RE: [802.21] transport layer for MIH IS.
Mike,
We discussed the first two options during our meeting.
The other advantage of (1) is that we may be able to transfer data
through an unauthenticated port in cases of MACs which currently may not
allow say Class 1 data frames. We may be trying to solve a larger media
specific problem here. While (2) may be required for supporting media
like Ethernet(not sure how good an argument that is).
(1) definitely requires changes to other standards while in case of (2)
we may get by without any changes to media specific MACs.
Best Regards,
-Vivek
|-----Original Message-----
|From: owner-stds-802-21@ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-21@ieee.org] On
|Behalf Of Mike Moreton
|Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 6:06 AM
|To: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
|Subject: RE: [802.21] transport layer for MIH IS.
|
|It may be that you covered this in more detail at your meeting...
|
|I can think of at least 4 different possibilities:
|
|(1) Define new MAC specific management frames (e.g. a variant of action
|frames in 802.11). This would require changes to each MAC
specification,
|but would allow the MAC to give these frames whatever priority was
required.
|
|(2) Transport in an L2 data frame with a new Ethertype allocated for
the
|protocol. This would not require any MAC changes for an 802 MAC, but
would
|require you to live with the different priorities available for data
frames,
|and probably would need some special support within cellular.
|
|(3) Carried in IP packets. Gives you wider addressability than L2, but
|it's not clear that you need this if you're only going from STA to AP
(or
|whatever you call them). In practice, the IETF are likely to insist on
you
|using UDP encapsulation.
|
|(4) Carried over TCP. Built-in reliability, but do you want it?
|
|Plus all the advantages and disadvantages you've already mentioned...
|
|Mike.
|