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 also beanother " 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 as youhave 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/
participants (1)
-
Edgar Martinez [1]