White paper on MGCP vs MEGACO

vbajaj at HSS.HNS.COM vbajaj at HSS.HNS.COM
Tue Nov 2 00:28:11 EST 1999


Hi Radhika,

I am glad to see that we all agreed mobility on H.323 is not
rocket science.

On the call scenarios I did not see any conflicts with
h.225 call control. Once the mobility/location issue is resolve, that is once
the application knows where to route the calls. In other words, when the RAS
procedures and  the location updates are done, we know where to route the call,
using basic h.225 call control. And it was covered in Motorola's APC 1646. By
the way,
I like to include the Call scenarios you identified in the H.323 annex-H
document.
To test out "OUR" H.323 combined contributions for the architecture.

Also see last comments below.

"Roy, Radhika R, ALARC" wrote:

> Hi, Ed:
>
> I guess that we talking about the same thing.
>
> Who told that mobility functions are different in H.323 (IP) or other
> networks? The basic functionality is the same from end users' point of view.
>
> In H.323, the H.323 (e.g., H.225.0, Q.931/932) signaling messages are used.
> The cellular-PSTN networks use their signaling messages. The call scenarios
> can be as follows:
>
> 1. Mobile H.323 Terminal to Mobile H.323 Terminal
> 2. Mobile H.323 Terminal to Fixed H.323 Terminal and vice versa
> 3. Cellular-PSTN Terminal to Mobile H.323 Terminal (3a) and vice versa (3b)
> 4. Cellular-PSTN Terminal to Fixed H.323 terminal (4a) and vice versa (4b)
>
> For cases 1 and 2, mobility solutions can be provided using the H.323
> mobility only (pl. see AT&T's and Nokia's contributions that deal in terms
> of H.323 only).
>
> For scenarios 3 and 4, the question of interworking between H.323 (IP) and
> cellular-PSTN comes.
>
> Because of H.323, we have certain constraints imposed by its architecture.
> For example, H.323 mobility solution may look as follows:
>
> *       H.323 mobility is applicable for both wireless and wire-line
> mobility.
> *       H.323 mobility is addressed in the application layer and can be
> implemented to any packet-switched networks (e.g., IP, etc.).
> *       H.323 mobility management is done using the RAS (extended to
> incorporate mobility) signaling scheme. RAS is usually used for the pre-call
> control signaling and, is completely separated from the call control
> (Q.931/932) signaling. However, in H.323, it is mandatory that RAS signal
> has to go through the gatekeeper (GK). RAS signaling can be used anytime
> independent of the call control scheme. In this respect, H.323 mobility can
> be managed anytime (before the call, during the call, and/or after the call)
> as it is necessary.
> *       In H.323, Q.931/932 is used for the call control. H.245 is used
> primarily to control media (audio, video, and/or data) within a call.
> *       The wireless or wire-line network layer (e.g., IP) can use any
> scheme as appropriate for implementation of the application layer H.323
> mobility.
>
> (How will a complete end-to-end solution look like that satisfy scenarios 1,
> 2, 3, and 4? As an HYPOTHETICAL end-to-end solution, I would request combine
> the solution provided in AT&T's contribution [APC-1651] in H.323 domain and
> Motorola's contribution [APC-1646] in cellular/PSTN-H.323 excluding some
> redundant functions.

> I guess that Motorola's solution does NOT address
> scenarios 1 and 2 adequately.

Once the RAS procedures are done, we know where to route the call using basic
h.225 call control.

Motorola is not forcing any solution if one looks at the References section
of APC-1646 you will see we try to us the best solutions, and sections 4.1 to
4.1.2 is
based on AT&T's Document – TD-9 August  2-6 1999 Berlin contribution. As the
Editor of Annex-H and the lack of contributions at that time, the reference
below
was all I had to work with.

