H323 mobility: Summary of discussion

Roy, Radhika R, ALARC rrroy at ATT.COM
Fri Nov 5 17:34:47 EST 1999

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

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

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

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Barry Aronson [SMTP:baronson at ieee.org]
> Sent: Friday, November 05, 1999 4:15 PM
> 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 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM]On Behalf Of Tom-PT Taylor
> Sent: Friday, November 05, 1999 11:17 AM
> 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 mailing list