Re: [STDS-802-16-MOBILE] [Handoff] Location Update issue
Yong Chang and all,
I am sorry Yong Chang, but it is not clear to me from your email what the
problem statement is and what the proposed alternative solutions are. While
we have been discussing this directly and I am aware of your proposal, I
thought that, given that it is difficult for me to decipher your proposal
from the email, others might be similarly confused. Perhaps you could
clarify your presentation.
Thanks,
Phil
----- Original Message -----
From: "Yong Chang" <yongchang@SAMSUNG.COM>
To: <STDS-802-16-MOBILE@listserv.ieee.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 4:54 PM
Subject: [STDS-802-16-MOBILE] [Handoff] Location Update issue
> Hi, all
>
> We identified the following issue with location update in idle mode within
> the Handover AdHoc.
> The following issue is raised.
>
> Basic assumption behind this issue are that
> - The MSS does not need to perform all network entry procedure when it
wants
> to update his location only.
> That is, MSS does not need to perform SBC/PKM/REG after the successful
> location update.
> - The network entity(e.g., BS ID or ASA ID) is required to indicate what
> network entity stores
> MSS's location information and security information in idle mode.
>
> There are two approaches here.
>
> 1. RNG-REQ includes the action code for location update(2bits), HMAC
> tuple(176bits), and Server ID(48bits, the server stores
> the location information, idle mode authentication key, etc)
>
> * Cons
> This approach may cause a problem for the BS to assign a bandwidth to the
> MSS when it sends RNG-REQ because the message size of RNG-REQ is varied on
> multiple cases: initial ranging, periodic ranging, handover ranging, BW
> request ranging, and even location update ranging.
>
> * Pros
> This approach uses the current RNG-REQ/RSP messages.
>
> 2, RNG-REQ includes the indication bit for location update purpose. New
> management messages LU-REQ/RSP with HMAC tuple, Server ID.
>
> * Cons
> This approach is to make a new MAC management messages for location
update.
> New 1 bit in RNG-REQ is overhead even if it is not severe.
>
> * Pros
> This approach adopts the current initial ranging mechanism with 1 bit
> indication of Location Update. There is no problem for the BS
> to assign the bandwidth to the MSS when it sends the RNG-REQ.
>
>
> Any comments?
>
> BR,
>
> YONG CHANG
>
> Senior Engineer/Ph.D
> Samsung Electronics Ltd.
> Tel: +82-31-279-3621
>