November 1999 - sg16-avd - lists.packetizer.com

Re: [Robustness] group formed
by Callaghan, Robert 01 Nov '99

01 Nov '99

I propose Tuesday, November 16 as the first conference call to be held from 11-12 EST. Please send e-mail to me at: maureen.stillman(a)nokia.com if you wish to participate or if the time is not good, but you wish to participate. [RWC] I would prefer to have the week before or after the proposed date. Bob ------------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Callaghan Siemens Information and Communication Networks Tel: +1.561.997.3756 Fax: +1.561.997.3403 Email: Robert.Callaghan(a)ICN.Siemens.com ------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: [Robustness] group formed
by Callaghan, Robert 01 Nov '99

01 Nov '99

Maureen, I am sorry that I did not get this information to you sooner. I just returned to the office from a second trip. TD-28 was accepted as the term of reference for the work. However Dale tried to say that the work should be completed by February in Geneva. I accepted this as a goal for the easy part; but some work may take longer. Dale then noted that this work should be added to the question for the next work period. Bob ------------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Callaghan Siemens Information and Communication Networks Tel: +1.561.997.3756 Fax: +1.561.997.3403 Email: Robert.Callaghan(a)ICN.Siemens.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ -----Original Message----- From: Maureen.Stillman(a)NOKIA.COM [mailto:Maureen.Stillman@NOKIA.COM] Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 6:07 PM To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: [Robustness] group formed A new group has formed to study the area of providing robustness mechanisms for H.323. This group has agreed to work on items together. Attached is TD-28 written in Red Bank which outlines terms of reference for work to be undertaken towards providing robustness mechanisms in H.323 and identifies a number of potential future work areas. The group decided to initially work on defining a set of terms for robustness via the mailing list. Please send contributions of relevant terms (and optionally their definitions). Please put [Robustness] in the subject line for those who want to filter e-mail. The group will schedule occasional conference calls open to any interested parties. Nokia will host the first conference call. Conference Call Agenda: A. terms submitted on the mailing list B. next steps for the group I propose Tuesday, November 16 as the first conference call to be held from 11-12 EST. Please send e-mail to me at: maureen.stillman(a)nokia.com if you wish to participate or if the time is not good, but you wish to participate. The TD-28 document is attached and the Web site is: ftp://standard.pictel.com/avc-site/9910_Red/TD-28.zip <<TD-28 robust.doc>> -- maureen Maureen Stillman Member of Scientific Staff Voice: (607)273-0724 x62 Nokia IP Telephony Fax: (607)275-3610 127 W. State Street Mobile: (607)227-2933 Ithaca, NY 14850 e-mail: maureen.stillman(a)nokia.com www.nokia.com