[1] ITU-T Recommendation H.245 (1998), Control protocol for multimedia
communication.
[2]  ITU-T Recommendation H.323 (1999), “Packet-Based Multimedia Communications
Systems.”
[3] Internet Draft <draft-teoyli-mobileip-mvpn-02.txt> February 1999, Mobile IP
extension
for Private Internets Support (MPN), W. T. Teo National University of Singapore
and Y.
Li Nortel Networks, Inc.
[4] W. Liao, “Mobility Internet telephony: Mobile Extensions to H.323,”
INFOCOM’99,
New York, NY, USA, 2-6 August, 1999.
[5] RECOMMENDATION  ITU-R  M.1073-1 DIGITAL  CELLULAR  LAND
MOBILE  TELECOMMUNICATION  SYSTEMS (Question ITU-R 107/8) (1994-1997)
[6] HANDOVER  PROCEDURES ITU-T  Recommendation  Q.1005 (Extract from the Blue
Book)
©  ITU  1988, 1993
[7] E. Martinez, Motorola, “Annex – H (User and Service Mobility in H.323)
Proposed Architecture,
” APC-1560, ITU-T SG16 Q.11-15 Rapporteur Meeting, Berlin, Germany, 2-6 August,
1999.
[8] H.323 Mobility Ad Hoc Group, "Terms of Reference for H.323 Mobility",
Temporary Document
No. 34 (Berlin) 5 August 1999

