|
Hello
All,
First,
let me say that I'm happy to see a discussion going on.
Second, Phil, I may be missing something, but I don't
see how beacon message at the serving BS replaces Ranging at potential target
BSs.
Also a
general note, from my perspective, there are many ways to do a cretin
functionality, different ways does not mean that one is better than
other.
I
would have liked to see a process ,in which problems (or points of improvements)
in the current document are identified and handled.
I
prefer to avoid of replacement of full sections if this not fully
necessary.
Thanks,
Itzik.
Thanks for the input. I will look at
breaking the MOB_BEA_ADV message up and adjusting broadcast
timing to reduce impact on the air interface efficiency. Probably
make allocations over several non-consecutive frames optional. Can't
leave the Beacon hanging too long or it interferes with sleep-mode
activity. Probably no more than 16 total frames for Beacon
transmittal.
It is problematic to only transmit change
information in the TLV. On the one hand, it reduces overhead to only
transmit change information, and full TLV information is redundant to MSS
attached to the Serving BS. On the other hand, providing change
information TLV only impacts MSS attempting to gain information for
initial network connection, not hand-over. On reflection, since MSS
initial network connection is less timing sensitive, I would agree that
transmitting only change information in the TLV is appropriate and
efficient. I would say that we would likely need to transmit
entire/clean Beacons every 10th or 20th Beacon transmittal or so to provide
accurate and complete information to MSS that have connected to the Serving BS
in the interim between full Beacon messages and therefore do not have basis
information from which to evaluate change only TLV information.
I remain convinced that the broadcast Beacon is
the way to go instead of using intrusive and unnecessary/constant Ranging of
adjacent Neighbor BS. Better to have a larger broadcast Beacon eating-up
downlink airtime every five seconds or so than a lot of unnecessary and
intrusive Neighbor BS Ranging. Might even look at stretching the max
interval threshold. 5 seconds might be an unsupported tight window for
static cases. Most mobile systems spend the vast majority of their time
in relatively static performance making excessive mobility management overhead
(too frequent Beacon broadcast in our case) an unproductive burden. To
be sure, for high mobility environments with frequent hand-overs, 5 seconds or
less between Beacon broadcast may be optimal. But I think we should
caution on the side of more relaxed specificity on max interval and leave it
to the manufacturer to create appropriate Beacon broadcast timing
mechanisms.
Thanks,
Phillip Barber
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 1:43
AM
Subject: RE: stds-802-16-mobile:
Handoff Ad Hoc group
Phillip,
As
you stated in your document, the MOB_BEA_ADV msg is much too large. I would
suggest to make another effort here and maybe fragment the message and
transmit it is pieces. One possible cut is to have the "header" portion (BS
ID, Operator ID, Network Type etc.) along with some of the slow changing
info of the BEA_ADV TLV transmitted once in a while. You may also consider
transmitting the neighbor info in pairs and have the entire message come up
at the receptor side in a slower rate, but consuming lower bandwidth off the
link.
We
all are looking forward to review your contribution.
Ofer
I hope to have my contribution ready for
submittal to the reflector for peer review by the end of this week.
I look forward to your comments.
Thanks,
Phillip Barber
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003
12:38 AM
Subject: Re: stds-802-16-mobile:
Handoff Ad Hoc group
Dear Phillip Barber.
I would appreciate your effort on AdHoc
activities
I think we need a clean-up version including
your comments as followings and it would be good reference to peer
review your contribution..
Even I have a couple of comments on your
contribution, it would not be better at this point according to your
mail.
And I'd like to know your schedule when are
you going to distribute a clean-up version so that I can have
a chance to revise my comments
Thanks
Changhoi Koo
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 6:29
AM
Subject: stds-802-16-mobile: Handoff
Ad Hoc group
Itzik,
Just wanted to drop a note and let the
Handoff Ad Hoc group know that I am--taking into consideration
Vladimir and your comments from Session 27 in Denver--re-working my
contribution number 54 into r4 of the current 16e document. I
hope to have my submittal ready for the reflector by the end of this
week for peer review.
Based on comments at Session 27, I plan
two changes to my contribution 54 proposal. First, For those who
wish to use Association as a mechanism to set initial power settings
for 6.2.9.5 Ranging instead of using the refined method based on
received signal characteristics interpreted during dowlink/uplink
synchronization as presented in the current iteration of the 16d
document, I plan to continue to include Association, but as an
optional, passive activity with application to 6.2.9.5. I
will provide appropriate language. I had previously espoused
removal of Association in its entirety. Second, I will
clean-up my sleep-mode changes to work with contributed changes as of
Session 27. Itzik, could you make a stab at providing my
corrected formula and send it to me for inclusion? I will also
clean-up my hand-over flow diagrams to reflect these changes,
including your comments regarding other-Target BS
notifications.
Thanks,
Phillip
Barber
|