No subject

[ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.CPS.INTEL.COM]

Comments: follow--

Barry Aronson wrote:

> 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.

This is called the WAP solution, already done but it is still
two separate networks (MSC-CS and  PDN) routed/ split out
by a DSU from the BSC. And it does not address the fixed
Internet PC or any PSTN/ISDN interworking.

> 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?

We are looking at the H.323 mobility at the appilation layer within
the approriate woking 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 feel a mobile IP debate is in the starts here but, We are looking at
the H.323 mobility at the appilation layer within the approriate woking
group.

What the IETF needs to address is how mobile IP interworks with Mobility
whether is H.323, GSM, PLNM or otherwise..

> I don't think any of what is
> being discussed for Annex H is necessary to achieve this.

What being discussed here is, we are looking at
the H.323 mobility from the appilation layer.

>
>
> 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
> 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.

--
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/