H323 mobility: Summary of discussion
baronson at ieee.org
Fri Nov 5 16:14:48 EST 1999
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.
From: Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study Group 16
[mailto:ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM]On Behalf Of Tom-PT Taylor
Sent: Friday, November 05, 1999 11:17 AM
To: ITU-SG16 at 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.
More information about the sg16-avd