1 0

Re: H323mobility:meeting
by Edgar Martinez [1] 01 Nov '99

01 Nov '99

Hi Radhika, The Annex-h document was push back to 2001. The mobility H.323 additions is not allot of work. The mobility applications and concepts been around for long time. I would hope the following to re-use 100% of the IP network already defined in Standards. And borrowing and applying mobile applications already defined to H.323 . Which can coexist with other mobile "SERVICES" from IETF, GSM/GPRS and even 3GPP. All on the same IP network using one access protocol preferably the H.323 access protocols. Once we have a solid IP network infrastructure which includes other "SERVICES" like: reliable IP transport, QoS, charging/billing, security, IN interworking and naming and address translations. Adding mobility and Interworking services to H.323 seems like a drop in the bucket. Now do we need to defined everything, I argue that only the parts needed to be address are common to all mobile systems. In TIPHON document 7001 we provide a matrix of existing mobile Services on networks. Which compares the mobility aspects for terminal, user and service mobility. In the same token if one looks at H.323 interworking IN on IP, ISDN, ISUP and HTTP services, they're focus is on re-using common elements. And one access protocol H.323, why is mobility any different? Ed "Roy, Radhika R, ALARC" wrote: > Hi, Ed and All, > > I fully agree with you that we need to address both together to have an > end-to-end solution. In fact, this is also AT&T's goal because we want to > provide services on end-to-end basis consisting both cellular-PSTN/ISDN and > H.323 (IP). > > In fact, you have covered some functions: "HomeZone ID, VisitedZone ID, Home > Aera and Visited Area." That is, we are NOT considering any generalized > solution that excludes the fundamental concept of "Zone" and "Domain" of > H.323. > > The point is that we can consider more functions as much as we want, but we > still needs to work within the framework of H.323. > > When I say that we need to provide solution in the context of H.323, I mean > that we need to find solution in the framework of H.323 as much as we can > (that might include all abstractions of cellular-PSTN network, if possible, > in H.323 as well). It provides a systematic way to solve the problem > step-by-step. > > Once we complete this first step, we then apply this solution in the conext > of cellular-PSN/ISDN-H.323 (IP). We will able to test and examine how far we > have been able to satisfy the requirements in the first step. If we do not > satisfy all requirements, then we need to extend the functionalities of the > first step. > > Let us examine the case of location area (LA). As I mentioned in my earlier > email, LA can be considered in H.323 as a subset of zone without relating to > the LA of the cellular-PSTN network. In this situation, LA defined is H.323 > may not be useful to provide interoperability between cellular-PSTN and > H.323 (IP). Should we not abstract the LA in H.323 in such a way that also > provides interoperability in the context of both cellular-PSTN and H.323 > (IP)? Does not the two-step process provide better granularity to have the > complete solution? > > H.323 Annex H has two primary sections: H.323 Mobility and Interoperability > (H.323-Cellular-PSTN). > > When I say two-step process, I mean two-step working mode of Annex H. > However, we will standardize the H.323 Annex H after completing both H.323 > Mobility and Interoperability (H.323-Cellular-PSTN). > > Did we not agree that we may not be able to visualize all functions to start > with and we may have to come back to add more functions as we go more deep > into the solution? Kindly see AT&T contributions APC-1651/1652/164/1665 how > many MORE functions that we need to define even in H.323. Do I start arguing > right now why you are not including all function right away? > > I have not even written a contribution considering cellular-PSTN-H.323 (IP) > interworking yet. > > Hope this will clarify further. > > Best regards, > Radhika > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Edgar Martinez [1] [SMTP:martinze@CIG.MOT.COM] > > Sent: Monday, November 01, 1999 12:34 PM > > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > > Subject: Re: H323mobility:meeting > > Importance: High > > > > Dear Roy and Jaakko, > > > > The information in Annex-H Draft all came from both TD16 and > > TD42b. The HomeZone ID and VisitedZone ID are new concepts > > used for H.323 mobility which is related to the functions we > > all agreed was needed to provide mobility for the application point of > > view. > > The new definition should not clash with the meaning of ZONE or > > Domain in H.323. In any event, we need to defined the properties > > of the HomeZone ID, VisitedZone ID, Home Aera and Visited > > Area. In the context of H.323 mobility and Interworking with PSTN. > > > > --- > > New subject: > > > > >Our first goal is to define a mobility architecture in the context of > > H.323. > > >Our second goal is to interworking between the packet-based H.323 > > mobility > > >architecture and circuit-switched based cellular-PSN/ISDN mobility > > >architecture. > > > > Motorola is looking at a full end-to-end fixed, wireless > > and mobile full IP solution. Which includes interworking > > as a major basic requirement. > > > > We are not defining or designing a new IP system. Our > > job is simply to add to the existing IP infrastructure wireless access > > and the mobility applications. And support interworking with the legacy > > mobile systems. We and others are looking at providing the full package. > > > > If we do not address the full solution now, I feel we leave the door > > open for Hybrid systems, so-called network overlay or work arounds. > > > > I will oppose that Annex-H is complete. If we do not address the > > interworking > > sections (as proposed in the TOR) within the same timeframe that we are > > defining > > > > how to add the mobility functions to H.323. > > > > Regards, > > Ed > > > > "Roy, Radhika R, ALARC" wrote: > > > > > Hi, Ed, Jaakko, and All, > > > > > > In H.323, zone and domain are well defined. > > > > > > If we can solve mobility problems within the framework of H.323 as far > > as > > > practicable, we do not need to create new terminology in the context of > > > H.323 for now. Contributions (APC-1651/1652) have also been presented > > also > > > how H.323 mobility problems can be solved with the context of zones and > > > domains. > > > > > > I understand that location area (LA) is also used in the cellular > > wireless > > > network. > > > > > > If the new terminologis like location area (LA) are created for > > interworking > > > between cellular-PSTN and IP networking environments, we definitely need > > to > > > look into how "LA" is fitted in the context of zone or domain. However, > > zone > > > and domain are the fundamental concept of H.323 that always needs to be > > > related. > > > > > > Our first goal is to define a mobility architecture in the context of > > H.323. > > > Our second goal is to interworking between the packet-based H.323 > > mobility > > > architecture and circuit-switched based cellular-PSN/ISDN mobility > > > architecture. > > > > > > In H.323, a zone may consist of many networks (e.g., many IP > > subnetworks). > > > Do we need to create LAs within a zone? Will the LA be a good fit with > > that > > > of cellular network for interworking at this point of time because we > > have > > > not yet solved the basic problem in the context of H.323? > > > > > > I had some initial discussion with Jaako in the last Red Bank meeting, > > but > > > we could not complete our discussion. My personal view has been that we > > may > > > need something like LA to further optimize the mobility problem within a > > > zone. For example, paging may be one of the reasons. However, I have > > > realized that this LA concept may be more important in the context of > > H.323 > > > (IP) and cellular-PSTN interworking. So, my feeling has been that we may > > > need more functions similar to LA when interworking is concerned > > (Motorola's > > > contribution APC1646 is an example). The idea has been that we should > > > consider all those extensions in H.323 mobility architecture when we > > deal > > > with interworking (second phase). > > > > > > Definitely, LA concept has some merits and we need to discuss it. > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Radhika R. Roy > > > AT&T > > > + 1 732 420 1580 > > > rrroy(a)att.com > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: jaakko.sundquist(a)NOKIA.COM [SMTP:jaakko.sundquist@NOKIA.COM] > > > > Sent: Monday, November 01, 1999 7:23 AM > > > > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > > > > Subject: Re: H323mobility:meeting > > > > > > > > Hi Ed, > > > > > > > > I haven't read your draft yet, but I just want to make a short comment > > on > > > > the definitions that you proposed. > > > > You mention the concepts of HomeZone ID and VisitedZone ID. This > > implies > > > > already to a certain architecture, namely one where the "home area" > > and > > > > "visited area" of a User are defined to be identified with the > > accuracy of > > > > one zone. In my contribution to the Red Bank meeting (APC 1659) I > > proposed > > > > similar "home area" and "visited area" concepts based on > > Administrative > > > > Domains, which in my mind makes more sense as the Domains have so far > > in > > > > H.323 been the entities that are responsible for maintaining any > > > > information > > > > of their users. > > > > So I propose that we think about the architecture first before > > defining > > > > these terms. > > > > > > > > - Jaakko Sundquist > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit. > > > > Not a nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled with the ends of > > > > worms and an oozy smell, nor yet a dry, bare, > > > > sandy hole with nothing in it to sit down on or to eat: > > > > it was a hobbit-hole, and that means comfort. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: EXT Edgar Martinez [1] > > > > [mailto:martinze@cig.mot.com] > > > > Sent: Monday, November 01, 1999 3:33 AM > > > > To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com > > > > Subject: H323mobility:meeting > > > > > > > > Dear All, > > > > > > > > I have put together the first proposed draft and > > outline > > > > for > > > > H.323 Annex-H. You can pick-up a copy in: > > > > http://people.itu.int/~emartine/temp/ > > > > > > > > Editor's Special Note: The interworking referred in > > this > > > > annex is > > > > the interwork of legacy systems to H.323 systems. Not > > to > > > > be > > > > confused > > > > with interworking H.323 systems to circuit switched > > hybrid > > > > systems > > > > or circuit switched adjuncts. The work proposed > > therewith, > > > > does not > > > > impact > > > > the legacy systems or impose new requirements to the > > > > Legacy > > > > systems > > > > to support H.323 terminals or H.323 systems. > > > > > > > > Need to add more sections to the Annex-H to comply > > with > > > > TOR > > > > e.g., > > > > Interworking: > > > > > > > > Network interworking > > > > connections between H.323 systems and mobile networks > > > > (e.g., > > > > GSM, ANSI > > > > 41, ...) > > > > connections between mobile H.323 systems and PSTN or > > other > > > > networks. > > > > > > > > Terminal interworking > > > > Use of non-H.323 mobile terminals (e.g., GSM handset, > > > > H.324 > > > > terminal, > > > > H.320 terminal, etc.) to communicate with H.323 > > systems. > > > > > > > > Tandeming minimisation > > > > Non-transcoding of media streams > > > > > > > > Also, it would be nice if we can add to the > > > > the defiention section: > > > > > > > > Home Location Funtion (HFL) > > > > Vistor Location Funtion (VFL) > > > > Authentication user Funtion (AuF) > > > > HomeZone ID (HZid) > > > > VisitedZone ID (VZid) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Edgar Martinez - Principal Staff Engineer > > > > Email mailto:martinze@cig.mot.com > > > > FAX 1-847-632-3145 - - Voice 1-847-632-5278 > > > > 1501 West Shure Drive, Arlington Hgts. IL 60004 > > > > Public: TIPHON & Other Stds - > > > > http://people.itu.int/~emartine/ > > > > Private:TIPHON & Other Stds - > > > > http://www.cig.mot.com/~martinze/ > > > > -- > > Edgar Martinez - Principal Staff Engineer > > Email mailto:martinze@cig.mot.com > > FAX 1-847-632-3145 - - Voice 1-847-632-5278 > > 1501 West Shure Drive, Arlington Hgts. IL 60004 > > Public: TIPHON & Other Stds - http://people.itu.int/~emartine/ > > Private:TIPHON & Other Stds - http://www.cig.mot.com/~martinze/ -- Edgar Martinez - Principal Staff Engineer Email mailto:martinze@cig.mot.com FAX 1-847-632-3145 - - Voice 1-847-632-5278 1501 West Shure Drive, Arlington Hgts. IL 60004 Public: TIPHON & Other Stds - http://people.itu.int/~emartine/ Private:TIPHON & Other Stds - http://www.cig.mot.com/~martinze/

