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@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@att.com
-----Original Message----- From: jaakko.sundquist@NOKIA.COM [SMTP:jaakko.sundquist@NOKIA.COM] Sent: Monday, November 01, 1999 7:23 AM To: ITU-SG16@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@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/