. SLP_REQ transmission and number of retrying when
saturating
> maximum window value of MSS (sleeping interval)
> 6. Sleep and Awake mode changeing approval and rejecting
> 7. Control and data traffic indication when transiting
sleep to awake mode
>
> Thanks
> Changhoi Koo
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Itzik Kitroser" <itzikk@runcom.co.il>
> To: "Changhoi Koo" <chkoo@samsung.com>; <stds-802-16-
mobile@ieee.org>
> Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 8:18 PM
> Subject: RE: stds-802-16-mobile: Handoff and Sleep Mode Ad-
hoc:
> Continuation of discussion
>
>
> > Dear Changhoi and all,
> >
> > First I would like to thank you for the feedback, I'm
happy
> that at least there is one participant in this discussion.
> > Regarding the Sleep-mode, since no one have provide a
feedback,
> I assume that everybody agrees with the perspective
provided in
> my previous mail.
> > I will draft a proposed text, which can be a basis for
> discussion the details of the proposal.
> > My perspective is that some of the additions are useful,
i.e.
> clearly stating that BS can initiate Sleep-mode and the
actions
> of an MSS following disapproval of sleep request, and that
some
> of the features are redundant, such as traffic indication
of the
> MSS. I don't think that sleep-mode is the right tool for
traffic
> management which should be more of implementation dependent
while
> using the tools already provided by the current MAC
protocol.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Itzik.
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Changhoi Koo [mailto:chkoo@samsung.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 02:49
> > > To: Itzik Kitroser; stds-802-16-mobile@ieee.org
> > > Subject: Re: stds-802-16-mobile: Handoff and Sleep Mode
Ad-hoc:
> > > Continuation of discussion
> > >
> > >
> > > Dear Itzik and All
> > > Here are my view on the Sleeping mode operation.
> > > Sleeping mode in mobile environment would be really
important and
> > > critical facts for power saving. Furthermore, with this
feature,
> > > another befefit that BS can control and manage the all
MSS for
> > > cell load capacity through the sleeping mode should be
considered
> > > carefully. Therefore, I think it should be allowed that
the BS
> > > initiated awake to sleep mode transition based on down
link
> > > traffic status and cell load control.
> > > For response statement, always the MAC state machine
between BS
> > > and MSS should be adjusted and synchronized to transmit
the user
> > > packet data without transmission loss. Therefore the
response for
> > > the mode changes should be implemented and considered
for
> > > avoiding undesirable retransmission due to packet
transmission
> > > loss and undesirable monitoring to detect down link
packet
> > > transmission, etc.
> > >
> > > And, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask something on the
sleeping
> mode related.
> > > Actually, The contribution 31 includes individual
several items
> > > to improve existing sleeping mode operation. The mode
changes
> > > mentioned here would be a one of items. Are you going
to arrage
> > > and continue the remaining items on this e-mail
discussion before
> > > july meeting?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Changhoi Koo
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Itzik Kitroser" <itzikk@runcom.co.il>
> > > To: <stds-802-16-mobile@ieee.org>
> > > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 2:59 PM
> > > Subject: stds-802-16-mobile: Handoff and Sleep Mode Ad-
hoc:
> > > Continuation of discussion
> > >
> > >
> > > > Hello all,
> > > > Assuming that the previous item (backoffs) is close,
I'm
> > > continuing with the next item to discuss:
> > > > Contribution C802.16e/03-31: Sleep mode enhancement:
> > > > In this contribution the idea of BS initiating sleep
mode for
> > > an SS is formally described.
> > > > I expect a discussion at two levels, first, please
provide your
> > > perspective about the general idea of BS initiating
entrance to
> > > sleep of an SS. Second, if you agree with the general
concept,
> > > please provide your feedback about the contents of the
> > > contribution and the implementation of this concept.
> > > >
> > > > My perspective on this subject is as follows:
> > > > a. The main motivation of having BS initiating sleep
mode is
> > > based on the fact that the BS knows the exact
downstream traffic
> > > status of each SS, which can lead into a knowledgeable
decision
> > > that no traffic is exists or expected to a specific SS.
Also this
> > > provides a good way of reducing some power of the SS by
not
> > > requiring it to send SLP-REQ message. So generally I
think that
> > > this is a good idea that enhances the performance.
