[STDS-802-16]
Peretz, Nadeem and all,
- As far as I know, there is not a single contribution in response to the
CFC for Relay, that asked for this feature to be considered.
- During the San Diego meeting in January, when we finalized the Relay
Section of the SDD, there was an overwhelming opposition towards the
inclusion of this feature. To jog your memory, the opposition was such that
TGm approved the Relay RG draft only when the "Local Routing" function was
removed.
- The "technical" objections to Local forwarding were:
(a) Inclusion of this feature would require substantial changes to the
802.16 architecture and the network reference model.
(b) Lack of supporting material or data for a convincing "pain vs gain"
analysis.
The Relay DG is now tasked with creating a draft that would meet 75%
approval in TGm, if the draft is to be adopted. I am afraid that Local
forwarding is clearly a feature, if included, would risk failure of the
approval of the Relay DG draft in TGm.
This may not be the answer that you expected, but at the moment the
discussion of this feature is "out of scope" for the aforementioned
procedural and technical reasons.
Thanks and Regards,
============================
Rakesh Taori,
Principal Engineer
Telecommunication R&D Center
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
Tel/Fax +82 31 279 8380/5130
============================
-----Original Message-----
From: Kiernan, Brian G [mailto:Brian.Kiernan@INTERDIGITAL.COM]
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 1:55 AM
To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [STDS-802-16]
Local Routing has no real advantage unless the bulk of the traffic is
local. Before you start trying to solve the technical issues, I suggest
you determine if it really is worth solving. Most of the cellular
carriers have found out over the years that local routing is a solution
looking for a problem, as relatively little mobile traffic is local
(e.g, within the same coverage area).
-----Original Message-----
From: Nadeem Akhtar [mailto:nadeem@CEWIT.ORG.IN]
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2009 6:40 AM
To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [STDS-802-16]
Dear Peretz, all,
In addition to the issues you have mentioned, there's also the need for
lawful interception which is difficult to meet when Local Routing is
applied.
Regards,
Nadeem
>
> dear Sydir, Rakesh, and all,
> I'm just wondering why don't we consider LR (Local Routing). I'm aware
> of a few drawbacks such as accounting/billing issues, etc', but still
LR
> has a lot of advantages such as decreasing of backhauling load,
> decreasing of delay, .... .
>
>
> Thanks,
> peretz Shekalim
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Sydir, Jerry [mailto:jerry.sydir@INTEL.COM]
> Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2009 3:49 AM
> To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: [STDS-802-16]
>
>
>
> Dear Relay DG participants,
>
>
>
> We have uploaded the minutes from the second Relay DG conference call
to
> the temp directory. Here is a link for your convenience.
>
>
http://dot16.org/ul//upload/temp_db/RelayDG%2dMinutes%2d2ndCC%2d10SeptPS
> T.txt
>
<http://dot16.org/ul/upload/temp_db/RelayDG%2dMinutes%2d2ndCC%2d10SeptPS
> T.txt>
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Jerry Sydir and Rakesh Taori
>
> Relay DG Chairs
>
>
>
>
>
>
--