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

Jay Jin and all,
 
I believe it should read:
 
"An inter-sector HO will essentially be modeled as a HO between a serving and a target BS where both BS share MAC resources such as a common CID management space and essentially advertise a different sector ID"
 
Of course the idea is that either the two BS would share CID management or administration directly or that the two BS would be a part of some other devices shared CID management or administration pool.  Note that the Serving BS and Target BS will have to share other MAC resources such as SFID, SF definitions and allocations.  And the Serving BS and Target BS may share other MAC resources like security key administration.  The real test is that the shared MAC resources must be sufficient to ensure persistence of MSS service and operating context during handover without requiring transfer of any context information.  So that MSS context must, in fact, be common to both the Serving BS and Target BS.
 
Thanks,
Phil
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2004 10:59 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 question about inter-sector HO.
 
In the minutes from conference call , "An inter-sector HO will essentially be modeled as a HO between a serving and a target BS where both BS share MAC resources such as a common CID space and essentially advertise a different sector ID"
 
I think the underlined sentence is not clear. The shared MAC resources is only a common CID space ?
 
Best Regard
 
jay Jin
 

From: owner-stds-802-16-mobile@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG [mailto:owner-stds-802-16-mobile@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG]
Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2004 12:41 PM
To: STDS-802-16-MOBILE@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16-MOBILE] [Handoff] Phil Barber action item from HO Ad-hoc conference call on 6/2/04

Chang-Jae Lee,
 
See my comments in-line.
 
Thanks,
Phil
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 10:01 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,
 
My comments are inline.
 
BR,
 
Changjae.
----- 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