| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Dear Haiguang, I'm wondering why you mentioned that there is no need to support HO in case of ad-hoc between two HR-MSs (Direct connection). Assume that there are 2 HR-MSs: A and B. A is under coverage of the B (which acts as a "BS"), but still A continue the periodic scanning to find other BSs or HR-BSs with higher CINR. In case A find another BS which make him more happy (higher CINR, actual BS or HR-BS, or any other criteria which defined for the system), then A will make HO to the new BS and B with the previous role of "BS" can be change his position and will be act as a MS or HR-MS under A!. In this case the second A will act as a HR-RS between the B and the new BS. Thanks, Peretz Shekalim Runcom -----Original Message----- From: Wang Haiguang [mailto:hwang@I2R.A-STAR.EDU.SG] Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 11:09 AM To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] [16n][DC] Propose to use coordinator for DCwithout infrastructure station Hi, Eldad and all. Thanks very much for the reply. Please seem my comments inline. Regards. Haiguang -----Original Message----- From: Zeira, Eldad [mailto:Eldad.Zeira@INTERDIGITAL.COM] Sent: Thu 4/28/2011 10:04 PM To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] [16n][DC] Propose to use coordinator for DC without infrastructure station Hi Ahiguang, All Thank you for starting the discussion. Your description looks like a good start for discussion, we should just bear in mind that 802.16n is an amendment, not a new air interface. If this coordinator is based on the BS or ABS then all the baseline functionality is still there and I don't see the benefit of removing it. ================================================================== [Haiguang] The coordinator is based on the BS or ABS. Most of the features from BS/ABS should be kept so that we do not need change the implementation of MS too much. However, if there is any functionality from BS that is unnecessary for coordinator, we can also consider to remove it and further simplify the implementation, or at least make it an optional feature. It may help in cutting down the cost of HR-MS. And also, the group can also consider adding on some new features that may help in improving the performance the coordinator. ================================================================== So here's how I would like to think about it in general: 1) Lack of infrastructure is detected 2) HR-MS discover each other (or use information obtained before) and "elect" a "coordinator" 3) the elected HR-MS must be able to to act as a coordinator. To me it means that it has the capability to act as an HR-BS with reduced capability (e.g. fewer subscribers). What do you think? ==================================================================== [Haiguang] I agreed with you that we need these steps of setup direct communication among HR-MSs when there is no infrastructure nodes, i.e. from detection of no infrastructure, to discovery and further to elect a coordinator for communication. ==================================================================== Best Regards, Eldad Office +1 631 622 4134 Mobile +1 631 428 4052 Based in NY area -----Original Message----- From: Wang Haiguang [mailto:hwang@I2R.A-STAR.EDU.SG] Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 3:50 AM To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [STDS-802-16] [16n][DC] Propose to use coordinator for DC without infrastructure station Dear all, As we have discussed in the last tel-conference, for the DC use case 3) two HR-MSs communicate when there is no infrastructure station nearby. Since the existing 802.16 network depends on a central network controller, for example, a BS or RS, a station with similar function is required to perform the control function if we do not want to change the standard significantly. An easier way is to turn an HR-MS to HR-BS. However, there could be some features that are unnecessary, for example, the handover of HR-MS, and also, we might need to let the HR-MS to aware that the "BS" is not a normal BS. Therefore, to define a central controller that is slightly different from the BS might be necessary. It may simplify the work need to enable DC when there is no infrastructure stations. Based on the above consideration, we propose to define a station named as coordinator. It performs like a BS except the handover functionality. Some new functionality can also be added if necessary. Previously we have presented a proposal regarding the discovery of HR-MS to each other and use the information for coordinator selection. Above is my basic consideration of the coordinator. I would like to know the comments from the groups regarding the solution. Regards. Haiguang