Re: [802.21] Discussion on Information Service
Phillip,
You probably didn't read my entire email when you sent out yours. My
comments is about 802.21 delivering network information that is
***NOT*** related to "lower layer (PHY & MAC) information elements of
air interfaces".
regards,
-Qiaobing
Phillip Barber wrote:
> I fear the commenter is missing the entire objective of IEEE 802.21.
>
> It is the function of 802.21 to be exactly what the commenter is
> intimating (at least from the air interface side): a media independent
> method of exposing the lower layer (PHY & MAC) information elements of
> air interfaces (802.16, 802.11, 802.??, etc...) so that higher layer
> handover policy managers can use the information to prosecute handovers;
> and to take the resulting actions of handover policy managers and
> translate them into appropriate air interface transactions. The entire
> objective of 802.21 is to create a common information language so that
> handover policy managers do not have to have differentiated mechanisms
> and language to work with each of the air interface types. Also, 802.21
> has the added benefit of helping air interface groups adding mobility to
> their standard by highlighting necessary information elements, metrics,
> and triggers typical for handover.
>
> So 802.21 is supposed to do exactly what the commenter seems worried
> that it is doing.
>
> Thanks,
> Phillip Barber
> Huawei
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Qiaobing Xie"
> <Qiaobing.Xie@motorola.com>
> To: "Gupta, Vivek G" <vivek.g.gupta@INTEL.COM>
> Cc: "Koora Kalyan Com Bocholt" <kalyan.koora@SIEMENS.COM>;
> <STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org>; "802-21-MEMBERS"
> <STDS-802-21-MEMBERS@listserv.ieee.org>
> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 2:04 PM
> Subject: Re: [802.21] Discussion on Information Service
>
>
>> Gupta, Vivek G wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe we should try to focus more on such aspects and also keep
>>> discussions technical. What are the network information elements that
>>> help in handovers?
>>
>>
>> The answer could be many. One way or another, the handover decision
>> maker may use all sorts of network information to help in handover.
>> But we have to keep in mind that handover is a big feature in a mobile
>> system and there are a number of entities across layers and clouds
>> that are involved in making handover happen and 802.21 is just one
>> piece of the puzzle. Therefore, even after we agree that an IE is
>> useful for handover, we have to ask ourselves why 802.21 is the right
>> mechanism to carry/provide this IE to the h/o decision logic. To
>> automatically assume that 802.21 be the sole provider/carrier of all
>> handover relevant information to the decision maker would be a mistake.
>>
>>> How? I guess the how (reasoning) part is not well described in
>>> current draft
>>> and that gives rise to many questions. We may need to review each of the
>>> IEs and come up with explicit use cases/reasoning as to how they help
>>> during handovers. That may also help with understanding the business
>>> case/reasoning for deploying some of this, even though that part is
>>> outside the specification.
>>
>>
>> ditto.
>>
>> regards,
>> -Qiaobing
>>
>>>
>>> There are also some issues we need to resolve. If 802.21 provides access
>>> to neighbor graphs/reports for multiple networks (802.11, 802.16,
>>> Cellular) in what format should these reports be provided?
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>> -Vivek
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: stds-802-21@ieee.org [mailto:stds-802-21@ieee.org] On Behalf Of
>>> Qiaobing Xie
>>> Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2005 2:22 PM
>>> To: Koora Kalyan Com Bocholt
>>> Cc: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org; 802-21-MEMBERS
>>> Subject: Re: [802.21] Discussion on Information Service
>>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>> I think this discussion is very important at this point. Indeed, we have
>>>
>>> talked about the scope and other issues before (a lot), but for one I am
>>>
>>> not 100% satisfied with what we have concluded. I have also heard
>>> from multiple sources outside of 802.21 that the current scope of
>>> 802.21 is both too big and ambiguously defined. For example,
>>>
>>> - provide generic link layer intelligence and other network
>>> related info to upper layers to optimize handovers between
>>> heterogeneous media
>>>
>>> It is easy to argue that 802.21 is in a good position to provide generic
>>>
>>> link layer intelligence to upper layers for handover. But for
>>> providing "other network related info to upper layers" for handover,
>>> I am not so sure. People can rightly question why we think 802.21 is
>>> better suited than other mechanisms/protocols in providing network
>>> info to upper layers for optimizing handover.