1 0

Re: H323mobility:meeting
by Roy, Radhika R, ALARC 01 Nov '99

01 Nov '99

Hi, Ed and All, I fully agree with you that we need to address both together to have an end-to-end solution. In fact, this is also AT&T's goal because we want to provide services on end-to-end basis consisting both cellular-PSTN/ISDN and H.323 (IP). In fact, you have covered some functions: "HomeZone ID, VisitedZone ID, Home Aera and Visited Area." That is, we are NOT considering any generalized solution that excludes the fundamental concept of "Zone" and "Domain" of H.323. The point is that we can consider more functions as much as we want, but we still needs to work within the framework of H.323. When I say that we need to provide solution in the context of H.323, I mean that we need to find solution in the framework of H.323 as much as we can (that might include all abstractions of cellular-PSTN network, if possible, in H.323 as well). It provides a systematic way to solve the problem step-by-step. Once we complete this first step, we then apply this solution in the conext of cellular-PSN/ISDN-H.323 (IP). We will able to test and examine how far we have been able to satisfy the requirements in the first step. If we do not satisfy all requirements, then we need to extend the functionalities of the first step. Let us examine the case of location area (LA). As I mentioned in my earlier email, LA can be considered in H.323 as a subset of zone without relating to the LA of the cellular-PSTN network. In this situation, LA defined is H.323 may not be useful to provide interoperability between cellular-PSTN and H.323 (IP). Should we not abstract the LA in H.323 in such a way that also provides interoperability in the context of both cellular-PSTN and H.323 (IP)? Does not the two-step process provide better granularity to have the complete solution? H.323 Annex H has two primary sections: H.323 Mobility and Interoperability (H.323-Cellular-PSTN). When I say two-step process, I mean two-step working mode of Annex H. However, we will standardize the H.323 Annex H after completing both H.323 Mobility and Interoperability (H.323-Cellular-PSTN). Did we not agree that we may not be able to visualize all functions to start with and we may have to come back to add more functions as we go more deep into the solution? Kindly see AT&T contributions APC-1651/1652/164/1665 how many MORE functions that we need to define even in H.323. Do I start arguing right now why you are not including all function right away? I have not even written a contribution considering cellular-PSTN-H.323 (IP) interworking yet. Hope this will clarify further. Best regards, Radhika > -----Original Message----- > From: Edgar Martinez [1] [SMTP:martinze@CIG.MOT.COM] > Sent: Monday, November 01, 1999 12:34 PM > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > Subject: Re: H323mobility:meeting > Importance: High > > Dear Roy and Jaakko, > > The information in Annex-H Draft all came from both TD16 and > TD42b. The HomeZone ID and VisitedZone ID are new concepts > used for H.323 mobility which is related to the functions we > all agreed was needed to provide mobility for the application point of > view. > The new definition should not clash with the meaning of ZONE or > Domain in H.323. In any event, we need to defined the properties > of the HomeZone ID, VisitedZone ID, Home Aera and Visited > Area. In the context of H.323 mobility and Interworking with PSTN. > > --- > New subject: > > >Our first goal is to define a mobility architecture in the context of > H.323. > >Our second goal is to interworking between the packet-based H.323 > mobility > >architecture and circuit-switched based cellular-PSN/ISDN mobility > >architecture. > > Motorola is looking at a full end-to-end fixed, wireless > and mobile full IP solution. Which includes interworking > as a major basic requirement. > > We are not defining or designing a new IP system. Our > job is simply to add to the existing IP infrastructure wireless access > and the mobility applications. And support interworking with the legacy > mobile systems. We and others are looking at providing the full package. > > If we do not address the full solution now, I feel we leave the door > open for Hybrid systems, so-called network overlay or work arounds. > > I will oppose that Annex-H is complete. If we do not address the > interworking > sections (as proposed in the TOR) within the same timeframe that we are > defining > > how to add the mobility functions to H.323. > > Regards, > Ed > > "Roy, Radhika R, ALARC" wrote: > > > Hi, Ed, Jaakko, and All, > > > > In H.323, zone and domain are well defined. > > > > If we can solve mobility problems within the framework of H.323 as far > as > > practicable, we do not need to create new terminology in the context of > > H.323 for now. Contributions (APC-1651/1652) have also been presented > also > > how H.323 mobility problems can be solved with the context of zones and > > domains. > > > > I understand that location area (LA) is also used in the cellular > wireless > > network. > > > > If the new terminologis like location area (LA) are created for > interworking > > between cellular-PSTN and IP networking environments, we definitely need > to > > look into how "LA" is fitted in the context of zone or domain. However, > zone > > and domain are the fundamental concept of H.323 that always needs to be > > related. > > > > Our