Hi, Laurent:
We would like to have the solution in H.323 layer that is independent of the lower layer in the context of Rec. H.323. It is not only for the radio layer (link), but also for the network and transport layer.
Let us examine that there are certain situations where the abstraction of mobility in the radio layer (link) has an impact on the H.323 layer due to mobility. The resources in the H.323 layer should be taken care-of accordingly in mobile environments. Most the radio link layer mobile interactions will be transparent to the H.323 layer while certain situations of the radio link layer will have an impact due to mobility. The paging of the LRQ message is an example.
With respect Motorola's contribution, we may have to discuss: To see whether the H.323 solution is independent of the radio link layer or not.
I would also refer to see AT&T's contributions submitted in the last Red Bank meeting (PACs-1651/1652/1664/1665). I would be please to answer any questions in connection to the proposed solution in the light of the above.
Best regards, Radhika R. Ro AT&T
-----Original Message----- From: Laurent.Thiebaut@alcatel.fr [SMTP:Laurent.Thiebaut@alcatel.fr] Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 1999 4:11 AM To: Edgar Martinez [1] Cc: H.323 Mobility; Roy, Radhika R, ALARC Subject: Re:Re: Comments on MTD-107a
Dear Mr Martinez and SG16 H323 mobile group The "message" of MTD-107 contribution is to decorrelate H323 mobility from radio mobility with the global aim to support the same H323 mobility for both fixed and radio terminals. That is why MTD-07 proposes: to suppress some radio mobile concepts from H323 mobility, taking into account that radio mobility tools/concepts such as paging, hand-over, location area, temporary radio mobile identity, .. are used by radio access networks in a way that is transparent to the H323 (mobile) layer. This does not mean that moves at radio level have no indirect impact on H323 mobility such as change of NPOA or change of Serving GK but these indirect impacts are decorrelated from the radio technology (GPRS, cdma2000, ...) to introduce the notion of double registration allowing to bring the independence between radio networks and H323 mobile network and hence independence between radio access technology (GPRS,, cdmaOne, ...) and H323 mobile network.
Note that the solution proposed in MTD-107 allows various operational situations such as a separation between the administrative domain of the (possibly radio) access and the administrative domain of H323 mobility. This separation is rendered easy by the decoralation of the (possibly radio) access functions and the H323 mobility functions.
On the other hand putting the GK in the SGSN or in any radio related function (as I understand is proposed in Motorola's MTD-305) does not bring the independence of H323 mobility from radio access (network and technology). Furthermore putting BTS or IP Radio Access Network in the scope of H323 mobility (as I understand is proposed in Motorola's MTD-305) implies very high ties between H323 mobile and radio technology.
Mr Martinez, may be I have mis-understood MTD-305, in which case I would please ask you to give further explanations. Best regards Laurent T.
V Laurent Thiebaut tel: +33 (0)1 3077 0645A L C A T E L e.mail:laurent.thiebaut@alcatel.fr
"Edgar Martinez [1]" martinze@cig.mot.com on 14/12/99 01:44:04
To: "H.323 Mobility" ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com
cc: "Roy, Radhika R, ALARC" rrroy@att.com, Laurent THIEBAUT/FR/ALCATEL@ALCATEL
Subject: Re: Comments on MTD-107a
Dear Radhika and Mr. Thiebaut,
In reference to Alcatel's MTD-107a (v.s.) Motorola's MTD-305c.
We (Motorola) would like to move 3GPP option 1 to a full IP solution within the H.323 mobility framework. Unlike MTD-107a, Motorola is working on one Universal IP solution that will support both fixed and mobile terminals and user and network services for voice, data and multi-media. Not just GPRS mobile data services.
Right now 3GPP R'00 option 1 has two networks a GPRS and an IP network, which are shown side by side. 3GPP option 2 adds a third dimension a circuit switch side. Where 3GPP option 2 is composed of different three networks, GPRS, IP and Circuit switched.
As matter of fact, UMTS R'99 has no IP, UMTS R'99 has the MSC and SSGN radio interfaces attached via an array of BSCs and RNCs and a mix of Iu-ps and Iu-cs connections. One can say that option 2 is just R'99 with
access to some H.323 IP elements like a gateway and gatekeeper and that's all we get. See MTD-107a, MTD-08, 3GPP's TR23.922 and TR23.002 to see for yourself.
