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
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 (2)
-
Chris Wayman Purvis -
Roy, Radhika R, ALARC