----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2004 12:03
AM
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,
1) wouldn't the sector DCD have the required
information for FA?
Yes, the DCD have the Frequency
param (DL center frequency).
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 think that there is a
problem on advertise the DCD for multiple frequency in a
sector.
Because, In Neighbor
Advertisement message structure, The TLV only got a "DCD_setting" per a
sector (if we agree on the first paragraph- "Sector ID").
So, I think we actually require
additional MAC level information for advertising for a FA_ID per multiple FA
in a sector.
Actually, I think I will disagree
on this one. Since the different FA would necessitate a different DCD,
we can conveniently classify that as a unique 'sector' channel. The
fact that you can have two or more channels of differing frequencies,
occupying the same sectoral coverage is not relevant. Common sectoral
coverage is incidental and not relevant. As they each must have
separate DCDs, we can continue to regard them as separate 'sectors' for our
purposes. I further contend that your case would only be true if you were discussing
two or more channels of
differing frequencies, occupying the same sectoral coverage, using the same
scheduler and expressing the same DL-MAP. As this would be a
highly ineffecient use of frequency, essentially duplicating traffic on
multiple channels/frequencies, I think the deployment scenario very
unlikely. I think the
more reasonable model is two or more channels, of differing frequencies,
occupying the same sectoral coverage, having different DCDs, schedulers and
DL-MAPs--effectively then just two or more 'sectors' that happen to occupy
the same coverage. In that case, the two sectors would be represented
by their unique BS MAC IDs with Sector ID and corresponding DCD--uniquely
present in the NBR-ADV.
I would appreciate feedback on this item prior
to my scheduled due date for submission.
Thanks,
Phil