first goal is to define a mobility architecture in the context of > H.323. > > Our second goal is to interworking between the packet-based H.323 > mobility > > architecture and circuit-switched based cellular-PSN/ISDN mobility > > architecture. > > > > In H.323, a zone may consist of many networks (e.g., many IP > subnetworks). > > Do we need to create LAs within a zone? Will the LA be a good fit with > that > > of cellular network for interworking at this point of time because we > have > > not yet solved the basic problem in the context of H.323? > > > > I had some initial discussion with Jaako in the last Red Bank meeting, > but > > we could not complete our discussion. My personal view has been that we > may > > need something like LA to further optimize the mobility problem within a > > zone. For example, paging may be one of the reasons. However, I have > > realized that this LA concept may be more important in the context of > H.323 > > (IP) and cellular-PSTN interworking. So, my feeling has been that we may > > need more functions similar to LA when interworking is concerned > (Motorola's > > contribution APC1646 is an example). The idea has been that we should > > consider all those extensions in H.323 mobility architecture when we > deal > > with interworking (second phase). > > > > Definitely, LA concept has some merits and we need to discuss it. > > > > Best regards, > > Radhika R. Roy > > AT&T > > + 1 732 420 1580 > > rrroy(a)att.com > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: jaakko.sundquist(a)NOKIA.COM [SMTP:jaakko.sundquist@NOKIA.COM] > > > Sent: Monday, November 01, 1999 7:23 AM > > > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > > > Subject: Re: H323mobility:meeting > > > > > > Hi Ed, > > > > > > I haven't read your draft yet, but I just want to make a short comment > on > > > the definitions that you proposed. > > > You mention the concepts of HomeZone ID and VisitedZone ID. This > implies > > > already to a certain architecture, namely one where the "home area" > and > > > "visited area" of a User are defined to be identified with the > accuracy of > > > one zone. In my contribution to the Red Bank meeting (APC 1659) I > proposed > > > similar "home area" and "visited area" concepts based on > Administrative > > > Domains, which in my mind makes more sense as the Domains have so far > in > > > H.323 been the entities that are responsible for maintaining any > > > information > > > of their users. > > > So I propose that we think about the architecture first before > defining > > > these terms. > > > > > > - Jaakko Sundquist > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit. > > > Not a nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled with the ends of > > > worms and an oozy smell, nor yet a dry, bare, > > > sandy hole with nothing in it to sit down on or to eat: > > > it was a hobbit-hole, and that means comfort. > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: EXT Edgar Martinez [1] > > > [mailto:martinze@cig.mot.com] > > > Sent: Monday, November 01, 1999 3:33 AM > > > To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com > > > Subject: H323mobility:meeting > > > > > > Dear All, > > > > > > I have put together the first proposed draft and > outline > > > for > > > H.323 Annex-H. You can pick-up a copy in: > > > http://people.itu.int/~emartine/temp/ > > > > > > Editor's Special Note: The interworking referred in > this > > > annex is > > > the interwork of legacy systems to H.323 systems. Not > to > > > be > > > confused > > > with interworking H.323 systems to circuit switched > hybrid > > > systems > > > or circuit switched adjuncts. The work proposed > therewith, > > > does not > > > impact > > > the legacy systems or impose new requirements to the > > > Legacy > > > systems > > > to support H.323 terminals or H.323 systems. > > > > > > Need to add more sections to the Annex-H to comply > with > > > TOR > > > e.g., > > > Interworking: > > > > > > Network interworking > > > connections between H.323 systems and mobile networks > > > (e.g., > > > GSM, ANSI > > > 41, ...) > > > connections between mobile H.323 systems and PSTN or > other > > > networks. > > > > > > Terminal interworking > > > Use of non-H.323 mobile terminals (e.g., GSM handset, > > > H.324 > > > terminal, > > > H.320 terminal, etc.) to communicate with H.323 > systems. > > > > > > Tandeming minimisation > > > Non-transcoding of media streams > > > > > > Also, it would be nice if we can add to the > > > the defiention section: > > > > > > Home Location Funtion (HFL) > > > Vistor Location Funtion (VFL) > > > Authentication user Funtion (AuF) > > > HomeZone ID (HZid) > > > VisitedZone ID (VZid) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Edgar Martinez - Principal Staff Engineer > > > Email mailto:martinze@cig.mot.com > > > FAX 1-847-632-3145 - - Voice 1-847-632-5278 > > > 1501 West Shure Drive, Arlington Hgts. IL 60004 > > > Public: TIPHON & Other Stds - > > > http://people.itu.int/~emartine/ > > > Private:TIPHON & Other Stds - > > > http://www.cig.mot.com/~martinze/ > > -- > Edgar Martinez - Principal Staff Engineer > Email mailto:martinze@cig.mot.com > FAX 1-847-632-3145 - - Voice 1-847-632-5278 > 1501 West Shure Drive, Arlington Hgts. IL 60004 > Public: TIPHON & Other Stds - http://people.itu.int/~emartine/ > Private:TIPHON & Other Stds - http://www.cig.mot.com/~martinze/

