RE: [802.21] Network Controlled Handover and IS
Junghoon,
Responses inline.
-----Original Message-----
From: ext Junghoon Jee [mailto:jhjee@ETRI.RE.KR]
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 9:25 PM
To: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802.21] Network Controlled Handover and IS
> It seems both STA controlled and network-controlled scenarios
> may have to considered in 802.21. It may seem unfair to the
> network operator who owns the radio resources in one or more
> technology for allowing its subscribers' STA to make decision
> that may cause misuse of radio resources.
Basically, STA can make a decision to handover only where it has a
subscription to that network.
The resource that is allowed for a STA is managed by the network operator
without question.
For network-controlled inter-technology handover,
network (entity) may continuously gather or monitor the status of the STA
through MIH ES or CS
to make a handover decision for a certain STA, and another STA and ,,,
This is my point. I expect that anyone could solve or lessen my concerning
point.
I think that it may not be a problem that can be solved by reducing
signaling transaction from 10 to 5.
Srini> In 802.21, once the MIH services are defined, we cannot mandate that network-controlled HO cannot be used or how much signaling must be used to make it work. We only define the MIH services to enable both scenarios. If and how they are used is upto the implemention on the STA or in the network or both.
One the other
> hand, a STA that has no subscription or roaming relation to
> the networks in question may make its own decision. It is not
> difficult to have both these mechanisms co-exist.
If a STA has no subscription or roaming relation to networks,
then it cannot access that network. Can you make more clarification on your
point ?
Srini> These could be like pay-per-use access networks. For e.g., the user can configure the STA to perform scans to find lower cost accesses and do automatic handover. STA-controlled HO may also be useful for subscription based scenarios as long as they are not conflicting with the subscription/roaming agreements. It is upto the operator to use proper configurations on the terminal.
Regards,
Junghoon
> BR,
> Srinivas Sreemanthula
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Phillip Barber [mailto:pbarber@BROADBANDMOBILETECH.COM]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 4:09 PM
> To: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [802.21] Network Controlled Handover and IS
>
>
> I must agree with Junghoon Jee. It simplifies matters
> tremendously, and decreases non-productive management and
> control messaging on the air interface dramatically, to have
> the MS play a more intrinsic role in inter-technology
> handover decision (mobility policy engine locus of control).
>
> Thanks,
> Phillip Barber
> Huawei
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Junghoon Jee <mailto:jhjee@ETRI.RE.KR>
> To: Stefano M. Faccin <mailto:stefano.faccin@NOKIA.COM> ;
> STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
> Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 11:28 AM
> Subject: RE: Re: [802.21] Network Controlled Handover and IS
>
> Hi Vivek and Stefano,
>
> [Vivek G Gupta]
> Many of the existing media specific technologies already do
> this in some form. For example 802.11k provides access to
> link layer measurements like Bit Rate, BER, etc. that you
> mention above. Other media specific technologies also have a
> provision for something similar.
> Given that, do we need any additional methods/primitives or
> capabilities from 802.21 for above?
>
> [[Stefano] ] I think the answer is completely depending on
> the use scenarios. Let's assume a 3GPP network operator owns
> multiple accesses, such as 802.11 and 802.16 in addition to
> the 3GPP specific access networks. Let's assume the operator
> is interested in having network controlled HO e.g. for load
> sharing or other reasons that require stricter control that
> the one granted by simply controlling the policies in the
> terminal used to decide HO between technologies. In such
> case, it may be difficult in practical implementations to
> have an MME function in the network that relies on existing
> L2 technology-specific to collect the information. it pretty
> much implies a tight IW of the various radio interfaces/ANs
> at L2, that may not be that easy to implement nor that
> acceptable to 3GPP operators/vendors. In such scenario, using
> 802.21 at "L3 and above" to allow reporting of information to
> the MIHF in an MME that is used to control inter-technology
> HO may be an easy and clean way to!
> go. I see this as a very relevant scenario for "L3 and above" MIH.
>
> =>
> [Junghoon]
> I tend to agree about the scenario that Stefano mentioned as
> a general application of MIH.
> However, I have some concern regarding the network-initiated
> inter-technology handover.
> To support not one or two mobile terminals, overloading of
> MIH _handover_ control entity by enormous MIH events and commands...
> IMO, it would be better to let a mobile terminal have a brain
> about inter-technology handover decision.
>
>
> <http://umail.etri.re.kr/External_ReadCheck.aspx?email=STDS-80
> 2-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG&name=STDS-802-21%40LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG&fr
omemail=jhjee@etri.re.kr&messageid=%3Cb46e0bdb-3aab-482e-8237-1d7beb70f31a@e
tri.re.kr%> 3E>