RE: [802.21] Question today about upper layers
There will be two cases for that:
1. Terminal is doing different technology interface handoff, so it imply
there must be other high layer interface can handle mutli-access devices,
and it will handle the trigger input. For the application which only handle
one interface can ignore the trigger, or it simple ignore that trigger. The
trigger registration or association shall cover that.
2. Terminal is doing same technology interface handoff, so there shall be no
issue for that higher layer application.
The policy of association between different higher layer application and
particular trigger shall not be inside 21 scope, but leave it to the vendor
who implement it, right?
David
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
[mailto:owner-stds-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Michael Williams
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 1:53 PM
To: STDS-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802.21] Question today about upper layers
Some higher layer protocols can handle multi-access devices, but don't
some of them have scope limited to a single interface? If so, their
interpretation of handover decision input (e.g. triggers) might be
limited to considering what can be understood/seen only from their
interface? Perhaps others can elaborate or contradict this.
BR,
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
[mailto:owner-stds-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of ext Peretz
Feder
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 2:48 PM
To: STDS-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: Question today about upper layers
Greg:
I am of the opinion thet MIH commands lower layers to switch a link and
in conjunction inform upper layers to take care of the IP signaling over
the new selected link.
Example switch 3gpp2 to .11 interface and make the MIP signaling at
layer 3 perform MIP re-registartion with the new COA and old MIP
address. So I am with you.
The counter argument will be what if moblity is done at the Application
layer?
i.e. SIP mobility?
Peretz Feder
On 3/14/2005 5:12 PM, Greg Daley wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here's my question from today about
> upper layer protocols.
>
> Have you considered if specifying direct interfaces to upper-layers
> will cause confusion?
> Wouldn't it be better to delegate this upper-layer trigger function to
> L3?
>
> Greg