RE: stds-802-mobility: Hand-off question
I agree completely. I think it would be a very big burden to take
on inter-technology roaming. IP Mobility is a movement that is addressing
seamless handoffs between different networks (wireless or not), and would be
the appropriate mechanism for the 802.20 working group to use to address
this issue. Down the road, if any vendor wants to build a single handset
with 802.11, GPRS, EDGE, WCDMA, and 802.20 chipsets - IP mobility would
still be required since packets need to transition between the various
networks to get to the handset.
Bryan Olivier
-----Original Message-----
From: Joanne Wilson [mailto:joanne@arraycomm.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2003 1:37 AM
To: Jori.Arrakoski@nokia.com; stds-802-mobility@ieee.org
Subject: RE: stds-802-mobility: Hand-off question
On this point I have to disagree. Inter-technology roaming is not
the driver for the 802.20 standard and isn't even achieved among existing
2G/2.5G/3G systems. While it should be supported in an appropriate manner,
from my perspective it would be a serious mistake to compromise
the performance of an 802.20 air interface to support a capability
(which maybe we should call interworking versus roaming) with an
as yet to be determined set of air interfaces.
Best regards,
Joanne
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-mobility@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-mobility@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of
Jori.Arrakoski@nokia.com
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2003 2:21 AM
To: stds-802-mobility@ieee.org
Subject: RE: stds-802-mobility: Hand-off question
Roaming support doesn't come for free. The trade-off will be somewhat
lost system performance. There are two ways to proceed, either one designs
the minimum hooks for roaming support or then one builds the whole concept
on excellent roaming support. The former is much easier to achieve and
will produce the best "paper" performance whereas the latter might after
all perform better in the long run.
Good system design takes fully into account the customer requirements and
even give some headroom for future evolutionary needs. Standards development
should particularly follow this path, remember, it takes usually years from
completion of the standard until the commercial deployments!
Since roaming is among the top criteria, my view is that it should be taken
into account with necessary seriousness from the early start even if it
means some peak performance loss or extended schedule!
BR
Jori
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Johnston, Dj [mailto:dj.johnston@intel.com]
> Sent: 24 April, 2003 00:13
> To: stds-802-mobility@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: stds-802-mobility: Hand-off question
>
>
>
> My personal opinion is that users will find wireless devices
> substantially more attractive if those devices are capable of roaming
> seamlessly amongst heterogeneous networks. Connectivity would be
> available over a larger coverage area and the device would be more
> dependable as a means to access communication dependent services.
>
> 802 has not traditionally played in this space. Roaming within 802 has
> tended to be confined to a particular MAC/PHY pair and within a
> particular network. 802.11 being the most common example.
>
> This does not mean it is unwise for 802 standards to anticipate
> heterogeneous network roaming and either specify mechanisms
> or leave in
> the necessary hooks. It is arguably unwise for new 802 standards to
> ignore this issue, given what we know about the nature of the wireless
> landscape today. Isolated roaming network technologies could find
> themselves rapidly supplanted by networks that have effective
> heterogeneous roaming capabilities since the benefit to the user is
> obvious.
>
> From the work in the IEFT such as SEAMOBY and TRIGTRAN, from
> 3GPP[2] and
> from the numerous and generally inadequte/proprietary WiSP AAA systems
> it is clear to me that any good heterogeneous roaming technology
> requires implementations that impact not only layer3/IP/whatever, but
> also the PHY and MAC and the network based authentication and billing
> systems. Without such a broad solution, roaming can be
> neither seamless
> nor ubiquitous in the general case.
>
> It is probably clear to everyone else that I have come down
> on the side
> of an 802 wide handoff effort, since I'm chairing the group.
> This should
> not be interpreted as a an indication that I think it is the
> right place
> to solve the problem. It is certainly the right place to
> solve a part of
> the problem but there will definitely be a requirement for
> higher layer
> parts of the puzzle and there might be a case for some work
> specific to
> each of the 802 MAC,PHY pairs. This remains to be seen.
