| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Thanks Anh Tuan, Please see comments below – hope this helps Eldad Office +1 631 622 4134 Mobile +1 631 428 4052 Based in NY area From: Anh Tuan Hoang [mailto:mbox.hoang@GMAIL.COM] Hi all, Based on email discussions for multi-mode topic, I would like to propose that the following text to be considered for harmonization. Alina and others, please comment. Proposed text: [Upon loosing backhaul connection, an HR-BS (affected HR-BS) shall be able to operate as a relay station to communicate with another HR-BS (supporting HR-BS) that has connection to backhaul. To the supporting HR-BS, the affected HR-BS is treated as a normal HR-RS. To the subordinate stations of the affected HR-BS, the affected HR-BS may continue to act as an HR-BS or completely operate as a normal HR-RS. [Eldad] could you clarify – what is the difference between how an ARS and an ABS look to their MS? In the absence of any infrastructure station, an HR-MS may be able to operate as a base station to provide connectivity for itself and other HR-MSs. While doing so, the HR-MS shall maintain the MS and base station functionalities. The mode switch to HR-BS can be initiated by the HR-MS itself or this can be directed by the superordinate station of the HR-MS in response to SPOF (e.g., failure of the superordinate station). [Eldad] I think we need to define the meaning of “MS functionality”. Part of MS functionality is to be controlled by an ABS. I don’t think we want to retain this part. I think the only part of MS functionality is for local source and sink of data. However we already have a requirement for HR-BS to do that. In addition, if a super-ordinate node exists and can communicate with the HR-MS why does it need to become an HR-BS? I would like to suggest therefore: In the absence of any infrastructure station, an HR-MS may be able to operate as an HR-BS In response to SPOF (e.g., HR-BS/RS failure or loss of backhaul) or to support coverage extension, an HR-MS may be able to operate as a relay station to provide connectivity for multiple affected/out-of-coverage HR-MSs. While doing so, the HR-MS shall maintain the MS and relay functionalities. A mode switch to HR-RS shall be initiated by the superordinate station of the HR-MS.] [Eldad] like the HR-BS, an HR-RS is already required to provide local source – sink. Therefore I would like to suggest the text In response to SPOF (e.g., HR-BS/RS failure or loss of backhaul) or to support coverage extension, an HR-MS may be able to operate as a relay station to provide connectivity for multiple affected/out-of-coverage HR-MSs. Best regards, Anh Tuan On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Hoang Anh Tuan <athoang@i2r.a-star.edu.sg> wrote: Hi all, |