1 0

Re: H323 Robustness
by Edgar Martinez [1] 01 Nov '99

01 Nov '99

Dear All, I would think that Sigtran could be used to provide the GK "switch over" to a hot standby GK from the IP layer point of view. Ed "Roy, Radhika R, ALARC" wrote: > Hi, Gaurav and All: > > Further my earlier email, I am enclosing D.225. > > In the last Red Bank meeting report (APC-1748 Version 2, October 29, 1999), > it has been noted that D.225 from Chile is relevant in addition to other > documents. > > D.225 primarily focuses on reliable GK architectures because H.323 considers > that it is the most important entity whose robustness needs to be considered > first. The existing H.323 signaling scheme already provides a mechanism for > one or more alternative GKs to increase reliability. Of course, the > reliability of other H.323 entities should also be considered. > > The alternate gatekeeper that has been used in H.323 should be the starting > point for building the H.323 robustness model. > > What do we mean robustness? D.225 provides a definition considering > reliability, availability, serviceability, recoverability, scalability, > context, and security. > > What do we mean by failures? Failures have to be considered in the context > of H.323. Failure detection and handling should include all scenarios (e.g., > connection-oriented transport protocol [TCP], connectionless oriented > transport protocol [UDP], etc.) for signaling. Failures of media streams and > their recovery should also be addressed. > > The system scope can be as follows: 1. intra-zone, 2. inter-zone > (intra-domain), and 3. inter-domain. As shown in D.225, for case 1, an > alternate GK can be located in the same zone; for case 2, an alternate GK > can be located in the same zone of the primary GK or in a different zone > other than the zone of the primary GK; similarly, case 3 may also have > different options like case 2. The situation can be more complicated if > there is more than one alternate GK as envisioned in H.323. > > We will start with a simple scenario. > > We may well discover that we need a sort of inter-GK protocol. Can we look > into something that exists today similar to this problem? > > I find that routers are doing something very similar to this for the last > two decades. Failure detection and handling, database synchronization and > re-synchronization, and many more. Can we use many those for our inter-GK > protocol to take care-of H.323 robustness? > > However, there are dissimilarities as well. GK is an application layer > entity. If we can devise an intelligent scheme not to maintain all the > databases (e.g., databases consisting with H.323 call states) of all GKs > synchronized other than the respective primary and the alternate GK, we may > simplify some of the problems. Moreover, GK needs not to be involved with > the network level link states. Assuming that the GK will be able to abstract > the GK-level connectivity with the help of the network layer entities like > routers, we can simplify our problems further. > > This is the initial input for our upcoming discussion. > > As we go forward, we will learn more how to address the complex problem. > > Best regards, > Radhika R. Roy > AT&T > +1 732 420 1580 > rrroy(a)att.com > > <<D-225.doc>> > > -----Original Message----- > > From: gmakkar(a)hss.hns.com [SMTP:gmakkar@hss.hns.com] > > Sent: Monday, November 01, 1999 9:42 AM > > To: Roy, Radhika R, ALARC > > Subject: Re: H323mobility:meeting > > > > > > > > > > Radhika, > > Could you share the D.225 doc being referred to in this mail. TD-28 > > refers to this too. > > > > Thanks and Regards, > > Gaurav Makkar > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Name: D-225.doc > D-225.doc Type: Winword File (application/msword) > Encoding: base64 -- Edgar Martinez - Principal Staff Engineer Email mailto:martinze@cig.mot.com FAX 1-847-632-3145 - - Voice 1-847-632-5278 1501 West Shure Drive, Arlington Hgts. IL 60004 Public: TIPHON & Other Stds - http://people.itu.int/~emartine/ Private:TIPHON & Other Stds - http://www.cig.mot.com/~martinze/

1 0

H.323mobility:Interim Work
by Edgar Martinez [1] 01 Nov '99

01 Nov '99

Dear SG16 and TIPHON Mobility Advocates, I will like to include in the agenda some discussions in adding level-1 headings for the interworking sections, to annex-h and what functions are needed besides the UIM, based on the TOR. --- Interim Work:(ref. td65) "The H.323 Mobility Ad Hoc Working Group agreed on having a conference call on November 17, 1999 from 8:00 am to 10:00 am (Pacific Standard Time (PST)). Intel agreed to host the Conference Bridge for this H.323 Mobility Ad Hoc work on H.323 Mobility. Details of the call will be posted on the H.323 reflector shortly and all interested parties are invited. All companies participating in the conference call are requested to submit their input a week in advance on the H.323 reflector to ensure that call is productive. For the first call focus topics are Chapter 4 and Chapter 5 of the outline above and the completion of the outline." Best Regards, -- Edgar Martinez - Principal Staff Engineer Email mailto:martinze@cig.mot.com FAX 1-847-632-3145 - - Voice 1-847-632-5278 1501 West Shure Drive, Arlington Hgts. IL 60004 Public: TIPHON & Other Stds - http://people.itu.int/~emartine/ Private:TIPHON & Other Stds - http://www.cig.mot.com/~martinze/

