I agree with Ed´s conclution/Gösta
-----Original Message----- From: Roy, Radhika R, ALARC [mailto:rrroy@ATT.COM] Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 1999 2:49 PM To: ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: Re: H.323 Annex I
Hi, Ed and All:
Ed has provided a very valuable comment. In fact, it has been one of the main purposes of my email. The important part of his comment is that all works have to be related to H.323 mobility solution. Any work that does not related to H.323 mobility should not be undertaken.
In this respect, Annex H is becoming the fundamental basis of all works because it provides the solution for the H.323 mobility.
In fact, the dust will be clear as soon as we finish Annex H. Once the fundamental H.323 mobility work is finalized, other annexes can use this work for implementation to the lower layers (i.e., layers 3 and 2) and in specific interworking environments.
I personally agree with Ed.
I like to see the comments of other members.
Best regards, Radhika
-----Original Message----- From: Edgar Martinez [1] [SMTP:martinze@CIG.MOT.COM] Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 1999 9:37 PM To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: H.323 Annex I Importance: High
Dear All,
I concur, with most of the attached email.
And I have just a couple of comments. Until we resolve the pure case of H.323 mobility and Interworking with PLMN in the application layer. H.246 Annex I and Annex E will be delayed, I believe that Annex I and Annex E are depended on H.323 Annex-H. Because, the required parameters and network functions for the H.323 pure mobility and Interworking case needs to be defined in H.323 Annex-H. And expanded in H.246 Annex-I and Annex-E.
If we do not get the H.323 mobility and interworking parameters and functions defined, H.246 annex-i and annex-e will be working in the dark.
Because of the H.323 framework that we have to use (already defined e.g., GK, GW, Terminals etc.) and the already defined mobile networks (e.g., GSM, ANSI-41, GPRS) we need to work top-down (not) buttom-up. Lets focus on H.323 Annex-H to make sure that it has the network elements that can be re-used in H.246 Annex-I and Annex-E.
Ed
"Roy, Radhika R, ALARC" wrote:
Hi, Everyone:
We have now three annexes related to mobility:
H.323 Annex H: User, Service, and Terminal Mobility in H.323H.323 Annex I: Packet-based Multimedia Telephony over ErrorProne
Channel
H.246 Annex E: Interworking between Existing H.323 Systems andExisting Mobile Networks
Per my earlier email, I promised that I would be providing some notes related to Annex I: Packet-based Multimedia Telephony over Error Prone Channel.
Every Annex in H.323 has some direct relationship to the H.323
application
layer. Even the informational Appendix II - "Transport Level Resource Reservation Procedures" - shows how the RSVP messages are being used in
the
context of H.323 signaling messages.
The way Annex I has been structured shows that it will provide
information
related to bit rate, bit error rate, delay, jitter, and IP issues
related to
radio networks (e.g., mobile IP [home/care-of IP, home/foreign IP
network]).
I understand that additional error correction and concealment techniques that may help specifically H.323 are the main purpose of this annex. My guess is that these proposed concealment techniques will be used
somewhere
below the H.323 layer. If it is so, is not the case that H.323 does not
need
to be aware of these lower layer techniques?
Now the question is: Can this work of Annex I be directly related to the H.323 application layer signaling messages?
If the answer is yes, the next question is: Is this present structure of Annex I good enough to satisfy our objectives?
If the answer is no, will it be very helpful in H.323 even as
informational
annex?
However, I see that there is an additional scope related to this work of Annex I to the H.323 layer signaling messages. IP related issues can be
the
major topic that will really be very useful to relate the network layer signaling schemes in mobile environment (e.g., mobile IP) to those of
the
H.323 mobility.
In this context, I see that there are some works that have been
performed
related to the IP networking in mobile environment. It appears that
mobile
IP has some problems: 1. If the mobile host moves very frequently and 2. Inefficiency for keeping too many reserved IP addresses in the pool by
the
foreign agent for allocation to mobile hosts.
To work around those problems, there has been enhancement of mobile IP (e.g., cellular IP) complementing the mobile IP solution.
The important point is that they have been using the concept of cells,
cell
IDs, and network IDs packet-switched based IP mobile networking
environment.
A cell can be pico-, micro-, and macro-cell depending on the radio range which is a function of power. Cells are usually inter-connected by the
LAN
in the case of IP networking.
(By the way, none has used the concept of so-called location area [LA] concept in the IP networking either in the mobile IP or in the cellular
IP.
I am curious to know why these prototype products and network
architectures
do not contain the concept of LA? Can anyone provide more insights about this? Personally, I would love to relate the LAs with cells. Indirectly,
it
may also help to inter-work with that of the circuit-switched based cellular-PSTN network.)
The important point is that we can start with the existing standard of IETF's mobile IP/cellular IP. We can see that switching a cell during communications does not always mean changes in IP addresses. That is,
this
handover (at layer 2) may be transparent to the IP network layer (layer
3).
No resources in the IP layer will be affected. If the switching in cells causes the change in the IP address during communications, the handoff
will
cause the resource allocation and de-allocation in the IP layer during
and
after handoffs.
Extending the same analogy, we can assume that switching of the cell may
or
may not cause any change in the H.323 application layer. If it affects
the
H.323 layer, the resources in the H.323 layer have to be allocated and de-allocated in the H.323 layer during and after the handoff.
The other important concept is that the cell IDs can also be related to H.323 zone IDs and so on.
It appears that the mobility solution can be related to the link layer (layer 2) to the network layer (IP layer) mobility and the H.323
application
layer and vice versa. As a test case, people may also try to see how the application layer H.323 mobility solution (e.g., APC-1651, APC-1646) can
be
implemented to the network/link layer mobile/cellular IP solution
In this way, I see a wonderful ray of light how the work of Annex I can
be
related to that of Annex H.
Last of all, I would request the editor to expand the scope Annex I. If needed, I may also propose to include this item in the upcoming/future conference call.
In the same token, I may also provide some comments related to H.246
Annex E
in the future.
I would request all SG16 members to look into this proposal and help us
with
their comments.
Best regards, Radhika R. Roy H.323 Ad Hoc Mobility Group AT&T +1 732 420 1580 rrroy@att.com
-- 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/