Hi, Chris:
We have an H.323 Ad Hoc Mobility Group to perform this work. We have been discussing this for almost a year why we need H.323 mobility. All wire-line and wireless vendors and many service providers are also a part of it. All of them brought contributions to extend the H.323 protocol for mobility.
I am very much surprised to see your comments. I guess that all people who are working to address this issue will also feel the same.
I do not want to confuse anyone by making a simple statement that will make you feel why we need extensions in H.323 for mobility. So many papers have been published by many researchers across the world for extension of H.323 for mobility. One of the excellent papers had been published in INFOCOM'99 referred in AT&T's contribution as well. I would suggest to kindly read this paper first before making any comments like "misconception" or others, etc. May be I have not been able to understand your points. I'd would also suggest to attend the discussion of the Ad Hoc mobility conf. calls.
Finally, I'd only suggest to examine how a GK will account the resources when an H.323 mobile moves from one place to another. The resources of one place have to be de-allocated in one place, while the resources in another place are to be allocated. When people think about resources, these resources are in terms of the H.323 layer. It does not matter how you think about the zone whether it is linked to physical locations, IP domain, or something else.
May be you might have a better solution to deal the mobility. May we suggest to bring contributions to solve the H.323 mobility problems that you might think to be appropriate.
Best regards, Radhika
-----Original Message----- From: Chris Wayman Purvis [SMTP:cwp@isdn-comms.co.uk] Sent: Friday, December 24, 1999 8:27 AM To: Roy, Radhika R, ALARC; Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study Group 16 Subject: Re: H.323 Annex I
Radhika, All,
I've finally managed to read that contribution, and it seems to me that the requirement for a mobile H.323 protocol arises entirely out of the misconception that gatekeeper zones are necessarily linked to physical locations or IP domains. Remove that assumption and I am still completely baffled as to why any protocol above the network layer is required.
I will look at the MTD contributions when I find time (which is depressingly short for this sort of activity at the moment), but would be glad of anybody's simple explanation of why H.323 mobility is required without the above assumptions on gatekeeper zones.
Regards, Chris
"Roy, Radhika R, ALARC" wrote:
Hi, Chris:
I guess that you have missed all discussions and contributions related
H.323
mobility (SG16 meeting in May'99, Berlin Aug'99, and Red Bank NJ
Oct'99).
H.323 is in application layer.
IP/IPX is in the network layer.
Radio/ATM is in the link layer.
Mobility may have an impact in all layers. If the link layer mobility is transparent to the network layer, nothing should be done in the network layer. Similar is the case for others.
When the mobility has an impact in the H.323 layer resources, we need to take into account in the H.323 layer.
How does the H.323 mobility work?
Please see AT&T contributions - APC-1651 provided in the Red Bank
meeting.
The 70-page contribution has proposed a complete solution for H.323 mobility. There are contributions as well.
Hope this will clarify your questions.
Best regards, Radhika
-----Original Message----- From: Chris Wayman Purvis [SMTP:cwp@ISDN-COMMS.CO.UK] Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 1999 4:31 AM To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: H.323 Annex I
All,
Might I be permitted to attempt to summarise Mr Roy's mail while
asking my
own question (my apologies to Mr Roy if I've misunderstood his point!)? I'm not an expert on Mobile IP. However, I don't understand why there
is
anything at all involved in H.323 mobility beyond making the statement
"In
IP networks, mobility issues are handled by using Mobile IP", and
expecting
users of other transports (IPX, native ATM etc) to make their own
arrangements.
So, the question: Why is the effort on mobility required? Obviously if this question is answered in contributions that I've
missed,
I'll be happy with a reference rather than a full explanation on the list!
Regards, Chris -- Dr Chris Purvis -- Development Manager ISDN Communications Ltd, The Stable Block, Ronans, Chavey Down Road Winkfield Row, Berkshire. RG42 6LY ENGLAND Phone: +44 1344 899 007 Fax: +44 1344 899 001
-- Dr Chris Purvis -- Development Manager ISDN Communications Ltd, The Stable Block, Ronans, Chavey Down Road Winkfield Row, Berkshire. RG42 6LY ENGLAND Phone: +44 1344 899 007 Fax: +44 1344 899 001
participants (1)
-
Roy, Radhika R, ALARC