> > > > b. Some aspects of the implementation should be
revises, with
> > > the motivation of not requiring the SS to transmit
response when
> > > BS initiating sleep mode.
> > > >
> > > > I expect a feedback on this issue, we have more items
to
> > > discuss and the schedule is starting to be tight.
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Itzik
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: owner-stds-802-16-mobile@majordomo.ieee.org
> > > > > [mailto:owner-stds-802-16-mobile@majordomo.ieee.org]
On
> Behalf Of Itzik
> > > > > Kitroser
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 09:48
> > > > > To: stds-802-16-mobile@ieee.org
> > > > > Subject: RE: stds-802-16-mobile: Handoff and Sleep
Mode
> > > Ad-hoc: Start of
> > > > > discussion
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Dear Changhoi, Vladimir and All,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you for your perspectives.
> > > > > I think that an approach which will bridge between
our views can
> > > > > be as follows:
> > > > > 1. Have two backoff values (actually min and max
for each case),
> > > > > one for initial ranging and one for HO-initial
ranging.
> > > > > 2. Make those values global, i.e. published in the
UCD, this
> > > > > means, add to current UCD encoding another two
values:
> > > > > Ho_Ranging_Backoff_Start and
Ho_Ranging_Backoff_End (with
> > > > > scope for all PHYs).
> > > > > 3. No change for initial ranging backoff algorithm,
add
> > > > > definition that HO MSSs will perform truncated
binary exponential
> > > > > backoff with [0..2^HO_BOFF] value, when HO_BOFF in
> > > > > [Ho_Ranging_Backoff_Start,Ho_Ranging_Backoff_End].
> > > > >
> > > > > The motivation is as follows:
> > > > > a. I agree with Vladimir that the number of
expected collisions
> > > > > will be inherently low, therefore, there is no
logic for
> > > > > exclusive windows to eliminate collisions, the
statistical
> > > > > spreading should do the work with bounded
guaranties.
> > > > > b. I also agree with Changhoi, that since we have
two different
> > > > > processes, with two different control and
performance
> > > > > requirements, having two different window
parameters makes sense
> > > > > (even when the windows are overlapping).
> > > > > c. I agree that from BS point of view, changing the
windows
> > > > > boundary is totally implementation dependent issue,
from the MSS
> > > > > point of view, an deterministic algorithm must be
defined (i.e.
> > > > > item 3 above), otherwise, the contention process
will not work.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please provide feedback, and agree or disagree
observations. I
> > > > > would like for continue for the next topic.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Itzik.
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Changhoi Koo [mailto:chkoo@samsung.com]
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 04:14
> > > > > > To: Vladimir Yanover; 'Itzik Kitroser';
> stds-802-16-mobile@ieee.org
> > > > > > Subject: Re: stds-802-16-mobile: Handoff and
Sleep Mode
> > > Ad-hoc: Start of
> > > > > > discussion
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hello All
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks fot your comments on Samsung's
contribution.
> > > > > > Please let me make some answers
> > > > > > For Chairman's view, the boundary of backoff
region
> would depend
> > > > > > on the number of entry call and HO call and it
can be
> dynamically
> > > > > > allocated by the BS through the DL message which
includes
> > > > > > information to be used to indicate boundary.
> > > > > > And your suggestion looks good and can be
alternative
> in terms of
> > > > > > allocation and indication of backoff field.
> Furthermore, it seems
> > > > > > depend on the operation view.e.g how to handle
and allocate the
> > > > > > boundary would be implementational issues.
> > > > > > However, most important thing would be that the
> different backoff
> > > > > > region should be defined and allocated for each
entry
> call and HO
> > > > > > call. So I believe if we make a room for
different
> backoff field
> > > > > > allocation on the messgae, everything will be O.K
and
> there will
> > > > > > be no any problem.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For Mr Yanover's view
> > > > > > Thanks for your comments. Unfortunately, we did
not meet in the
> > > > > > last meeting so I had not chance to hear your
valuable
> comments.
> > > > > > But I'm very happy to see mail from you...
> > > > > > You are right. Everything depends on the number
of HO call and
> > > > > > entry call, and statistical charcteristics of the
MSS.
> We may or
> > > > > > may not show some statistical references or
simulation results.