The framework for MTD-305c is for the H.323 system to be able to interwork with the legacy network's both mobile and fixed systems, while also providing new technology and services to the IP network.
"Roy, Radhika R, ALARC" wrote:
Hi, Laurent:
Please see my reply provided below.
My view point is: Let us keep doors open for all probable solutions. Let people implement their solutions as they find optimal for their specific environments.
Best regards, Radhika R. Roy AT&T
-----Original Message----- From: Laurent.Thiebaut@alcatel.fr [SMTP:Laurent.Thiebaut@alcatel.fr] Sent: Monday, December 13, 1999 1:01 PM To: Roy, Radhika R, ALARC Cc: 'paul.k.reddy@intel.com'; 'vineet.kumar@intel.com'; 'jaakko.sundquist@nokia.com'; 'peeter.pruuden@nokia.com'; 'senthil.sengodan@nokia.com'; 'marc.roelands@siemens.atea.be'; 'martinze@cig.mot.com'; 'lpg019@email.mot.com'; 'orsic@lucent.com'; 'stephen.terrill@ericsson.com'; 'gosta.linder@lme.ericsson.se'; 'Anders.Svennevik@era.ericsson.se'; 'mike@synacom.com';
'stu@synacom.com';
'paul.jones@ties.itu.int'; 'baronson@acm.org'; Ameneh.Zahir-Emami@alcatel.fr; Nicolas.Tran@alcatel.fr Subject: RE: Comments on MTD-107a
Hi Radhika, I do not understand what you mean by "take care-of some special
needs
in mobile environment" as a need for Temporary IDs. My understanding
is
that H.323 alias ("E.164, email, URL,and others" as you mention) are
not
modified when the user moves because it is these aliases that allow to reach the user even when the
user
moves (and its NPOA changes). Could you please clarify what you mean?
[Roy, Radhika R] What I envision that "Temporary ID" can alsobe
another " H.323 alias" considering the mobile environment. So, it is an extension of the present H.323 alias addresses.
for paging: my understanding is that through a RRQ, the mobile
gives
the association between its alias(es) and its NPOA (IP) address to its Serving GK that stores the association in internal tables. When there
is
a mobile terminated call, thanks to HLF-VLF interactions (as described in Nokia's MTD104), the Serving
GK @
is determined. Then the set-up message is sent to the Serving GK.
Using
the internal table populated at RRQ, the Serving GK sends the set-up message to the called mobile with the right NPOA (IP) address. This packet is received by the Access
Network
that may have to page the mobile, but this paging is transparent to
H323.
Could you please explain me what you see as wrong in the scenario I
have
given.
[Roy, Radhika R] This may be another alternative solution asyou
have mentioned. At present, LRQ messages are sent between the GKs for address resolution. Extending the same scenarios, paging of LRQs in
mobile
environment may be needed.
Best regards Laurent T.
V Laurent Thiebaut tel: +33 (0)1 3077 0645A L C A T E L e.mail:laurent.thiebaut@alcatel.fr
"Roy, Radhika R, ALARC" rrroy@att.com on 08/12/99 19:12:32
To: Laurent THIEBAUT/FR/ALCATEL@ALCATEL
cc: "'paul.k.reddy@intel.com'" paul.k.reddy@intel.com, "'vineet.kumar@intel.com'" vineet.kumar@intel.com, "'jaakko.sundquist@nokia.com'" jaakko.sundquist@nokia.com, "'peeter.pruuden@nokia.com'" peeter.pruuden@nokia.com, "'senthil.sengodan@nokia.com'" senthil.sengodan@nokia.com, "'marc.roelands@siemens.atea.be'" marc.roelands@siemens.atea.be, "'martinze@cig.mot.com'" martinze@cig.mot.com, "'lpg019@email.mot.com'" lpg019@email.mot.com, "'orsic@lucent.com'" orsic@lucent.com, "'stephen.terrill@ericsson.com'" stephen.terrill@ericsson.com, "'gosta.linder@lme.ericsson.se'" gosta.linder@lme.ericsson.se, "'Anders.Svennevik@era.ericsson.se'" Anders.Svennevik@era.ericsson.se, "'mike@synacom.com'" mike@synacom.com, "'stu@synacom.com'" stu@synacom.com, "'paul.jones@ties.itu.int'" paul.jones@ties.itu.int, "'baronson@acm.org'" baronson@acm.org, Ameneh ZAHIR-EMAMI/FR/ALCATEL@ALCATEL
Subject: RE: Comments on MTD-107a
Hi, Laurent:
Paging: A simple answer will be to locate the mobile user for
resolving
the address needed in the LRQ message.
