| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Dear 16p members, This is Giwon Park from LG Electronics, and
I would like to initiate a discussion on idle mode operation issues. I have reviewed on C0014, C0015 (from LG), C0007 (from Samsung) and C0002 (from ETRI), I
found following technical points to be discussed and harmonized. If I missed
something, please correct those. Moreover, I ‘ve
prepared the merged text (C0002, C0007, C0014, C0015) for providing the
convenience of the progress of next conference call and uploaded to the upload
sever(C80216p-rg-11_0036).
Text without consensus are in brackets. Idle Mode Operation [IDLE#1] New Group
Paging Concept (Including hierarchical paging) l Paging purpose for M2M device n Group wise paging u In favor: LG, ETRI l To efficiently manage the large numbers of idle mode M2M devices,
group wise paging operation can be considered. LG’s proposal
describes that group wise paging can be used for multicast traffic indication,
group network reentry, group based parameter update (e.g., paging cycle, paging
offset, etc). Moreover, Samsung’s proposal only
describes that paging message can be used to indicate the multicast traffic
indication with multicast group ID for M2M devices. u Against: n Multicast traffic indication u In favor: LG, Samsung u Against: n Group reentry u In favor: LG, ETRI u Against: n Control parameter update via by group or individual paging (e.g.,
paging cycle, paging offset, etc) u In favor: LG u Against: l Individual paging n AAI-PAG-ADV u In favor: Samsung u Against: LG l Two step paging operation is more efficient than single paging
message with Group ID and Device ID in the perspective of overhead of paging
message transmission, low power consumption. n Hierarchical paging u In favor: LG l To efficiently control the large numbers of idle mode M2M devices
per M2M group, hierarchical paging operation can be considered. Two step paging
operation is more efficient than single paging message with Group ID and Device
ID in the perspective of overhead of paging message transmission, low power
consumption. u Against: l Define new paging message n In favor: LG u Does AAI-PAG-ADV message support the large number of MSs/AMSs/M2M
devices? To efficiently manage or control the large numbers of idle mode M2M
devices per M2M group, M2M device-specific paging message is more
efficient than the AAI-PAG-ADV message: l To support the larger number of devices l To control the M2M group or M2M device n Against: [IDLE#2] Modified
& Additional LU mechanism (Cell-/Timer-based) l Timer based update n In favor: LG, Samsung u 802.16p should provide timer based location update with M2M device-specific
idle mode timer instead of a common idle mode timer. Thus, during idle mode
initiation transaction, the paging controller may assign an MS-specific idle
mode timer for the M2M enabled AMS through AAI-DREG-RSP message. n Against: l Cell based update n In favor: LG u Some M2M device (e.g., M2M device for tracking service) is important
to report its location information, when it gets out of the sphere of activity.
Thus, cell based update can be consider to the location update of the 16p
system. When an M2M device that has the capability of cell based update enters
the idle mode, paging group is not assigned to the M2M device. That is, when
the M2M device detects other BS ID not serving BS ID, it perform the location
update. In that case, PGID is not included in location update message (i.e.,
AAI-RNG-RSP). n Against: u Cell based update can be covered as timer based update and paging
group based update. [IDLE#3] Longer
Paging Cycle l In favor: Samsung n Additional bits for paging cycle is necessary for the M2M device. l Against: n Complexity of BS may be increased to distinguish frame/superframe
number for 16p device and the legacy device. Could you share your views on these (favor
and against on each items) and attached text proposal? Thanks and Regards, Giwon. |