Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [STDS-802-16] [HO] Usage of "network assisted HO supported flag"



Hi Malini,

I like to correct my perception about the usage of Network Assisted HO supported flag. I think the only difference between Network Assisted HO supported flag is set to "1" or "0" is that if the flag is set to "1", MS can send a MOB_HO-IND without specifying a target BS ID and just using 0x000000 as target BS ID. In contrast, if the flag is set to "0", MS must specify the target BS ID in MOB_HO-IND.
Thus, the last issue is that, in the case of
"uncontrolled HO" you mentioned, if serving BS not receives MOB_HO-IND, therefore, resource retain timer will not be started. How can MS decide that it can send MOB_HO-IND with cancel in some abnormal cases such as drop or failed to handover to target BS? Or in this case, the MS should not assume the serving BS will retain the resource allocated to the MS.

thanks,



On 6/27/06, Malini Raghavendra < Malini.Raghavendra@lntinfotech.com> wrote:

Hello Mr Lee,

Here is my view on the Network Assisted HO Flag going through the specification.

The Network Assisted Flag in MOB_BSHO-REQ and MOB_BSHO-RSP messages indicates to MS
of serving BS support in specifying the candidate BSs for Handoff .

In this scenario there are 3 cases.
Case 1: When MS decides to handoff with recommended BSs of MOB_BSHO-REQ or MOB_BSHO-RSP,
as per section 6.3.2.3.55 of IEEE 802.16e-2005 MS may choose to send MOB_HO-IND as a n acknowledgment
with Target BS set to 0x00000000 which indicates the serving BS of MS deciding to handoff.
 
In which case BS may release its resources allocated for that particular MS without waiting for resource retain timer to expire.

Case 2: When MS decides to handoff but does not send MOB_HO-IND, it is like uncontrolled HO specified in NWG stage 2,
and BS shall retain its resources till the resource retain timer expiry.

Case 3. When MS does not want to handoff, it may choose to send MOB_HO-IND with reject/cancel.

Hence i think the network assisted flag is necessary to be included in the message and signifies a specific behavior in HO.

Let me know if there is any difference in opinion.

Thanks,

Malini Raghavendra
Project Lead
Communication and Embedded Systems,
Larsen &Toubro Infotech,
Bangalore,INDIA



Chi-Chen Lee <jjlee@ITRI.ORG.TW>

06/27/2006 11:28 AM
Please respond to
Chi-Chen Lee <jjlee@ITRI.ORG.TW>

To
STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
cc

Subject
[STDS-802-16] [HO] Usage of "network assisted HO supported flag"







Hi,

I have one question about the usage of Network Assisted HO supported flag in MOB_BSHO-REQ message and MOB_BSHO-RSP message. In my understanding, if Network Assisted HO supported flag is set to "1" in MOB_BSHO-REQ or MOB_BSHO-RSP message, MS may perform a handover to any BS among the recommended BSs without MOB_HO-IND. However, according to section 6.3.2.3.55 of IEEE 802.16e-2005, an MS "shall" transmit a MOB_HO-IND message for final indication that it is about to perform a HO. It seems that there is conflict between the usage of MOB_HO-IND and the usage of Network Assisted HO supported flag.

There are two possibilities of the above issue:

(1) An MS shall transmit a MOB_HO-IND message for final indication even though the Network Assisted HO supported flag is set to "1", i.e. MS behavior has no difference between Network Assisted HO supported flag is set to 0 and 1. In this case, why we still need Network Assisted HO supported flag? What does it mean to MS?

(2) An MS may perform a handover to any BS among the recommended BSs without MOB_HO-IND. Note that in this case, the MS MAY send MOB_HO-IND with target BS ID = "0x00000000" as an acknowledgement to the MOB_BSHO-REQ message but may not send MOB_HO-IND during actual HO. However, this case incurs another issue: if there is no MOB_HO-IND before MS starts HO, how does the Resource retain timer work in this case? Without Resource retain timer, how can the MS decide that it can cancel HO except in the drop case?

I appreciate any comments and discussion on this issue.

thanks,


==========================================
Chi-Chen Lee
Design Engineer
Wireless System Technology Div.,
SoC Technology Center(STC),
Industrial Technology Research Institute
Tel: +886-3-5914579
Fax: +886-3-5829733
E-mail:
jjlee@itri.org.tw
http://www.stc.itri.org.tw/

==========================================
______________________________________________________________________


______________________________________________________________________



--
Cheers,


==========================================
Chi-Chen Lee
Design Engineer
Wireless System Technology Div.,
SoC Technology Center(STC),
Industrial Technology Research Institute
Tel: +886-3-5914579
Fax: +886-3-5829733
E-mail: jjlee@itri.org.tw
http://www.stc.itri.org.tw/
==========================================