RE: [802.21] transport layer
David,
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG [mailto:owner-stds-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of ext David Xiang
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 3:41 PM
To: STDS-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [802.21] transport layer
I agree that 802.21 may not need to explicitly define the transport layer
for MIH information or event service between nodes, in order to give more
flexibility for the implementation, but I wonder if we will add some
commendation or guide line for that?
[SFA] I do expect that 802.21 will develop some requirements and recommendations for how to implement the transport in a media specific way.
Without certain unification, it will
bring the complexity during 802.21 deployment since all the cell around one
terminal can have different transport layer for .21.
[SFA] transport will be media specific, i.e. the way it will be done in 11 will/may be different from the way it is done in .16. However, it will not change from one .11 network to another .11 network. Unification between the way .11 and .16 implement the transport is not very realistic.
One thing I like IP layer is make possible to terminal keep on getting
information service all the time independent of L2 technology, even in
non-MIH capable network.
[SFA] indeed, that's why I believe L3 transport should be enabled. However, once again, 802.21 will not define this transport but just requirements.
E.g. if one terminal A is associated with 802.11
network 1 which is non-MIH capable, and A detects 802.21 network 2 which is
MIH capable, it can receive IS or the update policy from network 2 to
execute the HO more quick and efficient if the transport layer is IP.
Otherwise, the terminal will not getting the new update IS until it handover
to MIH-capable network, which may impact the performance.
[SFA] a valid scenario indeed.
David