1 0

Re: H323mobility:meeting
by Edgar Martinez [1] 01 Nov '99

01 Nov '99

Dear Roy and Jaakko, The information in Annex-H Draft all came from both TD16 and TD42b. The HomeZone ID and VisitedZone ID are new concepts used for H.323 mobility which is related to the functions we all agreed was needed to provide mobility for the application point of view. The new definition should not clash with the meaning of ZONE or Domain in H.323. In any event, we need to defined the properties of the HomeZone ID, VisitedZone ID, Home Aera and Visited Area. In the context of H.323 mobility and Interworking with PSTN. --- New subject: >Our first goal is to define a mobility architecture in the context of H.323. >Our second goal is to interworking between the packet-based H.323 mobility >architecture and circuit-switched based cellular-PSN/ISDN mobility >architecture. Motorola is looking at a full end-to-end fixed, wireless and mobile full IP solution. Which includes interworking as a major basic requirement. We are not defining or designing a new IP system. Our job is simply to add to the existing IP infrastructure wireless access and the mobility applications. And support interworking with the legacy mobile systems. We and others are looking at providing the full package. If we do not address the full solution now, I feel we leave the door open for Hybrid systems, so-called network overlay or work arounds. I will oppose that Annex-H is complete. If we do not address the interworking sections (as proposed in the TOR) within the same timeframe that we are defining how to add the mobility functions to H.323. Regards, Ed "Roy, Radhika R, ALARC" wrote: > Hi, Ed, Jaakko, and All, > > In H.323, zone and domain are well defined. > > If we can solve mobility problems within the framework of H.323 as far as > practicable, we do not need to create new terminology in the context of > H.323 for now. Contributions (APC-1651/1652) have also been presented also > how H.323 mobility problems can be solved with the context of zones and > domains. > > I understand that location area (LA) is also used in the cellular wireless > network. > > If the new terminologis like location area (LA) are created for interworking > between cellular-PSTN and IP networking environments, we definitely need to > look into how "LA" is fitted in the context of zone or domain. However, zone > and domain are the fundamental concept of H.323 that always needs to be > related. > > Our first goal is to define a mobility architecture in the context of H.323. > Our second goal is to interworking between the packet-based H.323 mobility > architecture and circuit-switched based cellular-PSN/ISDN mobility > architecture. > > In H.323, a zone may consist of many networks (e.g., many IP subnetworks). > Do we need to create LAs within a zone? Will the LA be a good fit with that > of cellular network for interworking at this point of time because we have > not yet solved the basic problem in the context of H.323? > > I had some initial discussion with Jaako in the last Red Bank meeting, but > we could not complete our discussion. My personal view has been that we may > need something like LA to further optimize the mobility problem within a > zone. For example, paging may be one of the reasons. However, I have > realized that this LA concept may be more important in the context of H.323 > (IP) and cellular-PSTN interworking. So, my feeling has been that we may > need more functions similar to LA when interworking is concerned (Motorola's > contribution APC1646 is an example). The idea has been that we should > consider all those extensions in H.323 mobility architecture when we deal > with interworking (second phase). > > Definitely, LA concept has some merits and we need to discuss it. > > Best regards, > Radhika R. Roy > AT&T > + 1 732 420 1580 > rrroy(a)att.com > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: jaakko.sundquist(a)NOKIA.COM [SMTP:jaakko.sundquist@NOKIA.COM] > > Sent: Monday, November 01, 1999 7:23 AM > > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > > Subject: Re: H323mobility:meeting > > > > Hi Ed, > > > > I haven't read your draft yet, but I just want to make a short comment on > > the definitions that you proposed. > > You mention the concepts of HomeZone ID and VisitedZone ID. This implies > > already to a certain architecture, namely one where the "home area" and > > "visited area" of a User are defined to be identified with the accuracy of > > one zone. In my contribution to the Red Bank meeting (APC 1659) I proposed > > similar "home area" and "visited area" concepts based on Administrative > > Domains, which in my mind makes more sense as the Domains have so far in > > H.323 been the entities that are responsible for maintaining any > > information > > of their users. > > So I propose that we think about the architecture first before defining > > these terms. > > > > - Jaakko Sundquist > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit. > > Not a nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled with the ends of > > worms and an oozy smell, nor yet a dry, bare, > > sandy hole with nothing in it to sit down on or to eat: > > it was a hobbit-hole, and that means comfort. > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: EXT Edgar Martinez [1] > > [mailto:martinze@cig.mot.com] > > Sent: Monday, November 01, 1999 3:33 AM > > To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com > > Subject: H323mobility:meeting > > > > Dear All, > > > > I have put together the first proposed draft and outline > > for > > H.323 Annex-H. You can pick-up a copy in: > > http://people.itu.int/~emartine/temp/ > > > > Editor's Special Note: The interworking referred in this > > annex is > > the interwork of legacy systems to H.323 systems. Not to > > be > > confused > > with interworking H.323 systems to circuit switched hybrid > > systems > > or circuit switched adjuncts. The work proposed therewith, > > does not > > impact > > the legacy systems or impose new requirements to the > > Legacy > > systems > > to support H.323 terminals or H.323 systems. > > > > Need to add more sections to the Annex-H to comply with > > TOR > > e.g., > > Interworking: > > > > Network interworking > > connections between H.323 systems and mobile networks > > (e.g., > > GSM, ANSI > > 41, ...) > > connections between mobile H.323 systems and PSTN or other > > networks. > > > > Terminal interworking > > Use of non-H.323 mobile terminals (e.g., GSM handset, > > H.324 > > terminal, > > H.320 terminal, etc.) to communicate with H.323 systems. > > > > Tandeming minimisation > > Non-transcoding of media streams > > > > Also, it would be nice if we can add to the > > the defiention section: > > > > Home Location Funtion (HFL) > > Vistor Location Funtion (VFL) > > Authentication user Funtion (AuF) > > HomeZone ID (HZid) > > VisitedZone ID (VZid) > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Edgar Martinez - Principal Staff Engineer > > Email mailto:martinze@cig.mot.com > > FAX 1-847-632-3145 - - Voice 1-847-632-5278 > > 1501 West Shure Drive, Arlington Hgts. IL 60004 > > Public: TIPHON & Other Stds - > > http://people.itu.int/~emartine/ > > Private:TIPHON & Other Stds - > > http://www.cig.mot.com/~martinze/ -- Edgar Martinez - Principal Staff Engineer Email mailto:martinze@cig.mot.com FAX 1-847-632-3145 - - Voice 1-847-632-5278 1501 West Shure Drive, Arlington Hgts. IL 60004 Public: TIPHON & Other Stds - http://people.itu.int/~emartine/ Private:TIPHON & Other Stds - http://www.cig.mot.com/~martinze/