>>>
>>> regards,
>>> -Qiaobing
>>>
>>> Koora Kalyan Com Bocholt wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello All,
>>>>
>>>> after taking part in couple of telcons, I feel that there is a
>>>> strong need to raise a disucussion on the .21 Information Service.
>>>> In particular I feel that there is an urgent need to fix the basic
>>>> information set at this point before proceeding to different
>>>> standardisation bodies.
>>>>
>>>> As a starting point, I am just putting couple of basic points
>>>> together to have a common understanding in discussion.
>>>> I would be happy to see your comments/opinions/ideas/suggestions
>>>> to reach a common consensus on this matter.
>>>>
>>>> with best regards,
>>>> Kalyan Koora
>>>>
>>>> +-----------------------------------------------------------------+
>>>> | Discussion on Information Service |
>>>> +-----------------------------------------------------------------+
>>>>
>>>> I. What is 802.21 MIH scope?
>>>> II. Handover of what?
>>>> III. Present Handover mechanisms
>>>> IV. How to continue?
>>>>
>>>> I. What is 802.21 MIH scope?
>>>>
>>>> - provide generic link layer intelligence and other network
>>>> related info to upper layers to optimize handovers between
>>>> heterogeneous media
>>>>
>>>> - enhance and/or support handovers between heterogeneous media
>>>>
>>>> - maximize service continuity
>>>>
>>>> II. Handover of what?
>>>>
>>>> - A session / an application running over a media to other media
>>>>
>>>> - session/service continuity is desired
>>>>
>>>> If we are speaking about a "session", then we mean "running
>>>> application".
>>>>
>>>> If we are speaking about "handover of a running session" from one
>>>> to other media, it is a "must" that the minimum requirements of the
>>>> session are available at the other media.
>>>>
>>>> III. Present Handover mechanisms
>>>> Present well known handover mechanisms (like MIP):
>>>> - select one media for all sessions
>>>> - do not do load-balancing
>>>> - neither care about application needs nor take care of
>>>> user or network preferences dynamically
>>>>
>>>> The evolving mechanisms are aiming to enable this.
>>>> To assist these intelligent handover mechanis (what 802.21 is
>>>> aiming at), it is important to have following information as early
>>>> as possible:
>>>>
>>>> 1. what applications are running on the terminal or what
>>>> sessions are build up
>>>> 2. If a new session/application is started, what are its needs
>>>> 3. what medias are present in the terminal and what are their
>>>> capabilities
>>>> 4. what are the reachable networks in the vicinity and
>>>> what are their capabilities.
>>>> 5. what application support is provided by the networks
>>>> 6. Last but most, what are the user and operator preferences.
>>>>
>>>> If these points are agreed, then comes the question:
>>>> Taking the above mentioned points into consideration, if 802.21
>>>> likes to enhance the handover mechanisms, what is the information
>>>> envisaged by the .21?
>>>>
>>>> IV. How to continue: To refine/enhance/modify I feel, there is an
>>>> urgent need to
>>>> take a look at the IS, in particular the basic set.
>>>>
>>>> What is needed?
>>>>
>>>> - shall we define a unique basic set for all standards, to be
>>>> media independent?
>>>> - shall we take the existing basic set, think of scenarios
>>>> where this is needed and put them as essential and remove
>>>> the things which are not needed?
>>>>
>>>> - shall we define completely new set for each and every standard
>>>> just like independent SAPs?
>>>> +-----------------------------------------------------------------+
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>