| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Dear HO ad hoc group: Yes, there could be lots of misunderstandings and lacks of
understanding what we defined terminology and the taxonomy of HO that we will
treat in this month. I hope this email may clarify all even though it¡¯s almost impossible. In this email, I would answer Ronny¡¯s questions one by one based upon my
understandings. Q1. The base assumption of a single BTS is that a BTS covers
only one sector and each sector may have a different frequency. Obviously, the table shows a different story on it. It is due
to that the base assumption is too specific to cover all network deployment
scenarios. Hence, although we take the base assumption, we might need more
complex network architecture, which reduces the HO delays if appropriately
designed. In this case, you might regard the base assumption as an extension to
multi-sectored BTS. Q2. Just the BTS don¡¯t know which FA the neighboring BTS have.
Q3. ¡±Basic ¡° scenarios cover up to level 2 backbone communications, while ¡°advanced¡± supports up to level 3 communications. Q4. Again, the same principle. The
taxonomy provides the extended scope of the HO scenarios. This means some
network may be deployed with frequency reuse 1. Q5. I think this part needs further discussion within the ad
hoc group, too. Q6. Again, the same principle. This
takes place only when the frequency reuse is 1. Q7. MBS doesn¡¯t have any issues related to HO. Check again, please. I hope this helps the folks of the HO ad hoc group. Best regards, Jung-Won Kim. --------------------------------------------------------- Jung-Won
Kim, Ph.D. Senior
Engineer NTP
SystemLab. 1 Telecommunication
Systems Division Telecommunication
Network Samsung
Electronics Co., Ltd. Office: +82-31-279-3366 Mobile:
+82-10-9530-3356 Email:
jungwon74.kim@samsung.com --------------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- Dear all Regarding
the base documents, I have suggestions and things to clarify. I think AAS HO should be considered
in 802.16e. Thus, I have added one more scenario and assumption on the list
(marked in red). I have suggested 5 possible handover
scenarios with IP change consideration. I want to hear your opinion on this. (I have uploaded
"C802.16e-04_105_0601" on the FTP server
http://upload.wirelessman.org in handoff ad hoc directory) I have several things to clarify. 1. Does minimal assumption 1 and 2
"HO occurs between single sector BTS and Each sector is at a different
frequency" mean that one BS only can have one sector? If so, this doesn't
comply with the Assumption of Intra BTS HO with multiple sectors on the table.
This assumption seems to me that either one BTS has more than one sector or
more than one FA. 2. Does minimal assumption 3
"FA is unknown" mean that we will only consider 1 FA case or we have
to consider all possible cases? 3. Please someone clarify what are
the differences between Basic and Advanced? 4. Which case does Scenario name
"Basic-Same-freq" and assumption "HO between sectors at the same
frequency" represent? It seems to me this
doesn't comply with the minimal assumption 2 "Each sector is at a
different frequency". 5. Can basic/Advanced-MIMO be
discussed without a consideration of different technologies? 6. If two base stations use
different frequencies, how soft handover is possible? 7. Is MBS issue out of scope of
handoff Ad hoc, even though MBS is related to the handoff? I think we need to unify the
terminology on the base document, e.g. use BS instead of BTS. Regards, Ronny(Yong-Ho) Kim LG Electronics |