Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

RE: [802.21] HLSI



11k provides the Neighbor Report and has a location element as well.
Are you taking these into account for 802.11 device handoff?  Are you
considering the neighbor report-like mechanisms for other wireless
technologies (like cellular).

Richard H. Paine
Success is getting what you want, happiness is liking what you get!
Cell:  206-854-8199
IPPhone:  425-373-8964
Email:  richard.h.paine@boeing.com  

-----Original Message-----
From: Yoshihiro Ohba [mailto:yohba@TARI.TOSHIBA.COM] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 9:17 AM
To: Gupta, Vivek G
Cc: Yoshihiro Ohba; STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802.21] HLSI

On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 10:19:18AM -0700, Gupta, Vivek G wrote:
> 
> List of Networks Supported, Roaming_list_Availabale,
> 
> Neighbor_reports_Available is questionable as well.  
> 
> [Vivek G Gupta]
> 
> Why are these questionable? These seem lot more promising from a 
> handover policy perspective.

"List of Networks Supported" and "Neighbor_reports_Available" can be
integrated into Neighbor List (i.e., a list of neighboring PoAs) in
which network type is included in each PoA in the list.  Similarly,
Roaming_list_Available should be Roaming List (i.e., a list of roaming
operators, not just a flag).

Yoshihiro Ohba

> 
>  
> 
> Network_Operator
> 
> could be improved to contain an IANA-assigned, global unique SMI
> 
> enterprise number as well as the name of the operator.  Location could
> 
> be improved to carry RFC 3825 Location Configuration Information (just
> 
> having latitude and longitude is insufficient to represent a
> 
> geo-coordinate).
> 
> [Vivek G Gupta] Agree
> 
>  
> 
> > 
> 
> >  
> 
> > 
> 
> > The media dependent IEs currently include:
> 
> > 
> 
> > { Cipher_Suites, Authentication_Methods, Cost (free/not free),
> 
> > IP_Version, Data_Rates, QoS, Neighbor_Maps }
> 
>  
> 
> In my analysis, Cipher_Suites, Authentication_Methods, Data_Rates, QoS
> 
> are questionable.
> 
> [Vivek G Gupta]
> 
> Again why? 
> 
> Knowledge of security (supported or not), availability of QoS and 
> supported data rates can influence selecting PoA decisions.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>   I agree on representing Cost as a binary value
> 
> (free or not free).
> 
>  
> 
> > 
> 
> >  
> 
> > 
> 
> > We could use a basic TLV format to represent these, along with a
> simple
> 
> > mechanism to query or set the values,
> 
> > 
> 
> > of different IEs, so not sure why we really need a basic schema and 
> > an
> 
> > extended schema and all the other baggage along with it.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> I am currently defining TLV format for IEs defined in basic set.  I
> 
> think the IEs defined in basic set should be able to be queried using
> 
> not only XML but also TLV.  On the other hand, I do believe schemas
> 
> (basic schema and extended schema) are needed to support extensibility
> 
> to deal with any link-layer technologies including the existing ones
> 
> and future ones as well as to make flexible and efficient information
> 
> queries. 
> 
> [Vivek G Gupta]
> 
> Why cannot extensibility be supported with a basic TLV type format? 
> 
> You can always query for list of supported networks and supported 
> capabilities and go from there.
> 
> In any case would like to see more focus on definition/identification 
> of appropriate IEs across different networks.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  After the July meeting, I did qualitative analysis on the
> 
> applicability of XML/RDF to 802.21 information service and the
> 
> analysis result will be described in my another contribution prepared
> 
> for the September meeting, which is a white paper about 802.21
> 
> information service using XML/RDF technologies.
> 
> [Vivek G Gupta]
> 
> Great! 
> 
> We also need draft text for the 802.21 specification and need to clean

> up the Information Services section as well.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> I really want to settle on all of those basic issues on information
> 
> service in the September meeting.
> 
> [Vivek G Gupta]
> 
> Fantastic! Lemme know how I can help
> 
>  
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Yoshihiro Ohba
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> > 
> 
> >  
> 
> > 
> 
> > Best Regards,
> 
> > 
> 
> > -Vivek
> 
> > 
> 
> >  
> 
> > 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> 
> > From: stds-802-21@ieee.org [mailto:stds-802-21@ieee.org] On Behalf 
> > Of
> 
> > Yoshihiro Ohba
> 
> > Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 8:59 PM
> 
> > To: stds-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
> 
> > Subject: HLSI
> 
> > 
> 
> >  
> 
> > 
> 
> > I am currently writing up a contribution to revise Information 
> > Service
> 
> > 
> 
> > sections and I have the following questions:
> 
> > 
> 
> >  
> 
> > 
> 
> > The HLSI IE defines several flags indicating the available
> higher-layer
> 
> > 
> 
> > services including ISP, MMS, IMS, MIP, VPN, SIP and NAT.
> 
> > 
> 
> >  
> 
> > 
> 
> > - What is the exact meaning of "VPN support"?  Does it mean that if
> 
> > 
> 
> > you connect to the PoA then all data traffic will be automatically
> 
> > 
> 
> > forwarded to some remote network over a dedicated tunnel between the
> 
> > 
> 
> > PoA and the remote network?  Or does it mean that the network 
> > provides
> 
> > 
> 
> > a VPN gateway?  Or does it mean that the mobile terminal connected 
> > to
> 
> > 
> 
> > the PoA can establish a VPN connection to any VPN gateway.  Or
> 
> > 
> 
> > something else?  The first definition does not make sense because 
> > you
> 
> > 
> 
> > will need additional information about the remote network to make a
> 
> > 
> 
> > handover decision.  The latter two definitions do not make sense
> 
> > 
> 
> > either, because there are several different ways of establishing a 
> > VPN
> 
> > 
> 
> > connection (i.e., IPsec, SSL, L2TP, PPTP, etc.) and you will need
> 
> > 
> 
> > additional information as to which VPN method is used to make a
> 
> > 
> 
> > handover decision.
> 
> > 
> 
> >  
> 
> > 
> 
> > - What is the exact meaning of "SIP support"?  Does it mean that the
> 
> > 
> 
> > network has a SIP server or proxy, or something else?
> 
> > 
> 
> >  
> 
> > 
> 
> > - Do we really need HLSI IE defined in the basic set?  I think it 
> > can
> 
> > 
> 
> > be defined in extended set.  This is because we might need more
> 
> > 
> 
> > detailed information about higher-layer (such as IP addresses and
> 
> > 
> 
> > prefixes of access routers, supported IP mobility optimization
> 
> > 
> 
> > mechanism, list of supported ISPs, etc.) to make a higher layer
> 
> > 
> 
> > information and just defining a set of flags seems like a half-baked
> 
> > 
> 
> > solution.  Such detailed information can be provided via 
> > schema-based
> 
> > 
> 
> > query by which various higher-layer (and lower-layer) MIB objects 
> > can
> 
> > 
> 
> > be retrieved once converted to RDF data.
> 
> > 
> 
> >  
> 
> > 
> 
> > Regards,
> 
> > 
> 
> >  
> 
> > 
> 
> > Yoshihiro Ohba
> 
> > 
>