Re: contributions for upcoming May 2004 meeting - L2.5 Concrete Model ?
It is a connection manager type code, which stops short of the full handover
objectives of 802.21. See the PCTEL, Alice Systems and SmithMicro for examples
of existing products in that category.
macsbug@research.att.com wrote:
>
> Although I'm enjoying this line of discussion, albeit silently for
> having little to say besides what's been said..
> MS WPS is for WLAN signup/roaming/provisoining using a patchwork of
> 802.1x/https/XML/VLAN/Windows Server/XP client.
>
> Not for choosing between different interfaces or handoff.
>
> Byoung-Jo "J" Kim
> macsbug@research.att.com
> AT&T Labs - Research
> http://www.research.att.com/areas/wireless/
>
> tel)732-420-9028
> mobile) 917-853-3830
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Darwin Engwer [mailto:dengwer@NORTELNETWORKS.COM]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 9:41 PM
> To: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: contributions for upcoming May 2004 meeting - L2.5 Concrete
> Model ?
>
> In general the thing that is making this work for you is the client
> operating system on your Mobile Unit (MU), likely Windows 2000 or
> Windows XP.
>
> >Again 802.21 could enable a policy driven engine to pick the right
> interface.
>
> I think that Microsoft has already done this. It is called WPS
> (Wireless
> Provisioning System) and is planned to be part of Windows XP SP2 (to be
> released this summer?). See Microsoft for more details.
>
> Darwin
>
> At 2004/05/04 11:11, Johnston, Dj wrote:
> >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.
> > > >