> > > > > > Even we have a simple simulation results chich
can be give the
> > > > > > evidence to be shown the useful approach of this
proposal, But
> > > > > > I'm not sure whether the simulation results can
be
> satisfied for
> > > > > > you. However, it is hard to evaluate and
analysize the
> enough and
> > > > > > reasonable simulation resulta due to so many
variables such as
> > > > > > MSS characteristics, call characteristics, number
of MSS during
> > > > > > HO and any other parameters which can be obtained
from
> > > > > > measurement under real fields..
> > > > > > I believe that the basic purpose of the backoff
field
> would give
> > > > > > avoidance of the collision between the calls and
the different
> > > > > > access delay can be happend according to the
backoff field.And
> > > > > > the allocation scheme and direction can be
treatable and
> > > > > > dynamically handled based on the cell load
including entry call
> > > > > > and HOcall. If the BS does not want to allocate
> different backoff
> > > > > > field, it can do that..However, we don't need to
such approache
> > > > > > and should allow the way for the performance
enhancement.
> > > > > > Furthermore, Because it does not require the
major changes and
> > > > > > H/W changes, and it can be done simply on the
message
> level, We'd
> > > > > > better give minimum directions and way to assist
the fast HO in
> > > > > > IEEE802.16e specificatin.
> > > > > > Thanks and Welcome further comments and
discussions.
> > > > > > Changhoi Koo
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "Vladimir Yanover"
<vladimir.yanover@alvarion.com>
> > > > > > To: "'Itzik Kitroser'" <itzikk@runcom.co.il>;
> > > > > > <stds-802-16-mobile@ieee.org>
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 12:52 AM
> > > > > > Subject: RE: stds-802-16-mobile: Handoff and
Sleep Mode Ad-hoc:
> > > > > > Start of discussion
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hello All,
> > > > > > > This is about C802.16e/03-28 document. The tool
suggested
> > > > > > > for the solution of the problem seems
appropriate:
> allocate for
> > > > > > mobile users
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > a separated initial ranging channel. But it
would be more
> > > convincing
> > > > > > > with some statistical data. Is the problem
really hard? The
> > > > > > answer depends
> > > > > > > on traffic/mobility characteristics.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For example, we know that for voice cellular
networks busy
> > > > > hours arrival
> > > > > > > rate may reach 3-4 users/sec per cell. If we
assume that data
> > > > > > terminals are
> > > > > > > not more mobile than cellular
> > > > > > > phones then we may expect same order of maximum
arrival rate
> > > > > for 802.16e
> > > > > > > cells.
> > > > > > > If we take MAC frame duration = 5 ms then we
have
> 50-60 frames
> > > > > > per SS for
> > > > > > > initial ranging. So we may allocate MAINT
region with
> 1-2 slots
> > > > > > once per 5
> > > > > > > frames
> > > > > > > and configure backoff window to 2 or 4 slots
and
> still have 4-5
> > > > > > attempts for
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > power adjustment of each incoming SS.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Now, what is the role of "fixed" users in this
picture?
> > > > > > Probably, busy hours
> > > > > > > are those when people power up their SSs in the
> evening. If 100
> > > > > > such events
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > distributed over one hour interval, then we
have 36 sec for
> > > > > > each user, 10
> > > > > > > times more than for mobile one. Thus, under
given
> > > > > assumptions, there is
> > > > > > > just a small interference from fixed SSs. Do we
need a
> > > separated MAINT
> > > > > > > channel
> > > > > > > in this case?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It would be interesting to hear from other
> participants of the
> > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > on their view on traffic/mobility
characteristics of future
> > > > > > 802.16e users
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Vladimir
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: Itzik Kitroser
[mailto:itzikk@runcom.co.il]
> > > > > > > Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 6:53 PM
> > > > > > > To: stds-802-16-mobile@ieee.org
> > > > > > > Subject: stds-802-16-mobile: Handoff and Sleep
Mode
> > > Ad-hoc: Start of
> > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hello All,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Given enough time passed, I would like to start
the
> discussion
> > > > > > in the scope
> > > > > > > of this group.
