Re: H323 mobility: Summary of discussion
Comments: follow-- Barry Aronson wrote:
All,
I agree with Tom. We seem to be headed for designing an entire mobile network within H.323 -- definitely a case of the tail wagging the dog. If this was the desire, extending existing mobile networks (AMPS, GSM, etc.) to include H.323 terminals would be simpler.
This is called the WAP solution, already done but it is still two separate networks (MSC-CS and PDN) routed/ split out by a DSU from the BSC. And it does not address the fixed Internet PC or any PSTN/ISDN interworking.
That is, of course, unless you wanted the terminals to be independent of the physical network from the network layer on up. H.323 could do this if there was an underlying packet based network -- probably IP. Using IP as a common network layer for both wireless and wired terminals is of course all the rage these days. Given that universal wireless terminals are been worked as part of IMT-2000 (and 3GPP, 3GPP-2, etc.), wouldn't it make sense to define the Annex H issues being debated in the appropriate network groups?
We are looking at the H.323 mobility at the appilation layer within the approriate woking groups.
Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought in Santiago the purpose of Annex H and I was to make H.323 work within the context of a mobile terminal and/or user, and also allow for service mobility.
I feel a mobile IP debate is in the starts here but, We are looking at the H.323 mobility at the appilation layer within the approriate woking group. What the IETF needs to address is how mobile IP interworks with Mobility whether is H.323, GSM, PLNM or otherwise..
I don't think any of what is being discussed for Annex H is necessary to achieve this.
What being discussed here is, we are looking at the H.323 mobility from the appilation layer.
Barry
-----Original Message----- From: Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study Group 16 [mailto:ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM]On Behalf Of Tom-PT Taylor Sent: Friday, November 05, 1999 11:17 AM To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: H323 mobility: Summary of discussion
I think a basic point in this discussion is that mobility is "bigger than" H.323 and already has well-established architectural underpinnings. It's all very well to talk about an H.323 solution which we could then adapt, but we would more likely end up with an H.323-only solution as a result. The concern then would be whether vendors saw sufficient opportunity in building to this market, compared with the general market for mobility products.
-- 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/
Hi, all, Barry Aronson's comment seems to make a lot of sense to me. I am new to the H.323 group, but I've been reading the email correspondences here for quite a while. May I ask a few dumb questions, and please correct me and elighten me if I am wrong? Question: Consider the wireless case, isn't that H.323M is going to be used over some wireless network (e.g. 3G IMT2000 network)? If such network is already built to ensure that your data gets transmitted to you no matter you walk or drive from one zone to the other, why can't our H.323M terminal just sit at the handset and wait for our data get routed to us by the network? Or, why do we need to duplicate these functions that are already provided, and should be provided by the network layer? Maybe, all we have to do is to make sure we know the data is from the same entity when it changes its attaching point, since each H.323 entity is identified by the LAN address (H.323 7.1.1). A simple extension of assigning a temporary ID number to each entity or to each conference can solve that. Please enlighten if there is any special compelling reason that I might have overlooked for duplicating an entire mobile network functionality within H.323. Thanks in advance. Adam Li Edgar Martinez [1] writes:
Comments: follow--
Barry Aronson wrote:
All,
I agree with Tom. We seem to be headed for designing an entire mobile network within H.323 -- definitely a case of the tail wagging the dog. If this was the desire, extending existing mobile networks (AMPS, GSM, etc.) to include H.323 terminals would be simpler.
This is called the WAP solution, already done but it is still two separate networks (MSC-CS and PDN) routed/ split out by a DSU from the BSC. And it does not address the fixed Internet PC or any PSTN/ISDN interworking.
That is, of course, unless you wanted the terminals to be independent of the physical network from the network layer on up. H.323 could do this if there was an underlying packet based network -- probably IP. Using IP as a common network layer for both wireless and wired terminals is of course all the rage these days. Given that universal wireless terminals are been worked as part of IMT-2000 (and 3GPP, 3GPP-2, etc.), wouldn't it make sense to define the Annex H issues being debated in the appropriate network groups?
We are looking at the H.323 mobility at the appilation layer within the approriate woking groups.
Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought in Santiago the purpose of Annex H and I was to make H.323 work within the context of a mobile terminal and/or user, and also allow for service mobility.
I feel a mobile IP debate is in the starts here but, We are looking at the H.323 mobility at the appilation layer within the approriate woking group.
What the IETF needs to address is how mobile IP interworks with Mobility whether is H.323, GSM, PLNM or otherwise..
I don't think any of what is being discussed for Annex H is necessary to achieve this.
What being discussed here is, we are looking at the H.323 mobility from the appilation layer.
Barry
-----Original Message----- From: Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study Group 16 [mailto:ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM]On Behalf Of Tom-PT Taylor Sent: Friday, November 05, 1999 11:17 AM To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: H323 mobility: Summary of discussion
I think a basic point in this discussion is that mobility is "bigger than" H.323 and already has well-established architectural underpinnings. It's all very well to talk about an H.323 solution which we could then adapt, but we would more likely end up with an H.323-only solution as a result. The concern then would be whether vendors saw sufficient opportunity in building to this market, compared with the general market for mobility products.
-- 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/
-- Adam H. Li Image Process Lab University of California - Los Angeles (Phone) 310-825-5178 (Fax) 310-825-7928
participants (2)
-
Adam Li -
Edgar Martinez [1]