RE: stds-80220-requirements: 802.20 Requirements: Handoff - 2
Alan,
The reason for the IEEE 802 (and ISO Reference Model) layering is to
keep us out of the invent-it-all territory. You can't get
interoperability that way.
There are several ways to get 'hand off' which is a rather squishy term:
- gateways (today meaning layer 7).
- routers (layer 3)
- bridges (layer 2)
- repeaters (layer 1)
Gateways are clearly beyond scope. (Historical note: in early ARPANet,
the term 'gateway' was often used to refer to routers (which hadn't been
invented yet); you still see that definition pop up, e.g. on IP address
assignment panels where the 'default gateway' (which is really a router)
needs to be fingered).
Routers are themselves beyond scope but the interface to them is not.
IEEE 802.2 provides that interface in the SAP so if .20 uses the .2 LLC
you get it in the mail. Layer 3 handoffs are properly in the MANET
working group in IETF.
If you use the .2 LLC you also get the layer 2 bridging capability. I'd
regard this as out of scope but your mileage may differ on the point of
transparency of handoffs. I'd suggest that rather than trying to fix
such problems within .20, these problems, if present, should be referred
to the 802.2 committee as they should be present with handoffs between
any local/metro network, not just .20 ones.
That leaves the issue of layer 1 repeaters that properly stays within
scope.
On Sat, 2003-11-01 at 05:19, Chickinsky, Alan wrote:
> Jim-
>
> You have highlighted a problem I have seen festering for some time.
>
> For the longest time most of us engineers have developed systems as systems-
> from the user to user. In 802 we are specifying only a small portion of the
> user to user communications. Once we agree we are developing a small
> section, we need to ask what are the requirements in that small section? To
> help guide us, we use the ISO model. 802 specified that we are doing all of
> layer 1 (Physical) and part of the Link Layer (layer 2), called Media
> Access.
>
> Noting that the committee was creating requirements that, in my opinion,
> were in layers above 2, I suggested we specify at what layer the requirement
> is defined. The committee decided NOT to include any notation of
> implementation layer. So now we have this discussion.
>
> I agree with you that we need to assist in the handoff to other networks.
> But this appears to be a network layer (layer 3) requirement. But, I think
> we need to specify the derived requirements.
>
> Could you suggest any derived requirements?
>
> Alan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jin-Weon Chang [mailto:jwchang1@samsung.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 8:52 PM
> To: huhao; stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org
> Cc: djames@oak-global.com
> Subject: Re: stds-80220-requirements: 802.20 Requirements: Handoff - 2
>
>
>
> Dear Mr Hu, Mr James, and other colleagues,
>
> Requirement of handoff between systems is mentioned in section 4.5.1. But
> there is ambiguity in the sentence because the section mentions only that
> Mobile station may move 'between systems'. I think it is very important
> whether MBWA supports handover from/to cdma2000 systems or not, especially
> to service providers who have cdma2000 networks.
>
> Best regards,
> Jin
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "huhao" <huhaoby@huawei.com>
> To: <djames@oak-global.com>
> Cc: <stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 4:00 PM
> Subject: Re: stds-80220-requirements: 802.20 Requirements: Handoff - 2
>
>
> >
> > Hi, Dave
> >
> > I agree with your viewpoint about the handoff between MBWA and other
> > dissimilar technologies.
> > I think the handoff between MBWA and 3G may not be necessary; it is enough
> for requirement document
> > to specify the 802.20 systems has the ability to communicate to other
> dissimilar technologies. For example,
> > a user of 802.20 systems can speak to the user of CDMA2000 systems by the
> processing of the CN.
> > And If the handset supports the handoff between the MBWA and other
> dissimilar technologies, it will be very
> > complicated and expensive.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Hao
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Dave James (OAK Global)" <djames@oak-global.com>
> > To: "'Humbert, John J [NTWK SVCS]'" <JHumbe01@sprintspectrum.com>;
> "'Michael Youssefmir'" <mike@arraycomm.com>; "'James Tomcik'"
> <jtomcik@qualcomm.com>
> > Cc: "'Stds-80220-Requirements (E-mail)'"
> <stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org>; "'Sheikh, Khurram P [GMG]'"
> <khurram.p.sheikh@mail.sprint.com>; "'Landon, Jim [GMG]'"
> <james.w.landon@mail.sprint.com>; "'Machamer, Doug L [GMG]'"
> <Douglas.L.Machamer@mail.sprint.com>; "'Mcginniss, Dave S [GMG]'"
> <david.s.mcginniss@mail.sprint.com>; "'Rausch, Walter F [GMG]'"
> <walter.f.rausch@mail.sprint.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 6:14 PM
> > Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: 802.20 Requirements: Handoff - 2
> >
> >
> > >
> > > John, Mike:
> > > I agree 101% with these points (Mike's and John's). There was indeed
> > > reflector discussion on this before.
> > >
> > > Mike's second para. and John's second sentence say it all - as I
> > > also stated some while ago when this whole cul-de-sac area was first
> > > touted. I am quite closely involved in bus. dev. and related
> > > activities for various international markets where 802.20 systems
> > > could have use, and this whole HO issue for dissimilar technologies
> > > is clearly NOT IMHO an area where the rewards-to-risk & cost ratio
> > > make ANY sense whatsoever.
> > >
> > > I might feel a bit different when I can experience decent HO between
> > > SAME-system cellular mobile systems for VOICE in most countries ! !
> And as
> > > for the like situation for data today around the world - forget it...
