RE: [NETMAN_SG] contributions for upcoming May 2004 meeting - ARID
Ajay,
Maybe I can comment, I've lived both the 802.16 and 802.11 life :)
In both 802.16 and 802.11, beacons (or the DL broadcast channel in
802.16) are kind of full and we have to be selective about what goes in
them.
In 802.16 there is the NBR_ADV neighbour list that can be used with
lower impact, or alternatively, specific TLVs available through other
non repetitive messages could be developed.
In 802.11, discovery mechanisms are a fairly hot topic, with 802.11r and
WIEN getting going. I'm sure the beacon/message debate will be had
there.
DJ
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
[mailto:owner-stds-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Ajay Rajkumar
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 8:28 PM
To: Cheng Hong
Cc: steve.lee@samsung.com; 'S. Daniel Park'; 'McCann, Stephen';
'stds-802-21'; 'Pyungsoo Kim'
Subject: Re: contributions for upcoming May 2004 meeting - ARID
On 4/27/2004 10:08 PM, Cheng Hong wrote:
> Hi Sungjin and all,
>
> I think this kind of network discovery problem is an important issue
> that should be studied in .21. But regarding the proposed solution, I
> am a bit curious about the use of beacons. Is it meant only for the
> wireless networks with the beacon concepts? How about other networks,
> e.g. 802.3, which has no beacon to use? Would .21 also address them?
Yes, 802.21 will work on both wireless and wired (e.g. 802.3) networks.
Though wireless is a little more complex because of the mere fact that
it has time-varying channel conditions as compared to binary condition
in the case of 802.3 (either it is available or not).
Again, layer 3 information being passed in beacons in .11 and .16 is
definitely one idea. But at the same time one may have to evaluate the
impact on channel utilization of such layer 3 information being carried
in beacons, which are much more frequent. Any comments from .11/.16
folks on channel utilization are welcome.
-ajay
IEEE 802.21 Chair
>
> My understanding of Stephen's suggestions is that the .21 may look at
> the issue at a generic way, and provide a high level guideline. Then
> the implementation or realization of these guidelines have be done in
> individual WGs', e.g. .11, .16, etc.
>
> Cheers
>
> Cheng Hong
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-stds-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
>>[mailto:owner-stds-802-21@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Sungjin Lee
>>Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 8:48 AM
>>To: 'S. Daniel Park'; 'McCann, Stephen'; 'stds-802-21'
>>Cc: ajayrajkumar@LUCENT.COM; 'Pyungsoo Kim'
>>Subject: RE: contributions for upcoming May 2004 meeting - ARID
>>
>>
>>Hi Daniel, Stephen and all HO guys
>>
>>In my understanding, that kind of issue (e.g. ARID into
>>beacon) is fit to be discussed within 802.21. The ARID formant,
>>recommended usage examples and scenarios also could be discussed and
>>then put into the documentation released as 802.21 spec. based on
>>agreement between 802.21 attendees.
>>
>>However, the specific way to provide that ARID information over the
>>air interface should be discussed within each WG. In fact, It sould be
>>discussed within 802.11 WG to propose the changed Beacon frame
>>structure including ARID and within 802.16 to propose the changed
>>DL-MAP or NBR-ADV message including ARID.
>>
>>Let me know if I misunderstanding something from the Stephen's
>>comments
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>
>>Sungjin Lee
>>=====================================
>>Global Standards & Research Team
>>Telecommunication R&D Center
>>SAMSUNG Electronics
>>
>>TEL : +82 31 279 5248
>>MOBILE : +82 16 301 6603
>>E-mail : steve.lee@samsung.com ======================================
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-stds-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
>>[mailto:owner-stds-802-21@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of S. Daniel
>>Park
>>Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 8:38 AM
>>To: 'McCann, Stephen'; 'stds-802-21'
>>Cc: ajayrajkumar@LUCENT.COM; 'S. Daniel Park'; 'Pyungsoo Kim'
>>Subject: RE: contributions for upcoming May 2004 meeting - ARID
>>
>>Stephen, thanks your kindly comments on this work.