>
> What I believe would be a very bad outcome is for network entities to
> have to have separate implementations of roaming signalling to account
> for handoff between each of the 802 wireless technologies. That would
> not serve 802 well and would not be good for users.
>
> A L1/2 to L3 conduit for roaming related signalling is something that
> could apply to the general 802 framework but that might have specifics
> for each of the wireless standards. 802.11k has shown the way here and
> is a valuable contribution to filling in the handoff puzzle. It is
> probably wise to learn from the 802.11k work and understand how it can
> be extended or emulated elsewhere within 802 general case and how what
> they have can be part of the larger solution. Similarly 802.11i is
> bridging the gap between security and fast roaming. 802.16e is
> addressing base to base negotiation of QoS stream handoff. This is all
> good stuff. Providing access to this technology through a
> single general
> 802 roaming interface/mechanism/practice will be better for
> everyone who
> has to implement roaming between different 802 systems or between 802
> and non 802 systems.
>
> So for the health of 802 wireless standards in general, I encourage
> people the working groups to think in terms of what roaming mechanisms
> should be local to a MAC/PHY pair and what mechanisms should
> be part of
> a more general solution and work with the appropriate groups to effect
> the optimal roaming solution. I also encourage people to to think how
> best we can meet the needs of the higher layer roaming mechanisms. The
> IEFT, 3GPP and others have made a lot more progress on
> roaming at their
> end than 802 has done at its end. Now is a good time for 802
> to adapt to
> the changes in the broader networking world and roaming is one of the
> top items on the list.
>
> DJ
>
>
> David Johnston
> Intel Corporation
> Chair, IEEE 802 Handoff ECSG
>
> Email : dj.johnston@intel.com
> Tel : 503 380 5578 (Mobile)
> Tel : 503 264 3855 (Office)
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Lalit Kotecha [mailto:lalit123@yahoo.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 8:49 AM
> > To: Joseph Cleveland; 'djames@arraycomm.com';
> > arsha@optonline.net; stds-802-mobility@ieee.org
> > Subject: RE: stds-802-mobility: Hand-off question
> >
> >
> >
> > There are so many wireless technologies, operation at different
> > fequencies (900, 1800, 1900, 850, 2400, 3500 MHz) and standards
> > available. I do not think these standards were designed to
> > take care of
> > inter-technology handoff. As market need changed, some of the
> > standards
> > made provision to support inter-technology handoff.
> >
> > We need to analyze even for existing standard that what is currently
> > supported in 2G as well as 3G and what is roadmap for these
> standards.
> > Also, this needs to be worked very closely with otehr
> standards bodies
> > (3GPP, 3GPP2, etc.)
> >
> > Again if I understand correctly, 802.xx is mainly about
> developing PHY
> > and MAC and rest is addressed differently. In the similar argument,
> > 802.11e will suport QoS etc. But suppport of voice
> (codecs), VoIP (all
> > signalling) and all new streaming media video application is out of
> > scope over there.
> >
> > just my 2c,
> >
> > Thanks
> > Lalit Kotecha
> >
> > --- Joseph Cleveland <JClevela@sta.samsung.com> wrote:
> > > If handoff across air interfaces is not supported, users will need
> > > multiple
> > > handsets. Do we really want this situation?
> > >
> > > Joseph Cleveland
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Dave James (UK) [mailto:djames@arraycomm.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 12:55 AM
> > > To: arsha@optonline.net; stds-802-mobility@ieee.org
> > > Subject: RE: stds-802-mobility: Hand-off question
> > >
> > >
> > > What could be the purpose ? MBWA is just that - truly
> > broadband, not
> > > 3G at
> > > all.......
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-stds-802-mobility@majordomo.ieee.org
> > > [mailto:owner-stds-802-mobility@majordomo.ieee.org] On
> > Behalf Of Prem
> > > Pungaliya
> > > Sent: Monday, April 21, 2003 6:17 PM
> > > To: stds-802-mobility@ieee.org
> > > Subject: stds-802-mobility: Hand-off question
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Will handoff be supported between 802.20 and public 3G?
> > >
> > >
> >
>