[H.323 Mobility:] A new editor's draft H.323 Annex H

[Tiruthani, Saravanakumar]

Hi,

Do we have the latest version of Annex H after the recent
tel conference on mobility? Is the editor's draft
standards.pictel.com/avc-site/Incoming/Mobility-AHG/H323AnnexH_EditorsDraft.
zip
the latest? Is the minutes available for the teleconference?

Any help will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Saravanakumar V. Tiruthani
Siemens ICN


-----Original Message-----
From: Roy, Radhika R, ALARC [mailto:rrroy at ATT.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2000 7:45 AM
To: ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.intel.com
Subject: Re: [H.323 Mobility:] A new editor's draft H.323 Annex H


Hi, Jaakko:

1. Home/Visited/Target/Visiting Network Address

A quick reply related to your comment about mobile IP.

The mobile IP cannot do the job of H.323 in the application layer deals with
multimedia: audio, video, and/or video.

However, if hooks are already there in the H.323 layer, only then mobile IP
or other methods as appropriate can be used in the lower layer (e.g., IP,
ATM) to do the job.

So, the abstraction of home/visiting/foreign/target network address (or
NPoA) should be there in the H.323 application layer.

I hope that this will clarify the FUNDAMENTAL points of mobility management
that AT&T contributions have explained.

2. GK Discovery

MGA is another alternative option for the GK discovery. It is also very
efficient when compared to the GRQ mechanisms. MGA is an OPTION, not
mandatory.

If some people do NOT like this, they may use the GRQ messages if they feel
they are happy with it in the cellular environment. AT&T does NOT like to
use the inefficient GRQ messages.

3. Centralized/Distributed HLFs

AT&T contributions show message flows for all configurations of HLFs:
Centralized and Distributed. The contributions show that it is the same
messages that used for all cases.

4. Location_Req

You are now using NEW messages location_req messages for mobility messages.
AT&T contributions propose the new messages like mobility binding updates.

You are requested to look into these contributions instead of going too.

5. Communications between HLFs for inter-domain communications.

AT&T contributions show that this is NOT the scope of H.323. It is a
protocol between the servers. This is nothing to do with the H.323 protocol.
The same is true for directory server to directory server protocol, billing
server to the billing server protocol, etc.

6. Other comments

We will discuss in the conf call and Osaka.

Best regards,
Radhika R. Roy
AT&T



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jaakko Sundquist [SMTP:jaakko.sundquist at nokia.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2000 8:10 AM
> To:   ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
> Subject:      Re: [H.323 Mobility:] A new editor's draft H.323 Annex H
>
> Hi Radhika,
>
> Find my comments embedded...
>
> >
> > I hope that you have been enjoying the ice-hockey....
> > Section 9.1.1:
> >
> > Like home domain, AT&T contribution has provided the detail
> > description of
> > home GK/zone from a user point. Accordingly, home network
> > address (network
> > point attachment) has been explained. In a given zone, a
> > mobile may move
> > from one NpoA to another. Like foreign (or
> > visited/visiting/target) domain,
> > AT&T contribution has also explained the foreign (or
> > visited/visiting/target) network address (or NpoA). The
> > subsequent emails
> > have also been sent explaining the things.
>
> With regards to the home GK, I am considering that it may be a good
> concept
> to introduce for some purposes (mainly because of GK discovery issues and
> the Virtual Home Environment concept), but I have not yet introduced in
> the
> draft, because I want to have a clearer picture of how the concept would
> be
> used. I certainly do not like the idea of always having to contact the
> home
> GK in order to be able to use the H.323 services, nor do I like having to
> contact the HLF through the (home) GK. In other words I am willing to add
> the concept as soon as we have agreed on the semantics of it. I still do
> not
> see the merit of the home NPoA concept, I do not think it adds anything
> that
> could not be achieved by using e.g. mobile IP.
>
> >
> >
> > Hope to discuss the same in tomorrow's conf call.
> >
> > I am also curious to know which the team won the ice-hockey.....
> The Hentunen-Kapanen-Lind attacking line was quite superb...
>
>
> - Jaakko
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to
> listserv at mailbag.intel.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to
listserv at mailbag.intel.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to
listserv at mailbag.intel.com