RE: [802.21] contributions for upcoming May 2004 meeting - L2.5 C oncrete Model ?
Vladimir - short answer I believe is yes - and improving. A monitoring
Microsoft person should step up and comment to whatever extent they can
disclose.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-21@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Vladimir
Yanover
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 9:54 AM
To: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802.21] contributions for upcoming May 2004 meeting - L2.5
C oncrete Model ?
Ajay and All,
I have a question on the scenario under consideration.
Is there a candidate "intelligent entity" in the architecture of e.g. MS
Windows? I mean part of Windows that communicates to multiple MACs
[network adapters], feels their state [connected/disconnected] and
switches binding relationship IP <=> adapter from one adapter to
another. I am interested to learn more on the issue.
Thanks
Vladimir
-----Original Message-----
From: Ajay Rajkumar [mailto:ajayrajkumar@lucent.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 9:26 PM
To: STDS-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802.21] contributions for upcoming May 2004 meeting - L2.5
Concrete Model ?
Mike, DJ,
It may not be as bad as it sounds. The key in Mike's scenario is that
the laptop is "associated with WLAN" simultaneously with its ethernet
connection.
Because
of its active association with WLAN an "intelligent entity" above
various MACs would have collected sufficient information and then
subsequently can make a decision to switch over to WLAN as and when LAN
connection goes down.
In fact, the scenario may be even simpler/faster if the two interfaces
are on the same subnet (DJ's office scenario)!
-ajay
On 5/4/2004 2:00 PM, Mike MORETON wrote:
> 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.
>>>
>>
This mail passed through mail.alvarion.com
************************************************************************
****
********
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals &
computer viruses.
************************************************************************
****
********
This mail was sent via mail.alvarion.com
************************************************************************
************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals &
computer viruses.
************************************************************************
************