Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [STDS-802-16-MOBILE] [Handoff] Phil Barber action item from HO Ad-hoc conference call on 6/2/04

Ronny Kim,
 
Various parties have expressed an interest (in 802.16 and 802.21) in having ARID available, through some advertised message, to facilitate decision to initiate HO.  For 802.16, I believe the interest originates from concern over HO network re-entry latency--increased time to consummate HO handshaking--associated with re-acquiring a network address (with DHCP this could take some few tens of milliseconds, or possibly longer).  The thinking is that having this information is useful enough to warrant its advertisement.  If 802.16 members feel that ARID advertisement is not justified, they should express that opinion on the list, so that we can value the argument.  The question of where to advertise this information is more pertinent.  The information does not seem timely or important enough to clutter-up DCD.  So NBR-ADV is a likely place to put it.
 
You are absolutely correct that MSS need not be aware of Target BS ARID at time of HO attempt in order for Target BS to take advantage of knowledge, obtained through backbone communications, of Serving BS ARID and Target BS ARID commonality, and to direct the MSS to omit an unnecessary network address re-acquisition.  However, I would suggest that we put the appropriate notification tickler in RNG-RSP instead of REG-RSP as the REG-REQ/RSP loop itself may be able to be omitted in certain optimized HO mechanics (shared context management or administration).
 
Thanks,
Phil
----- Original Message -----
From: ronnykim
Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 6:43 PM
Subject: RE: [STDS-802-16-MOBILE] [Handoff] Phil Barber action item from HO Ad-hoc conference call on 6/2/04

Dear Phil and all

 

I have a suggestion for your action item.

Because 802.16 base station may have more than one ARID, one BS broadcasts one ID is not correct (restricting dynamic configuration of network is not correct in 802.16e system), and advertising ARID through NBR-ADV seems overkill also.

It can be delivered through Backbone message(HO-confirm) from the old BS to the new BS, only when an MSS performs handover.

Then the new BS compares the delivered ID and its own, and indicates in REG-RSP TLV with one bit, to the MSS whether it should re-establish IP connection.

In conclusion, ARID (whatever ID is) is not necessarily advertised to MSSs.

This is my deferred contribution from Session #31 Shenzen. “C80216e-04_90r1”.

I am making a revision to use Network Prefix ID instead of using IP related information in C80216e-04_90r1, and I will upload this revised document on the ftp server (http://upload.wirelessman.org) by Monday.

 

 

Best Regards,

 

Ronny Kim

 

From: owner-stds-802-16-mobile@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG [mailto:owner-stds-802-16-mobile@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG]
Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2004 12:04 AM
To: STDS-802-16-MOBILE@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [STDS-802-16-MOBILE] [Handoff] Phil Barber action item from HO Ad-hoc conference call on 6/2/04

 

I had this action item from the call:

 

* Phil - Propose new TLV flags to support notion of context ID - to convey sectors, frequency assignment and subnet/prefix/access router ID - by 6/8/04

 

A 'Sector ID' in the form of a BS MAC ID prefix, suffix, or additional message advertisement through DCD (and, by implication through NBR-ADV) has already been proposed by Samsung and I am just going to refine this idea.  Allowing for the bifurcation the existing BS MAC ID, exactly as proposed by Samsung, seems the best approach since it encourages fewer changes in other places in the document affecting, among other things, NBR-ADV messages.

 

I was planning on borrowing ARID use proposed in 802.21 and advertising it through NBR-ADV.  Sticking ARID into DCD seems overkill.  And we don't need ARID in RNG-RSP or SBC-RSP because I am already going to propose some HO/network re-entry flags in RNG-RSP that will cover that.

 

My question concerns the FA (frequency assignment) element.  My question is, wouldn't the sector DCD have the required information for FA?  Do we actually require additional MAC level information for advertising FA?  I think by definition, each sector would have its own DCD, though for sectored BS using a single frequency/channel assignment, that DCD would be identical.  For sectored BS using different frequencies/channel assignments in each sector, the DCD would necessarily be different.  And since DCD is imbedded in NBR-ADV, we get appropriate neighbor advertisement as well.

 

I would appreciate feedback on this item prior to my scheduled due date for submission.

 

Thanks,
Phil