Dear Jong-won
Kim and
all
I received the result
conference call result in this morning .
see my
comments in-line
Please check it out and let me know
your opinion.
thanks.
Regards,
jay
jin
Scenario: Inter-sector HO where
BS ID of serving and target BS is assumed to be the
same:
(Diff. freq, same FFT size, same IP
subnet/prefix, no AAS)
This is one of the basic scenarios. From a scrub of pending
contributions, the following contribution (available in temporary upload
directory) seems applicable:
* 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. .
No. The channel information broadcast in NBR-ADV and contained
in the DCD for differing Neighbor BS (logical or physical) are also used by
MSS during power-up/initial network entry so that they do not have to scan all
available channels. An MSS can synchronize with a given BS, listen for
the periodic NBR-ADV (on average will have to wait 500ms), and get information
on all Neighbor BS. This is can be a very handy feature.
Your example only deals
with HO use of the data.
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.