> > > > > > > As indicated in working document the following
topics
> should be
> > > > > > discussed:
> > > > > > > ---->
> > > > > > > 1. Contributions to discuss:
> > > > > > > a.C802.16e/03-28: Fast handoff service
> > > > > > > b.C802.16e/03-30r1: Reporting of scanning
results
> > > > > > > c.C802.16e/03-31: Sleep mode enhancement
> > > > > > > 2. Clarification on the types of handoff that
are supported;
> > > > > > currently the
> > > > > > > text implies that two kind of handoff are
supported
> > > > > > (break-before-make and
> > > > > > > make-before-break) but descriptions are
provided only for the
> > > > > > > break-before-make type. I would like to request
proposals on
> > > > > > > make-before-break type (relevant to the current
Tga/d
> > > > > > technology of course)
> > > > > > > 3. Provide message flow diagrams for the Sleep
mode
> and Handoff
> > > > > > procedure,
> > > > > > > such diagrams must provide a clear explanation
of the actions
> > > > > > performed by
> > > > > > > the BS and by the MSS. The diagrams must be
considered for
> > > > > > different kind of
> > > > > > > scenarios (i.e. handoff success, target BS
rejection etc.)
> > > > > > > <----
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I would like to open the discussion with item
1.a.
> > > > > "C802.16e/03-28: Fast
> > > > > > > handoff service " contribution:
> > > > > > > This contribution presents the idea of
improving the Initial
> > > > > > Ranging of MSS
> > > > > > > during handoff by using two backoff types of
backoff
> parameters:
> > > > > > > 1. "Regular" backoff (min) value for initial
ranging, called
> > > > > "MAX_BOFF"
> > > > > > > 2. HO MSS backoff (min) value for MSS during
handoff time,
> > > > > > called "HO_BOFF"
> > > > > > > The backoff window of MSS doing HO will be:
[0,2^HO_BOFF] and
> > > > > > the backoff
> > > > > > > window for MSS doing regular (i.e. not handoff)
network
> > > entry will be:
> > > > > > > [2^HO_BOFF+1,2^MAX_BOFF].
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The advantage of this method, is that, when
using a
> > > shared contention
> > > > > > > resource, the MSS performing HO will not
collide with MSS
> > > > > > performing initial
> > > > > > > network entry.
> > > > > > > The drawback of this method is the inherited
delay for the
> > > > > > initial network
> > > > > > > entry process for regular MSSs.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My view on this issue is:
> > > > > > > a. One of the main targets of the 802.16
handoff
> procedures is
> > > > > > to make the
> > > > > > > handoff process efficient and fast. Coming for
this
> > > > > > orientation, we have the
> > > > > > > ability to make the initial network
synchronization for
> > > MSS performing
> > > > > > > handoff, a contentionless process. This is
achieved
> by using the
> > > > > > > "Fast_UL_ranging_IE", which is sent
unsolicited, by
> the target
> > > > > > BS to the MSS
> > > > > > > coming in. If the aspire that most of the MSS
will be able to
> > > > > > do so, than
> > > > > > > the problem solved by C802.16e/03-28 dose not
exists.
> > > > > > > b. If there are subscribers, which still
required to perform
> > > > > contention
> > > > > > > entry to the target BS, then due to the fact
that the number
> > > > > of MSS that
> > > > > > > performing an initial ranging in a stabilized
system is very
> > > > > > low, it seems
> > > > > > > more reasonable to make two contention windows,
which are
> > > overlapping:
> > > > > > > b1. "Regular" backoff (min) value for initial
ranging, called
> > > > > > "MAX_BOFF",
> > > > > > > backoff window [0,2^MAX_BOFF]
> > > > > > > b2. HO MSS backoff (min) value for MSS during
handoff
> time, called
> > > > > > > "HO_BOFF", [0,2^HO_BOFF]
> > > > > > > When MAX_BOFF is large enough, then the
probability of
> > > > > > collision is still
> > > > > > > low.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Please provide your views on this issue,
deadline is 04/06/03.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > > Itzik.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This mail passed through mail.alvarion.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
>
**************************************************************
****
> > > > > > **********
> > > > > > > ********
> > > > > > > This footnote confirms that this email message
has
> been scanned by
> > > > > > > PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of
malicious
> code, vandals
> > > > > > & computer
> > > > > > > viruses.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
>
**************************************************************
****
> > > > > > **********
> > > > > > > ********
> > > > > > > This mail was sent via mail.alvarion.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
>
**************************************************************
****
> > > > > > ******************
> > > > > > > This footnote confirms that this email message
has
> been scanned by
> > > > > > > PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of
malicious
> code, vandals
> > > > > > & computer viruses.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
>
**************************************************************
****
> > > > > > ******************
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>