Re: [STDS-802-16] [NETMAN_SG] Network Management Study Group
Here's a list of things that 16e has been discussing that could go into
a new PAR:
1. Management and Provisioning issues
a) BS interface to AAA server (ie. details of RADIUS/DIAMETER
exchange etc.)
b) MIBs, including dynamic management of Service Flows
c) BS Discovery of "Neighbor BSes"
d) Roaming between administrative domains
2. The following can be termed "Extended Services" (following the
example of 802.11 ESS) or "Backbone mobility services"
a) Protocol to enable BSes to query neighbors or centralized servers
during evaluation of Handover requests from MSSes (Revision
to Annex C).
b) Structures and semantics of data that are passed between BSes
during Handover. These are currently addressed in Annex C and
elsewhere in .16e, but more work is needed, particularly
on derivation of security context and readmission/reactivation of
service flows.
c) Transport protocol for low-latency transfer (predictive and
reactive) of the L2 context data at handover, and related
MAC-layer triggers
d) Compatibility w/ various types of L3 mobility (and triggers)
- Jeff
------------------
Jeff Mandin
Streetwaves Networking
> To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org Subject: [STDS-802-16] [NETMAN_SG]
> Network Management Study Group From: "Johnston, Dj"
> <dj.johnston@INTEL.COM> Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 18:53:19 -0800
> Reply-To: "Johnston, Dj" <dj.johnston@INTEL.COM> Sender:
> owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org Thread-Index:
> AcQTprE0A4ncKA23Qyu9ObpkW8LGcw== Thread-Topic: [NETMAN_SG] Network
> Management Study Group Title: Message All,
>
> We need to get moving on inputs to the network management study
> group. The goal I put forth to the WG is that we do our work before
> and during the May meeting, so this will require us to work some of
> the issues on the reflector and maybe have a conference call or two,
> if we are to produce a PAR and five criteria during the interim. If
> we don't have a workable basis for consensus going into the May
> meeting, then I expect we will be asking for an extention in July,
> and that is a long time, given that it would then be November before
> the TG request would be approved by the EC and NesCom would add more
> time to the process, so maybe we would be looking at 2005 before we
> had a group for real. Finishing in May is a good plan.
>
> I propose that email directed to this effort has [NETMAN_SG] in the
> subject line to allow appropriate filtering.
>
> The primary thing that led me to suggesting a study group was the
> plethora of different things people wanted to do with respect to
> network management, network architectures, interfaces, MIBs and so on
> and the rapid closure of .16d as a forum in which to address them. My
> personal wish list is no secret, you will find it in the comment
> databases - security, interfaces, MIBs.
>
> So as a first step, I would like to request that people forth their
> ideas for what problems they think network management group or groups
> (don't let the name predjudice the function) should be solving, or
> what features they should be introducing. This will give us a list of
> issues that we can enumerate, sort, sift, rejig, classify and
> generally argue about until we can approach consensus on scope and
> purpose. But first we need the issues out on the table for all to
> see.
>
> A potential benefit I suggested was that items of questionable scope
> in .16e might find a more secure home in a new group. This is not my
> idea and I have not been in the loop on these discussions (although I
> do like the idea), so perhaps it would be useful input for people who
> are thinking along these lines to start describing specifics of what
> bits in .16e are problematic and might benefit from a group with a
> clear scope to address them.
>
> I'll make my suggestions in a separate email..
>
> DJ (chair 802.16 network management study group)
>