Re: H323 mobility: Summary of discussion
Hi, Barry and All: I am trying to understand what actually Barry's statement means: "I was to make H.323 work within the context of a mobile terminal and/or user, and also allow for service mobility." Is not the case both AT&T and Nokia's proposal are considering? Both proposals consider mobility in the context of H.323 mobility. The problems that need to be solved for the call scenarios as follows: 1. H.323 mobile terminal to H.323 mobile Terminal and vice versa 2. H.323 mobile terminal to H.323 fixed terminal and vice versa For interworking between H.323 (IP) network and cellular-PSTN/ISDN (APMS, ANSI-41, GSM): 3. Non-H.323 mobile terminal (cellular-PSTN/ISDN) to mobile H.323 (IP) terminal and vice versa 4.Non-H.323 mobile terminal (cellular-PSTN/ISDN) to fixed H.323 (IP) terminal and vice versa Both Nokia and AT&T proposals are addressing this problem. There is no disagreement. AT&T's proposal has provided a solution. Nokia's proposal is still in the conceptual phase. When Nokia's proposal provides a solution, it will be compared with the AT&T solution. Motorola's proposal is also along this line of the above four items. All we need to do is to compare solutions. For Motorola and AT&T, it is easy to do. In fact, I have a proposal to Ed. We can do this very easily. I am sure if all of you agree, we find a common solution through comparing these two solutions. Now we are waiting to see Nokia's complete solution. If Nokia's complete solution is presented, we also compare 3 solutions, and we can find a common solution. If other companies provide complete solutions, we can also compare all solutions together.
From my point of view, a complete process is under way.
What is the problem then? All we need to see the proposals with complete solutions (not philosophical or conceptual statements). Please also see my reply to Tom Taylor. Hope that you can also bring proposals with solutions. Please do not worry about scope too much. Please see how Intel's proposal has created another appendix in mobility. If you think that you have some ideas with solutions like Intel, please provide to us. We will provide full attention to it. Hope that this email will clarify your concern too. Best regards, Radhika R. Roy AT&T
-----Original Message----- From: Barry Aronson [SMTP:baronson@ieee.org] Sent: Friday, November 05, 1999 4:15 PM To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: H323 mobility: Summary of discussion
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. 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?
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 don't think any of what is being discussed for Annex H is necessary to achieve this.
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.
participants (1)
-
Roy, Radhika R, ALARC