| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Please check it out and let me know
your opinion.
thanks.
* method to reduce a munber of scanning.pdf
We did not discuss this contribution. Action item for the group is to review this draft prior to the next telecon.
Above contribution is the case that BSs may be enough close to have same coverage and share MAC resource among them.
If serving BS advertise all BSs in above case, It could be wasted. Because BSs in the same coverage transmit similar power. MSS need not to scan all BSs in the same coverage.
So in my opinion, the neighbor BS_ID can be represent all BSs that are belong to a same coverage. .
Scenario: Inter-sector HO where it
does not matter if serving and target BS ID are same or
different:
(Diff. freq, same FFT size, same IP subnet/prefix, no AAS)
There are several contributions (including ones promised) that potentially fall into this category. They are listed below with updates based on the telecon:
* 04/87r1, 04/105_enhanced HO reentry, Phil's planned contribution on optimizing invited ranging, skipping SBC-REQ/RSP, skip PKM REQ-RSP, skip REG REQ/RSP, skip IP addrress acquisition
Group agreed that these 3 contributions should be harmonized to address the following: Definitions of levels of backbone information sharing/communication, grouping of functions during network (re)entry and how levels map to such groupings, under what conditions can certain MSS - BS network entry functions be skipped or optimized and how, how will an MSS 'discover' the level of backbone information sharing supported by a serving and target BS and format and content of information that is shared at each level. Transport of such information between a serving and target BS will not be discussed for now. It may also be possible to combine this with the previous contribution - method to reduce a munber of scanning.pdf
* 105_Inter-sector HO, 04/58
Action
Item: Jung-won to attempt to harmonize these 2 contributions prior to next
telecon
Between the contribution of 105_Inter-sector HO and my contribution of "method to reduce a number of scanning" , there is a small difference in the advertisement of Neighbour BS ID.
In contribution of 105_ ..., they suggest that serving BS advertise the preamble intex of every neighbor BS,
but in my contribution, under the assumption that neighbor BSs share MAC resource with the same coverage, they have the same Basestation ID so that they may be classified by Sector_ID or FA_ID, etc. Therefore, a neighbor BS_ID can represent all BSs that are belong to a neighbor.
I think we need discuss small difference.