>>
>>I agree what you said, this solution can be applied for several
>>wireless environments and I really hope it will be expanded to related
>>WG as you stated 802.11 WIEN SG.
>>
>>I am deeply considering what approach is more general as 802.21 guys
>>indicated and also waiting for various comments/feedbacks on this
>>work.
>>
>>
>>>However, the way that this information is communicated, be
>>
>>that over a
>>
>>>802.11, 802.16, other air interface will be technology specific and
>>>should really be discussed within the WG in charge of standardising
>>>that technology.
>>
>>Regarding this comment, could you explain it more detail ?
>>
>>
>>Thanks
>>
>>- Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park)
>>- Mobile Platform Laboratory, SAMSUNG Electronics.
>>
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: McCann, Stephen [mailto:stephen.mccann@roke.co.uk]
>>>Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 12:36 AM
>>>To: 'S. Daniel Park'; 'stds-802-21'
>>>Cc: ajayrajkumar@LUCENT.COM
>>>Subject: RE: contributions for upcoming May 2004 meeting - ARID
>>>
>>>
>>>Daniel,
>>> This is a very interesting issue, and I think it may be
>>>applicable to more than one WG.
>>>
>>>The information that you would want to make available at
>>
>>the APs (e.g.
>>
>>>the ARID) is something that would seem to fit within the scope of
>>>802.21, where the benefits of having a generic identifier
>>
>>that can be
>>
>>>used over different technologies to support this L2/L3 handover
>>>distinction and what format this information should take can be
>>>discussed.
>>>
>>>However, the way that this information is communicated, be
>>
>>that over a
>>
>>>802.11, 802.16, other air interface will be technology specific and
>>>should really be discussed within the WG in charge of standardising
>>>that technology.
>>>
>>>Within 802.11 this issue would be welcome within 802.11 WIEN SG.
>>>
>>>Kind regards
>>>
>>>Stephen
>>>
>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: S. Daniel Park [mailto:soohong.park@SAMSUNG.COM]
>>>>Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 11:50 AM
>>>>To: ajayrajkumar@LUCENT.COM; 'stds-802-21'
>>>>Cc: 'S. Daniel Park'
>>>>Subject: RE: contributions for upcoming May 2004 meeting - ARID
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Hi all
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>At the previous meeting on March, I presented one issue
>>>
>>which dealt
>>
>>>>with unclear handover indication between L2 and L3 and
>>>
>>this solution
>>
>>>>defined a new ARID (Access Router ID) into the beacon to
>>>
>>distinguish
>>
>>>>L2 handover from L3 handover. If different ARID, it means subnet
>>>>change, then L3 handover is performed.
>>>>
>>>>The subject was as below:
>>>>Awareness of the handover to be distinguished from a L2 or L3.
>>>>
>>>>I remember that chair and some guys required more general
>>>
>>solution
>>
>>>>to solve this problem in the 802.11 and they worried
>>>
>>about the newly
>>
>>>>defined value into the current 802.11 beacon, however I am still
>>>>wondering how we can solve this ambiguous operation
>>>
>>without 802.11
>>
>>>>spec. extension like ARID or similar value.
>>>>
>>>>So I am open to listen some comments/views on this issue.
>>>>
>>>>My major question is that
>>>>[1] Do I have to propose this solution to the 802.11 WG
>>>
>>since this
>>
>>>>problem is originated from the 802.11 spec. ?
>>>>
>>>>or
>>>>
>>>>[2] Is this 802.21 WG is right place to deat with this issue ?
>>>>
>>>>Regards
>>>>
>>>>- Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park)
>>>>- Mobile Platform Laboratory, SAMSUNG Electronics.
>>>
>>>--
>>>
>>>Visit our website at www.roke.co.uk
>>>
>>>Registered Office: Roke Manor Research Ltd, Siemens House, Oldbury,
>>>Bracknell, Berkshire. RG12 8FZ
>>>
>>>The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments is
>>>confidential to Roke Manor Research Ltd and must not be
>>
>>passed to any
>>
>>>third party without permission. This communication is for
>>
>>information
>>
>>>only and shall not create or change any contractual relationship.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>