Best Regards,

Ed


> The bottom line is that a solution will look
> like this: Add some new messages in H.323 and extend the existing H.323
> messages. I guess that AT&T's APC-1651 can satisfy almost all requirements
> specified in Motorola's APC-1646. I hope that APC-1641 will also be able
> interwork with GSM/GPRS, ANSI-41, etc. The requirements for TIPHON matrix
> will also be satisfied. If needed, one can also use mobile IP or other
> schemes for implementation in the IP network layer. I am personally also
> interested about the location area concept as proposed by Nokia. Of course,
> I am waiting to see other contributions and on-going discussions.)
>
> Hope this will clarify further.
>
> Thanks,
> Radhika
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Edgar Martinez [1] [SMTP:martinze at CIG.MOT.COM]
> > Sent: Monday, November 01, 1999 3:14 PM
> > To:   ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
> > Subject:      Re: H323mobility:meeting
> >
> > Hi Radhika,
> >
> > The Annex-h document was push back to 2001.
> >
> > The mobility H.323 additions is not allot of work.
> > The mobility applications and concepts been around
> > for long time.
> >
> > I would hope the following to re-use 100% of the IP
> > network already defined in Standards. And borrowing and applying
> > mobile applications already defined to H.323 . Which can
> > coexist with other mobile "SERVICES" from IETF, GSM/GPRS
> > and even 3GPP. All on the same IP network using one access protocol
> > preferably the H.323 access protocols. Once we have a solid IP network
> > infrastructure which includes other "SERVICES"  like: reliable IP
> > transport,
> > QoS, charging/billing, security, IN interworking and  naming and
> > address translations. Adding mobility and Interworking services
> > to H.323 seems like a drop in the bucket. Now do we need to defined
> > everything, I argue that only the parts needed to be address are
> > common to all mobile systems.
> >
> > In TIPHON document 7001 we provide a matrix of existing mobile
> > Services on networks. Which compares the mobility aspects
> > for terminal, user and service mobility.
> >
> > In the same token if one looks at H.323 interworking
> > IN on IP, ISDN, ISUP and HTTP services, they're  focus
> > is on re-using common elements. And one access protocol
> > H.323, why is mobility any different?
> >
> > Ed
> >
> > "Roy, Radhika R, ALARC" wrote:
> >
> > > Hi, Ed and All,
> > >
> > > I fully agree with you that we need to address both together to have an
> > > end-to-end solution. In fact, this is also AT&T's goal because we want
> > to
> > > provide services on end-to-end basis consisting both cellular-PSTN/ISDN
> > and
> > > H.323 (IP).
> > >
> > > In fact, you have covered some functions: "HomeZone ID, VisitedZone ID,
> > Home
> > > Aera and Visited Area." That is, we are NOT considering any generalized
> > > solution that excludes the fundamental concept of "Zone" and "Domain" of
> > > H.323.
> > >
> > > The point is that we can consider more functions as much as we want, but
> > we
> > > still needs to work within the framework of H.323.
> > >
> > > When I say that we need to provide solution in the context of H.323, I
> > mean
> > > that we need to find solution in the framework of H.323 as much as we
> > can
> > > (that might include all abstractions of cellular-PSTN network, if
> > possible,
> > > in H.323 as well). It provides a systematic way to solve the problem
> > > step-by-step.
> > >
> > > Once we complete this first step, we then apply this solution in the
> > conext
> > > of cellular-PSN/ISDN-H.323 (IP). We will able to test and examine how
> > far we
> > > have been able to satisfy the requirements in the first step. If we do
> > not
> > > satisfy all requirements, then we need to extend the functionalities of
> > the
> > > first step.
> > >
> > > Let us examine the case of location area (LA). As I mentioned in my
> > earlier
> > > email, LA can be considered in H.323 as a subset of zone without
> > relating to
> > > the LA of the cellular-PSTN network. In this situation, LA defined is
> > H.323
> > > may not be useful to provide interoperability between cellular-PSTN and
> > > H.323 (IP). Should we not abstract the LA in H.323 in such a way that
> > also
> > > provides interoperability in the context of both cellular-PSTN and H.323
> > > (IP)? Does not the two-step process provide better granularity to have
> > the
> > > complete solution?
> > >
> > > H.323 Annex H has two primary sections: H.323 Mobility and
> > Interoperability
> > > (H.323-Cellular-PSTN).
> > >
> > > When I say two-step process, I mean two-step working mode of Annex H.
> > > However, we will standardize the H.323 Annex H after completing both
> > H.323
> > > Mobility and Interoperability (H.323-Cellular-PSTN).
> > >
> > > Did we not agree that we may not be able to visualize all functions to
> > start
> > > with and we may have to come back to add more functions as we go more
> > deep
> > > into the solution? Kindly see AT&T contributions APC-1651/1652/164/1665
> > how
> > > many MORE functions that we need to define even in H.323. Do I start
> > arguing
> > > right now why you are not including all function right away?
> > >
> > > I have not even written a contribution considering cellular-PSTN-H.323
> > (IP)
> > > interworking yet.
> > >
> > > Hope this will clarify further.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Radhika
