Re: [802.21] contributions for upcoming May 2004 meeting - L2.5 C oncrete Model ?
Vladimir:
MS can detect link up and down and select among them. This is however a slow
process and requires additional modules and intelligence. Look at Figure 3 of
the attached paper. One (not MSFT) needs to add the MIP component and
intelligence, as indicated in Figure 3. Figure 3 is the framework, many of the
components you see in it are add on by 3rd party vendors. A Mobile IP V4 is not
a componenet you can expect MSFT to support.
Peretz Feder
"Iyer, Prakash" wrote:
>
> 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.
> ************************************************************************
> ************
iee_v9_final.pdf