RE: stds-802-mobility: Re: RE: stds-802-mobility: Hand-off question
Zulfiquar,
Of all the responses, yours takes into account genuine user needs with a
(broader) perspective - objectively rather than the biased views that
have been aired so far mostly based on business agendas of the
individual companies. Conforming to market forces - i.e. serving user
needs consistent with economic and reliable performance of services -
while acknowledging such factors as "Wireless is entering a phase of
network of networks" and installed bases (of existing service providers,
enterprises and individuals) is the only way to go. Saying that MBWA
will compete with 3G reminds of Iridium business case...
Our 2cents,
Arsha Consultants
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-mobility@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-mobility@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of
Zulfiquar Sayeed
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 11:03 AM
To: Mike Moreton
Cc: stds-802-mobility@ieee.org
Subject: Re: stds-802-mobility: Re: RE: stds-802-mobility: Hand-off
question
At one point (within the next 4-5 years) vendors are expected to have
SIP services and QOS to enable Packet Voice. Therefore, it should be a
matter of handing off from data to data over the usual QOS over MPLS. I
hope that helps, and let me know if I am wrong.
Best regards
Zulfiquar
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Moreton" <Mike.Moreton@synad.com>
Cc: <stds-802-mobility@ieee.org>
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 4:26 AM
Subject: RE: stds-802-mobility: Re: RE: stds-802-mobility: Hand-off
question
I don't know if this is a valuable external perspective, or just
ignorant comment, but here goes...
It's not clear to me what you actually mean by handoff. If you mean the
ability for a user to continue web browsing as they move from place to
place, then that is a very different (and much, much easier) requirement
than maintaining a 2 way voice or video call without noticeable
disruption.
Andrew talks about competing with 3G. I think you have to ask yourself
whether you believe 3G is hideously complex because (a) it was designed
by a bunch of idiots on drugs, or (b) because it has to be. If you
accept that the latter is more likely, then a dream of a 3G-beater which
has all the functionality, but none of the complexity is likely to be a
fantasy.
Finally, if you look at the history of comms protocols, it's clear that
simple, focused, always wins out. 2G only provided voice, and has been
a huge success. 3G's major impact so far is as one of the key factors
in a global depression. In particular, generalised QoS solutions are
the biggest consumer of engineer time ever invented.
Mike Moreton
Synad Technologies Ltd.
-----Original Message-----
From: andrew [mailto:slip_away@163.com]
Sent: 24 April 2003 14:35
To: joanne@arraycomm.com
Cc: stds-802-mobility@ieee.org
Subject: stds-802-mobility: Re: RE: stds-802-mobility: Hand-off question
Great! I can not agree with Joanne any more!
802.20 is not a complementarity to 3g but a competitor! Because it is
MAN, not a WLAN such as 802.11. If 802.11 lose its performance in order
to handoff to 3G, it is suicide!!!
Best Regards
Andrew
>
> 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
fromcompletion of the standard until the commercial deployments!
> Since roaming is among the top criteria, my view is that it should be
takeninto 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? > > > > > > > > >
>
=============================================================
真正VIP享受，想怎么花，就怎么花！ http://vip.163.com
年度十佳女性站点评选开赛了！ http://www.nease.net
百分百女友 - 春季选美活动! http://love.163.com
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????????
?????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????