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Edgar Martinez [1] [SMTP:martinze at CIG.MOT.COM]
> > > > Sent: Monday, November 01, 1999 12:34 PM
> > > > To:   ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
> > > > Subject:      Re: H323mobility:meeting
> > > > Importance:   High
> > > >
> > > > Dear Roy and Jaakko,
> > > >
> > > > The information in Annex-H Draft all came from both TD16 and
> > > > TD42b. The HomeZone ID and VisitedZone ID are new concepts
> > > > used for H.323 mobility which is related to the functions we
> > > > all agreed was needed to provide mobility for the application point of
> > > > view.
> > > > The new definition should not clash with the meaning of ZONE or
> > > > Domain in H.323. In any event, we need to defined the properties
> > > > of  the HomeZone ID, VisitedZone ID, Home Aera and Visited
> > > > Area. In the context of H.323 mobility and Interworking with PSTN.
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > New subject:
> > > >
> > > > >Our first goal is to define a mobility architecture in the context of
> > > > H.323.
> > > > >Our second goal is to interworking between the packet-based H.323
> > > > mobility
> > > > >architecture and circuit-switched based cellular-PSN/ISDN mobility
> > > > >architecture.
> > > >
> > > > Motorola is looking at a full end-to-end fixed, wireless
> > > > and mobile full IP solution. Which includes interworking
> > > > as a major basic requirement.
> > > >
> > > > We are not defining or designing a new IP system. Our
> > > > job is simply to add to the existing  IP infrastructure wireless
> > access
> > > > and the mobility applications. And support interworking with the
> > legacy
> > > > mobile systems. We and others are looking at providing the full
> > package.
> > > >
> > > > If we do not address the full solution now, I feel we leave the door
> > > > open for Hybrid systems, so-called network overlay or  work arounds.
> > > >
> > > > I will oppose that Annex-H is complete. If we do not address the
> > > > interworking
> > > > sections (as proposed in the TOR) within the same timeframe that we
> > are
> > > > defining
> > > >
> > > > how to add the mobility functions to H.323.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Ed
> > > >
> > > > "Roy, Radhika R, ALARC" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi, Ed, Jaakko, and All,
> > > > >
> > > > > In H.323, zone and domain are well defined.
> > > > >
> > > > > If we can solve mobility problems within the framework of H.323 as
> > far
> > > > as
> > > > > practicable, we do not need to create new terminology in the context
> > of
> > > > > H.323 for now. Contributions (APC-1651/1652) have also been
> > presented
> > > > also
> > > > > how H.323 mobility problems can be solved with the context of zones
> > and
> > > > > domains.
> > > > >
> > > > > I understand that location area (LA) is also used in the cellular
> > > > wireless
> > > > > network.
> > > > >
> > > > > If the new terminologis like location area (LA) are created for
> > > > interworking
> > > > > between cellular-PSTN and IP networking environments, we definitely
> > need
> > > > to
> > > > > look into how "LA" is fitted in the context of zone or domain.
> > However,
> > > > zone
> > > > > and domain are the fundamental concept of H.323 that always needs to
> > be
> > > > > related.
> > > > >
> > > > > Our first goal is to define a mobility architecture in the context
> > of
> > > > H.323.
> > > > > Our second goal is to interworking between the packet-based H.323
> > > > mobility
> > > > > architecture and circuit-switched based cellular-PSN/ISDN mobility
> > > > > architecture.
> > > > >
> > > > > In H.323, a zone may consist of many networks (e.g., many IP
> > > > subnetworks).
> > > > > Do we need to create LAs within a zone? Will the LA be a good fit
> > with
> > > > that
> > > > > of cellular network for interworking at this point of time because
> > we
> > > > have
> > > > > not yet solved the basic problem in the context of H.323?
> > > > >
> > > > > I had some initial discussion with Jaako in the last Red Bank
> > meeting,
> > > > but
> > > > > we could not complete our discussion. My personal view has been that
> > we
> > > > may
> > > > > need something like LA to further optimize the mobility problem
> > within a
> > > > > zone. For example, paging may be one of the reasons. However, I have
> > > > > realized that this LA concept may be more important in the context
> > of
> > > > H.323
> > > > > (IP) and cellular-PSTN interworking. So, my feeling has been that we
> > may
> > > > > need more functions similar to LA when interworking is concerned
> > > > (Motorola's
> > > > > contribution APC1646 is an example). The idea has been that we
> > should
> > > > > consider all those extensions in H.323 mobility architecture when we
> > > > deal
> > > > > with interworking (second phase).
> > > > >
> > > > > Definitely, LA concept has some merits and we need to discuss it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > Radhika R. Roy
> > > > > AT&T
> > > > > + 1 732 420 1580
> > > > > rrroy at att.com
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: jaakko.sundquist at NOKIA.COM [SMTP:jaakko.sundquist at NOKIA.COM]
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, November 01, 1999 7:23 AM
> > > > > > To:   ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
