Re: [802.21] transport layer for MIH IS.
Ajoy:
This was not addressed to me, correct? I didn't claim L2 is more reliable.
Peretz
On 1/20/2005 6:43 PM, Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1 wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Why L2 transport is more reliable than IP transport?
>
> Regards,
> Ajoy
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-21@ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-21@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Peretz Feder
> Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 5:05 PM
> To: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [802.21] transport layer for MIH IS.
>
> On 1/20/2005 3:30 PM, David Xiang wrote:
>
>>When we consider the complexity of .21 implementation and interaction with
>>other media standard, we need to think of our transport layer for
>>information service exchange with network or peer, though it seems out of
>>scope of .21 from most of the proposals.
>>I saw two ideas of transport layer from the proposals: IP application, and
>>L2. I just want to get your thoughts on which one is better.
>
>
> Transport across network elements must be IP type, which of course is carried
> within L2 Ethernet frames.
>
> In .21 new Ethernet frames (type .21) is in scope, IP is questionable. It may be
> an IETF domain to pick form the .21 standard.
>
>
>>IP:
>>Pros: 1. Generic and less impact on other media standard,
>> 2. Give more implementation flexibility for .21 information service
>> and other requirements.
>> 3. More easy to be implemented.
>>
>>Cons: 1. slow
>> 2. Not reliable or robust as L2 transport, but IP application can
>> become robust with some good mechanisms.
>>
>>L2:
>>Pros: 1. faster
>> 2. More robust
>>
>>Cons: 1. Too rely on other media standard which may not good for .21
>> implementation.
>> 2. Not flexible, any time .21 do some changes on SI, it may request
>> all other media standard to do some changes too.
>>
>>Any thoughts?
>
>
> It is not one or the other, it will have to be both if we include MIH exchange
> between a station and MIH IS DB at the core network.
>
> The big question is how do we define the IP protocol associated with the
> exchange of IP messages between the terminal and the IS network element? is it
> an IETF follow up? or within the scope of IEEE802.21?
>
>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>David
>