Eyal Verbin wrote:
The
standard
allows a situation in which a certain CID is used for a certain DL SFID
and the
same CID is used for another UL SFID.
The standard seems to
contradict itself regarding this point:
On one hand, the standard (802.16-2004, i.e. D5) implies that a CID uniquely identifies a
connection:
§3 (p7) - 3.13 connection identifier (CID):
A16-bit value that identifies a connection to equivalent peers
in the MAC of the base station (BS) and subscriber station (SS). It
maps to a service flow identifier (SFID), [...]
§3 (p7) - 3.12 connection: A unidirectional mapping between
base station (BS) and subscriber station (SS) mediumaccess control
(MAC) peers for the purpose of transporting a service flow’s traffic. Connections
are identified by a connection identifier (CID).
§3 (p11) - 3.60 transport connection identifier:
A unique identifier
taken from the CID address space that uniquely identifies the
transport connection.
§3 (p11) 3.61 transport connection: A connection used
to transport user
data
On the other hand, it is
once stated that the mapping between CID and connections is unique
within each downlink and uplink channel.
§ 6.3.1.1 (p 33) The CID can be considered a
connection identifier even for
nominally connectionless traffic like IP, since it serves as a pointer
to destination and context information. The use of a 16-bit CID
permits a total of 64K connections within each downlink and uplink
channel.
Can someone clarify the desired intent of the standard on this matter ?
Would a contribution to remove the ambiguity in the standard be
appropriate ? For instance, by removing the words "within each downlink
and uplink channel" in the last sentence of §6.3.1.1, it seems to me
that there would remain no contradiction regarding the mapping between
CID and connections.
Joël Demarty
SEQUANS Communications
101-103 Bd McDonald, 75019 Paris
+33 (0)1 4489 4826 Tel.
+33 (0)1 4489 4806 Fax
+33 (0)6 6063 5720 Cell
joel@sequans.com
www.sequans.com
|