> > > > > > Subject:      Re: H323mobility:meeting
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Ed,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I haven't read your draft yet, but I just want to make a short
> > comment
> > > > on
> > > > > > the definitions that you proposed.
> > > > > > You mention the concepts of HomeZone ID and VisitedZone ID. This
> > > > implies
> > > > > > already to a certain architecture, namely one where the "home
> > area"
> > > > and
> > > > > > "visited area" of a User are defined to be identified with the
> > > > accuracy of
> > > > > > one zone. In my contribution to the Red Bank meeting (APC 1659) I
> > > > proposed
> > > > > > similar "home area" and "visited area" concepts based on
> > > > Administrative
> > > > > > Domains, which in my mind makes more sense as the Domains have so
> > far
> > > > in
> > > > > > H.323 been the entities that are responsible for maintaining any
> > > > > > information
> > > > > > of their users.
> > > > > > So I propose that we think about the architecture first before
> > > > defining
> > > > > > these terms.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Jaakko Sundquist
> > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > >      In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit.
> > > > > >  Not a nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled with the ends of
> > > > > >      worms and an oozy smell, nor yet a dry, bare,
> > > > > > sandy hole with nothing in it to sit down on or to eat:
> > > > > >      it was a hobbit-hole, and that means comfort.
> > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > >                 -----Original Message-----
> > > > > >                 From:   EXT Edgar Martinez [1]
> > > > > > [mailto:martinze at cig.mot.com]
> > > > > >                 Sent:   Monday, November 01, 1999 3:33 AM
> > > > > >                 To:     ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.intel.com
> > > > > >                 Subject:        H323mobility:meeting
> > > > > >
> > > > > >                 Dear All,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >                 I have put together the first proposed draft and
> > > > outline
> > > > > > for
> > > > > >                 H.323 Annex-H. You can pick-up a copy in:
> > > > > >              http://people.itu.int/~emartine/temp/
> > > > > >
> > > > > >                 Editor's Special Note:  The interworking  referred
> > in
> > > > this
> > > > > > annex is
> > > > > >                 the interwork of legacy systems to H.323 systems.
> > Not
> > > > to
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > confused
> > > > > >                 with interworking H.323 systems to circuit
> > switched
> > > > hybrid
> > > > > > systems
> > > > > >                 or circuit switched adjuncts. The work proposed
> > > > therewith,
> > > > > > does not
> > > > > >                 impact
> > > > > >                 the legacy systems or impose new requirements to
> > the
> > > > > > Legacy
> > > > > > systems
> > > > > >                 to support H.323 terminals or H.323 systems.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >                 Need to add more sections to the Annex-H  to
> > comply
> > > > with
> > > > > > TOR
> > > > > > e.g.,
> > > > > >                 Interworking:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >                 Network interworking
> > > > > >                 connections between H.323 systems and mobile
> > networks
> > > > > > (e.g.,
> > > > > > GSM, ANSI
> > > > > >                 41, ...)
> > > > > >                 connections between mobile H.323 systems and PSTN
> > or
> > > > other
> > > > > > networks.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >                 Terminal interworking
> > > > > >                 Use of non-H.323 mobile terminals (e.g., GSM
> > handset,
> > > > > > H.324
> > > > > > terminal,
> > > > > >                 H.320 terminal, etc.) to communicate with H.323
> > > > systems.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >                 Tandeming minimisation
> > > > > >                 Non-transcoding of media streams
> > > > > >
> > > > > >                 Also, it would be nice if we can add to the
> > > > > >                 the defiention section:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >                 Home Location Funtion (HFL)
> > > > > >                 Vistor Location Funtion (VFL)
> > > > > >                 Authentication user Funtion (AuF)
> > > > > >                 HomeZone ID (HZid)
> > > > > >                 VisitedZone ID (VZid)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >                 --
> > > > > >                 Edgar Martinez - Principal Staff Engineer
> > > > > >                 Email mailto:martinze at 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/
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Edgar Martinez - Principal Staff Engineer
> > > > Email mailto:martinze at 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/
> >
> > --
> > Edgar Martinez - Principal Staff Engineer
> > Email mailto:martinze at 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/

--
Edgar Martinez - Principal Staff Engineer
Email mailto:martinze at 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/



More information about the sg16-avd mailing list