Temporary ID: H.323 aliases are open enough to include E.164, email,
URL,
and others. In the same token, if mobile users also need to introduce other IDs similar such as Temporary IDs, Personal IDs, etc. to , we should
be
open to those suggestions.
Best regards, Radhika R. Roy AT&T
-----Original Message----- From: Laurent.Thiebaut@alcatel.fr
[SMTP:Laurent.Thiebaut@alcatel.fr]
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 11:09 AM To: Roy, Radhika R, ALARC Cc: Roy, Radhika R, ALARC; 'paul.k.reddy@intel.com'; 'vineet.kumar@intel.com'; 'jaakko.sundquist@nokia.com'; 'peeter.pruuden@nokia.com'; 'senthil.sengodan@nokia.com'; 'marc.roelands@siemens.atea.be'; 'martinze@cig.mot.com'; 'lpg019@email.mot.com'; 'orsic@lucent.com'; 'stephen.terrill@ericsson.com'; 'gosta.linder@lme.ericsson.se'; 'Anders.Svennevik@era.ericsson.se'; 'mike@synacom.com';
'stu@synacom.com';
'paul.jones@ties.itu.int'; 'baronson@acm.org'; Ameneh.Zahir-Emami@alcatel.fr Subject: Re: Comments on MTD-107a
Hi, Everyone, this is just to answer to Roy's remark Hi Radhika, I agree with you when you say that "the lower layer mobility may
cause
an impact on the higher layer (e.g., H.323) as well. If it is so, the proper abstraction in the higher layer (e.g., H.323) should be there to take care of
this
situation." That's just the reason why we have deleted the notion of
?Location
Area
Identity (set of Network of Attachments associated)? and ?Temporary Identity?. but added the notions of "change of NPOA or of H323
Point of
Attachment may need to be dealt with within H323 scope". I'd better see alias @" in the list of concepts used by H323
mobility
instead of "Temporary Id" that looks (for me with too much of a
mobile
culture I admit) like the temporary Identifier allocated on radio to
hide
the permanent user identity Could you explain the need of paging Best regards L. Thiebaut
Hi, Everyone:
We are in receipt of the contribution from Alcatel (MTD-107a:
Contact -
Laurent Thiebaut). For the interest of time, I take the liberty to
offer
my comments.
I fully agree with the proposal of Laurent that H.323 Mobility
should
focus only on the H.323 mobility layer. In fact, the terms of reference of
the
H.323 mobility group has also confirmed this. However, some specific
texts
that Laurent have proposed may create some confusions. Let me
expalin as
follows :
If the lower layer mobility (e.g., radio link or network layer) is transparent to the H.323 layer, nothing needs to done in the H.323 application layer. However, the lower layer mobility may cause an
impact
on the higher layer (e.g., H.323) as well. If it is so, the proper abstraction in the higher layer (e.g., H.323) should be there to take care of
this
situation.
For example, switching of cells (e.g., cellular IP) may not cause
any
impact in the H.323 layer. In this situation, this mobility is transparent
to
the
H.323 layer. In some situation, the swiching of cells may also cause
an
impact on the H.323 layer (e.g., H.323 point of attachment). In this
case,
resources of the H.323 layer should also be taken care-of
accordingly.
Temporary IDs may also be needed in the H.323 layer. Contributions
are
provided why these IDs are needed in the H.323 layer. These are the
alias
addresses and can have an astraction in the H.323 layer. That does
NOT
mean in anyway that the solution of the H.323 is becoming specific to the
radio
link layer.
Similarly, LRQ message sets have the addresses that have been
abstracted
in the H.323 layer. Contributions have been provided why the paging of
the
LRQ message is needed in the H.323 layer.
(However, I agree with him that location area may NOT be needed in
H.323
because the concepts of H.323 zones/domains will be sufficient. In
same
token, we also do not need the concept of cells in H.323.)
I find that texts proposed in the contribution are too restrictive.
Finally, I propose that Laurent should keep an eye to the H.323
solution
that will be agreed upon should be transparent to the lower layer
(e.g.,
radio link or network layer) as we make more progress in this area.
Best regards, Radhika R. Roy 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/