> As
> > > Mike states, dissimilar systems' voice HO today is a potential
> > > technological hurdle which would just add up to yet more complexity
> > > and expense that does not itself make sense, so why add further to the
> muddle with 802.20 ?
> > >
> > > What does make perfect sense is 802.20 / 802.11 HO - but we all know
> > > that. Thus WAN and LAN to give portable IP BWA ubiquitously. OEMs
> > > can package terminals (TSs) with different system technology mixes
> > > integrated, but that is quite different from mandating HO capability
> > > for permutations that are perhaps technologically feasible as
> > > tours-de-force but make no sense at all economically and have no
> > > great appeal at the user level.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Dave J
> > >
> > > OAK Global BV
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org
> > > [mailto:owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf
> > > Of Humbert, John J [NTWK SVCS]
> > > Sent: 28 October 2003 00:01
> > > To: Michael Youssefmir; James Tomcik
> > > Cc: Stds-80220-Requirements (E-mail); Sheikh, Khurram P [GMG];
> > > Landon, Jim [GMG]; Machamer, Doug L [GMG]; Mcginniss, Dave S [GMG];
> > > Rausch, Walter F [GMG]
> > > Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: 802.20 Requirements: Handoff -
> > > 2
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I agree with Michael's comments.
> > >
> > > HO's between dissimilar technologies is best handled above layer 3.
> > >
> > > Jim,
> > >
> > > What was the outcome from the discussions on this topic a few months
> > > back?
> > >
> > >
> > > John J. Humbert
> > > 6220 Sprint Parkway
> > > Mailstop KSOPHD0504 - 5D276
> > > Overland Park, KS 66251-6118
> > > PCS (816) 210-9611
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org
> > > [mailto:owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf
> > > Of Michael Youssefmir
> > > Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2003 11:15 PM
> > > To: James Tomcik
> > > Cc: 'Stds-80220-Requirements (E-mail)'; Michael Youssefmir
> > > Subject: Re: stds-80220-requirements: 802.20 Requirements: Handoff -
> > > 2
> > >
> > >
> > > Jim,
> > >
> > > I strongly disagree with your line of reasoning below.
> > > The kind of interoperability you are suggesting would obviously be an
> > > enormous complication and I think we would need solid reasons for making
> > >
> > > such a course change. 802.20 is NOT targeted as an extension
> > > to any of the systems you mention below and so handoff to them is not
> > > relevant to our current goals. If it were any other
> > > way I think the PAR would have explicitly said so.
> > >
> > > Also, I think that 802.20 can stand alone as a successful network
> > > without the interoperability you mention below. If classical voice
> > > networks are anything to go by, I would say the market has spoken
> > > loud and clear on the need for such interoperability. For example, I
> > > know of no systems that support handoff between GSM and CDMA. Also
> > > I very much doubt we will be seeing the equivalent for 2.5G any time
> > > in the near future.
> > >
> > > Finally, I know that the current requirements document says that
> > > handoff to various 3G technologies was deleted for lack of
> > > contribution. However, I'd like to point out that this issue was
> > > discussed prior to our July meeting and an explicit decision was
> > > made to remove this section because it has little relevance to our
> > > current objectives. Again I will let the John Humbert make the call.
> > >
> > > See for example the following email from Dave McGinniss as we were
> > > preparing for the July meeting:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 05:15:13PM -0500, Mcginniss, Dave S [GMG]
> > > wrote:
> > > > I do not believe that any of the following things belong in the
> > > > requirements document.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 1 Handoff's to other technologies
> > > >
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 12:25:40PM -0700, James Tomcik wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Attached is some text for the requirements document on handoff
> > > > (802.20
> > > to
> > > > other systems). These sections were deleted because there was no
> > > > contributed requirement in this area.
> > > >
> > > > Rationale:
> > > > To support 3G service continuity and interworking with other
> > > > deployed systems, handoff support is essential to an efficiently
> > > > operating
> > > 802.20
> > > > system. Since many emerging services are IP-based handoff support
> > > > is advocated for these. Because of the high-speed aspects of the
> > > > 802.20
> > > air
> > > > interface, and the latencies involved with network level handoff,
> > > > mechanisms incorporated below the network layer are essential to
> > > service
> > > > continuity. For example, several handoffs per minute between a 3G
> > > system
> > > > and an 802.20 system may be required.
> > > >
> > > > Proposed to include the following:
> > > >
> > > > 4.4.x 3G Interworking and Handoff
> > > >
> > > > The Air Interface shall include handoff support with 3G systems
> > > > below
> > > the
> > > > IP layer. Handoff mechanisms defined shall insure the
> > > > uninterrupted
> > > flow
> > > > of data to and from the Mobile Station at rates up to 2 handoffs
> > > > per minute. 802.20 Mobile Stations and Base Stations shall
> > > > support at
> > > minimum:
> > > > a. Handoff with cdma2000 1x systems
> > > > b. Handoff with WCDMA systems
> > > > c. Handoff with cdma 1xEV-DO (rev "0" and rev A) systems d.
> > > > Handoff with GSM/GPRS Systems e. Handoff with EDGE Systems
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ==========================================================
> > > >
> > > > -=================================
> > > >
> > > ....................................................................
> > > ....
> > > ..........
> > > >
> > > > James D. Tomcik
> > > > QUALCOMM, Incorporated
> > > > (858) 658-3231 (Voice)
> > > > (619) 890-9537 (Cellular)
> > > > From: San Diego, CA
> > > > PGP: 5D0F 93A6 E99D 39D8 B024 0A9B 6361 ACE9 202C C780
> > > >
> > > ....................................................................
> > > ....
> > > ..........
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
--
b