Hi Jen-Shun
and all,
I support your first comment on topology
issue and accept your revised text for that section.
In addition I agree with your second
comment to omit ‘routing’ term from the document with the
same concern you have.
IMHO, I am not quite sure if we really need
routing function in a RS.
Anyway, am I slightly getting out of scope
of this AH? :)
BR,
Sungjin Lee
Advanced Research Lab.
Global Standards & Research
Team
Telecommunication R&D Center
Samsung Electronics
OFFICE : +82 31 279
5248
MOBILE : +82 11
223 6603
E-mail : steve.lee@samsung.com sj.lee@ieee.org
From:
Jen-Shun Yang [mailto:jsyang@ITRI.ORG.TW]
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 3:29 PM
To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16]
[MMR-AH-UM] Some comments for joint contributions of usage model
Hi Saravanan,
Thanks for your supporting. Actually, I
also think the term of "routing" is not appropriate
to be adopted in any 802.16j documents, because it is no need to have routing
protocol in RS.
What do you think?
Best Regards,
Jen-Shun Yang (Tonny Yang)
ITRI/ICL
TEL: +886-3-5914616
email: jsyang@itri.org.tw
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Saravanan
Govindan" <Saravanan.Govindan@sg.panasonic.com> -
2006/06/15 02:07 PM
|
收件人： <jsyang@ITRI.ORG.TW>, <STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org>, ..
副本抄送： ,
主旨： RE: [STDS-802-16] [MMR-AH-UM] Some
comments for joint contributions of usage model
|
Hi Jen-Shun,
I agree that a difference between mesh and relay is based on path selection.
Centralized relay path helps the MMR-BS coordinate exchanges with the numerous
RS.
In particular, I think the revision you propose below addresses this point.
Cheers,
Saravanan Govindan
-----Original Message-----
From: Jen-Shun Yang [mailto:jsyang@ITRI.ORG.TW]
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 1:47 PM
To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: [STDS-802-16] [MMR-AH-UM] Some comments for joint contributions of
usage model
Dear Jerry,
Thanks for your great efforts.
Regarding the Chapter 5.3 "Types of Routes", I would like to have the
comments as below:
1. To distinguish MMR’s topology from Mesh topology, it is not clear if we
said the MMR’s topology is only tree-like topology; because the mesh
network could be a tree-like topology too.
2. Actually, I think the "centralized relay path selection by MMR-BS"
is
the major difference to distinguish MMR’s topology from Mesh topology, and
we should not allow the distributed routing protocols implemented in each
RS due to the connection oriented characteristics in MMR. It will worsen
the complexity if we allow the implementation of distributed routing
protocols.
3. Therefore, I would like to make a revision to the following sentence
written in the second paragraph of chapter 5.3.
Original sentence:
It should be noted that even when multiple routes are enabled between the
RSs, the overall topology is still tree-like because all data
communications are between the MMR-BS and MSs and this usage does not
violate the scope as defined in 802.16j PAR.
Revised sentence:
It should be noted that even when multiple routes are enabled between the
RSs, the overall topology is still tree-like and applying centralized relay
path selection by MMR-BS, because all data communications are between the
MMR-BS and MSs and this usage should not violate the scope as defined in
802.16j PAR.
Best Regards,
Jen-Shun Yang (Tonny Yang)
ITRI/ICL
TEL: +886-3-5914616
email: jsyang@itri.org.tw
本信件可能包含工研院機密資訊，非指定之收件者，請勿使用或揭露本信件內容，並請銷毀此信件。
This email may contain confidential information. Please do not use or disclose
it in any way and delete it if you are not the intended recipient.
|
本信件可能包含工研院機密資訊，非指定之收件者，請勿使用或揭露本信件內容，並請銷毀此信件。
This email may contain confidential information. Please do not use or
disclose it in any way and delete it if you are not the intended recipient.
|