Re: [STDS-802-16] [MMR-AH-UM] Editorial comments on Temporary Coveragage Model section for Multihop Relay Usage Model Ad Hoc Group
Rex,
Thanks for the detailed description of the two cases. I think that
802.16j (because it is specific to the definition/specification of relay
stations) addresses the second of your cases. That was the intent of the
disaster case in the temporary coverage usage model section. Based on
the comments from Yong and yourself, I will make it more clear in the
document.
Regards,
Jerry
-----Original Message-----
From: Rex Buddenberg [mailto:budden@NPS.NAVY.MIL]
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 10:44 AM
To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] [MMR-AH-UM] Editorial comments on Temporary
Coveragage Model section for Multihop Relay Usage Model Ad Hoc Group
Jerry,
In the cases where we've used 802.16 equipment in emergency services,
we've had two scenarios ... which add up to about the same thing in the
end.
Scenario #1. There is no infrastructure; we're moving into a footprint
that either has nothing to begin with or it's been wholly wiped out.
The on-ground example is Phuket, Thailand post-tsunami. Several
thousand survivors and several thousand dead. Refugee camp; there was a
fair population of laptops (and cellphones) but nothing to plug them
into. And a large demand for 'i'm ok' email. Morgue: converted
Buddhist monastery. Surprisingly data intensive: a large number of
deceased were not immediately identifiable, but the processing included
DNA-printing.
The comms infrastructure consisted of some 802.16 links with a
satellite backhaul to Internet with 802.11 fanouts in the two sites.
Fig 1 is pretty close.
Scenario #2, Hurricane Katrina, has strong resemblances to #1 but there
were cases where some surviving connectivity ( a chunk of fiber) existed
and we needed point-to-point temporary links (e.g. along a highway) to
stitch everything back together router-to-router.
The existing laydown my colleagues put in place strongly
resembled
Scenario #1 above. Variants included outfits that showed up with LAN
switch, and 802.11 AP and a bunch of laptops ... but nothing else. Oh,
yeah, these folks often had a video camera; we had to caution them about
bandwidth abuse.
Any help?
On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 10:14 -0700, Sydir, Jerry wrote:
> Dear ad hoc members,
>
>
>
> I'm forwarding an email from Yong Sun to the list. I've uploaded the
> document that he sent to the following location.
>
> http://dot16.org/CSUpload//upload/temp_db/C80216j%
> 2d06_UMAHtemp_Disaster_event_NRS.ppt.
>
>
>
> The comments that Yong makes are editorial in nature. I agree with him
> and think that we should make the changes and incorporate the diagram
> that he has provided.
>
>
>
> Jerry
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> From: Yong Sun [mailto:Sun@toshiba-trel.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 2:11 AM
> To: Sydir, Jerry
> Cc: Dharma Basgeet; Paul Strauch; Yong Sun
> Subject: [STDS-802-16] [MMR-AH-UM] Multihop Relay Usage Model Ad Hoc
> Group
>
>
>
>
> Dear Jerry and all,
>
>
>
> Might I comment on the 'Temporary Coverage Usage Model': the first
> example of 'Emergency/Disaster Recover' said that:
>
> 'In this case fixed infrastructure may have been destroyed or
> coverage is required in areas that are not serviced by fixed
> infrastructure deployments'
>
> And then, it said that:
>
> 'The detailed usage scenarios in this model are similar to those of
> the fixed infrastructure usage model'
>
>
>
> It is a little bit mismatched when read it through: in case that the
> entire fixed infrastructure were destroyed, how to use a fixed
> infrastructure (or similar fixed infrastructure) - do we
> suggest/require to re-built a fixed infrastructure on disaster site
> and treat the new-set of fixed relay as nomadic relay? - even though
> it can be fully understood from the first sentence of the section that
> nomadic relay is employed. Anyway, I suggest rewording this part just
> making it clearer (together with the next point - new figure).
>
>
>
> Furthermore, might I also suggest considering use different figure for
> this scenario since it is not very similar (please find the attached
> figure as a version, which is editable, to show the difference, the RS
> in this figure is not fixed relay and is also different from mobile
> relay we have defined in this document so far).
>
>
>
> Also, for the mobile relay usage model section, it should make clearer
> if MS can communicate to any RSs or MS is required to communicate with
> mobile vehicle carried RS (especially for the tunnel one)
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
>
>
> Yong Sun
>
> Toshiba Research Europe Limited
>
>
>
> This message has been scanned for viruses by MailController.
>
>