1 0

Re: H323 Robustness
by Roy, Radhika R, ALARC 01 Nov '99

01 Nov '99

Hi, Gaurav and All: Further my earlier email, I am enclosing D.225. In the last Red Bank meeting report (APC-1748 Version 2, October 29, 1999), it has been noted that D.225 from Chile is relevant in addition to other documents. D.225 primarily focuses on reliable GK architectures because H.323 considers that it is the most important entity whose robustness needs to be considered first. The existing H.323 signaling scheme already provides a mechanism for one or more alternative GKs to increase reliability. Of course, the reliability of other H.323 entities should also be considered. The alternate gatekeeper that has been used in H.323 should be the starting point for building the H.323 robustness model. What do we mean robustness? D.225 provides a definition considering reliability, availability, serviceability, recoverability, scalability, context, and security. What do we mean by failures? Failures have to be considered in the context of H.323. Failure detection and handling should include all scenarios (e.g., connection-oriented transport protocol [TCP], connectionless oriented transport protocol [UDP], etc.) for signaling. Failures of media streams and their recovery should also be addressed. The system scope can be as follows: 1. intra-zone, 2. inter-zone (intra-domain), and 3. inter-domain. As shown in D.225, for case 1, an alternate GK can be located in the same zone; for case 2, an alternate GK can be located in the same zone of the primary GK or in a different zone other than the zone of the primary GK; similarly, case 3 may also have different options like case 2. The situation can be more complicated if there is more than one alternate GK as envisioned in H.323. We will start with a simple scenario. We may well discover that we need a sort of inter-GK protocol. Can we look into something that exists today similar to this problem? I find that routers are doing something very similar to this for the last two decades. Failure detection and handling, database synchronization and re-synchronization, and many more. Can we use many those for our inter-GK protocol to take care-of H.323 robustness? However, there are dissimilarities as well. GK is an application layer entity. If we can devise an intelligent scheme not to maintain all the databases (e.g., databases consisting with H.323 call states) of all GKs synchronized other than the respective primary and the alternate GK, we may simplify some of the problems. Moreover, GK needs not to be involved with the network level link states. Assuming that the GK will be able to abstract the GK-level connectivity with the help of the network layer entities like routers, we can simplify our problems further. This is the initial input for our upcoming discussion. As we go forward, we will learn more how to address the complex problem. Best regards, Radhika R. Roy AT&T +1 732 420 1580 rrroy(a)att.com <<D-225.doc>> > -----Original Message----- > From: gmakkar(a)hss.hns.com [SMTP:gmakkar@hss.hns.com] > Sent: Monday, November 01, 1999 9:42 AM > To: Roy, Radhika R, ALARC > Subject: Re: H323mobility:meeting > > > > > Radhika, > Could you share the D.225 doc being referred to in this mail. TD-28 > refers to this too. > > Thanks and Regards, > Gaurav Makkar >

1 0

LRJ reason, notRegistered
by Paul Long 01 Nov '99

01 Nov '99

Dale, Unless there is some objection, could you add the comment, "-- requesting entity not registered," to the notRegistered reject reason for LocationReject in H.225.0? There was some question as to which entity this referred. Paul Long Smith Micro Software, Inc.

1 0

Re: The meaning of the reception of a "new" capability set
by Ilya Freytsis 01 Nov '99

01 Nov '99

I believe every new capability set should be treated as a complete replacement for the previously received one. Otherwise conferencing servers (MCS) and Gateways will not be able exercise enough control over the media modes of the multipoint conferences and gateway sessions. Ilya Freytsis -----Original Message----- From: frank.derks(a)PHILIPS.COM [mailto:frank.derks@PHILIPS.COM] Sent: Monday, November 01, 1999 8:31 AM To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: The meaning of the reception of a "new" capability set Neither H.323 nor H.245 are too clear about what it means when an endpoint receives another set of capabilities after having already received one. In previous E-mail messages on this list, I have read that capability sets are cumulative, i.e. anything "new" received in a TCS message adds to the capabilities transmitted in a previous TCS message. I have, however, found nothing in the recommendations that backs this up. So what is the intended procedure? Does a newly received set of capabilities replace the previously received set? Do capabilities received in a TCS message add to the already received capabilities? How are capabilities removed? What constitutes an "empty capability set" etc. I would appreciate it if somebody could point me in the right direction. Regards, Frank

2 1