RE: [802.21] contributions for upcoming May 2004 meeting - L2.5 Concrete Model ?
This is true. I think the scope for success or failure in this scenario
depends on a number of factors. I certainly think 802.21 has the ability
to deliver the information needed for a smooth handoff. A fast handoff
requires some predictive information.
In contrast, I am in a cube within propagation distance of 4 research
projects doing wacky things with 802.11, a qualification lab and an
actual useable 802.11 network. My laptop has a real problem deciding
which one to use, especially when the signal to the non useful nets is
much better than the useful net. My laptop could really use information
on which networks it should ignore, which one it should attempt to
connect to and what VPN client it should run for any particular network.
There's also bluetooth and GPRS available to me, with manual selection
on my part. Again 802.21 could enable a policy driven engine to pick the
right interface.
This may be something of a worst case scenario, but its real and more of
this sort of problem will arise as wireless LAN and MAN systems become
more widely deployed.
DJ
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike MORETON [mailto:mike.moreton@st.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 11:00 AM
To: Johnston, Dj; STDS-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [802.21] contributions for upcoming May 2004 meeting - L2.5
Concrete Model ?
Dj,
I'm typing this at home, and my laptop is currently connected to
ethernet, while also being associated with WLAN. It doesn't seem to be
a problem (as long as I don't disconnect the etherenet!) but just being
associated may not provide enough information for a fast handoff.
Mike.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
[mailto:owner-stds-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Johnston, Dj
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 5:46 PM
To: STDS-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [802.21] contributions for upcoming May 2004 meeting - L2.5
Concrete Model ?
I always assumed that we might have to forego a make before break
LAN-WLAN handoff, unless the user, or an over elaborate dock eject
handle provided the predictive information.
Of course, if I was docked, and in some 'high performance' mode, I might
keep the WLAN associated, just in case we undocked.
To respond to Daniel's point, I think this is a primary scenario. It is
the scenario that motivated me to propose the study group work in the
first place. I suffer from a lack of effective LAN-WLAN handoff several
times a day. Fixing it is likely to provide a good improvement to the
user experience of docking laptops.
DJ
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-21@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Mani,
Mahalingam (Mahalingam)
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 9:33 AM
To: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802.21] contributions for upcoming May 2004 meeting - L2.5
Concrete Model ?
As standards stand today it is not simple. Special case configurations
can make this scenario simple (such as a common mobility-aware bridge
for WLAN and wireline).
In general, wire-line to wireless seamless handoff is less trivial (as
some smart heuristic is needed to overcome break-before-make issue -
especially w.r.t. latency-sensitive sessions and applications) than
WLAN-to-wireline make-before-make paradigm.
-mani
> -----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: Monday, May 03, 2004 10:37 PM
> To: 'Gupta, Vivek G'; stds-802-21@IEEE.ORG
> Subject: RE: contributions for upcoming May 2004 meeting - L2.5
Concrete
> Model ?
>
> My intentional scenario is a mobile office.
> We have to use a wired connection with
> several management applications on the
> PC. It is to enhance the security aspect
> and central contralability especially
> authentication, thus I generally use a
> ethernet to access internet in my office.
> Let's assume we are about to leave our
> desk toward meeting room or elsewhere
> for a while and we still need to maintain
> our connection and application. Then we
> need to switch our interface to the WLAN
> automatically if it's available.
>
> it's too simple ? or anything else ?
>
>
> Regards.
>
> - Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park)
> - Mobile Platform Laboratory, SAMSUNG Electronics.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-stds-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > [mailto:owner-stds-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Gupta,
> > Vivek G
> > Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2004 12:01 AM
> > To: S. Daniel Park; stds-802-21@ieee.org
> > Subject: RE: contributions for upcoming May 2004 meeting - L2.5
> > Concrete Model ?
> >
> >
> > Daniel,
> >
> > Can you comment on the application under consideration and the usage
> > scenario when transitioning between wired Ethernet and Wi-Fi. It
would
> > be interesting to see if "make before break" is required in such a
> > case or if "break before make" can give the same user experience.
> > Local
L2
> > triggering can help in this case, but it may be more of a local
client
> > side implementation issue.
> >
> > We plan to have an update on our triggers proposal for the May
> > meeting, which should help out with some of this.
> >
> > Best Regards
> > -Vivek
> >
> > Vivek Gupta
> > Technical Editor, 802.21
> >
> > -----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: Thursday, April 29, 2004 11:32 PM
> > To: stds-802-21@IEEE.ORG
> > Cc: 'S. Daniel Park'
> > Subject: contributions for upcoming May 2004 meeting - L2.5 Concrete
> > Model ?
> >
> > Hi 802.21 folks
> >
> > Aside from the ARID, I am opening another issue
> > on the L 2.5 (not sure it is a general term. but I
> > just heard it from the DJ when attending the
> > previous .21 meeting).
> >
> > Before mentioning that, I am saying one reference
> > which is a handover between 802.3 (called Ethernet)
> > and 802.11. This scenario is may included in the
> > .21 technical requirement document and will be
> > presented in coming .21 meeting on May.
> >
> > We (Samsung electronics) are developing this
> > solution in our several device such as laptop,
> > hand-help PC and PDA, and it will be done soon
> > (maybe until the next month). Of course it is not
> > lab scale. I mean it is a real commercial product.
> >
> > Above all, for this solution, I have to consider
> > both L2 and L3 at the same time and almost
> > functions are being implemented above L2 (e.g.,
> > extended device driver with L2 triggering). Thus
> > I'd like to call that as L2.5 but I don't have any
> > concrete definition and function (reference) model
> > now. If I can get L2.5, it would be very useful.
> >
> > I am wondering how we can clarify the definition
> > of L2.5 and it is a inside scope of the .21 WG ?
> >
> > Or is anyone defining the reference model or
> > related work about L 2.5 ?
> >
> > If yes, I would see it in this meeting.
> >
> > I believe it will be a valuable model for doing
> > a media independent handover among several
> > L2 techniques.
> >
> > Thanks in advance.
> >
> > - Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park)
> > - Mobile Platform Laboratory, SAMSUNG Electronics.
> >