Transcript 21-06-0469-00-0000-Identifiers.ppt

• IEEE 802.21 MEDIA INDEPENDENT HANDOVER
• DCN:21-06-0469-00-0000
• Title: Analysis on Identifiers
• Date Submitted: January 9, 2006
• Presented at IEEE 802.21 session in Hawaii
• Authors or Source(s):
• Yoshihiro Ohba and Subir Das
• Abstract: This document gives some analysis on several
identifiers related to MIH protocol.
21-06-0469-00-0000
IEEE 802.21 presentation release statements
• This
document has been prepared to assist the IEEE 802.21 Working Group. It
is offered as a basis for discussion and is not binding on the contributing
•
•
individual(s) or organization(s). The material in this document is subject to
change in form and content after further study. The contributor(s) reserve(s)
the right to add, amend or withdraw material contained herein.
The contributor grants a free, irrevocable license to the IEEE to incorporate
material contained in this contribution, and any modifications thereof, in the
creation of an IEEE Standards publication; to copyright in the IEEE’s name
any IEEE Standards publication even though it may include portions of this
contribution; and at the IEEE’s sole discretion to permit others to reproduce in
whole or in part the resulting IEEE Standards publication. The contributor also
acknowledges and accepts that this contribution may be made public by IEEE
802.21.
The contributor is familiar with IEEE patent policy, as outlined in Section 6.3
of
the
IEEE-SA
Standards
Board
Operations
Manual
<http://standards.ieee.org/guides/opman/sect6.html#6.3>
and
in
Understanding Patent Issues During IEEE Standards Development
http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/guide.html>
21-06-0469-00-0000
Issue on Identifiers in 802.21
• Issue 1: How a remote event/command for a particular link is
mapped to the MIHF that uses the link
• Issue 2: How an MIHF in the network can maintain the
registration status for an MIHF UE while the UE may change
its transport address(es)
• Issue 3: How an MIHF in the network can maintain the
transport address(es) of an MIHF UE when the UE has
multiple interfaces
• Issues that are not discussed in this document:
• NAT traversal: This is a transport issue
• Proxy operation: This is a message routing issue
21-06-0469-00-0000
Issue 1: Mapping Link Indications to HigherLayer State
• In section 2.9 of draft-iab-link-indications-04.txt: “[d] Mapping
of Identifiers. When link indications are transported, it is
generally for the purposes of saying something about Internet,
Transport or Application layer operations at a remote element.
These layers use different identifiers, and so it is necessary to
match the link indication with relevant higher layer state.
Therefore proposals need to demonstrate how the link
indication can be mapped to the right higher layer state.”
21-06-0469-00-0000
Issue 1: Mapping Link Indications to HigherLayer State (cont’d)
• Issue: A higher-layer transport uses IP address as transport address, but an IP
address itself does not represent a link (while an IP address can be used for
identifying an MIHF, see next slide)
• Approach 1: Creating a mapping between an IP address and a link-layer
address during event/command registration
• This helps a receiver of a remote event or command to identify the link
using the source IP address of the event or command
• This does not work when a remote event or command for a particular
link of an MIHF is sent over another link of the MIHF or when the same
IP address is shared among multiple interfaces
• Approach 2: Carrying a link identifier with a remote event or command
• E.g., LinkIdentifier defined in Link_Up.indication primitive can be used
for this purpose
21-06-0469-00-0000
Issue 2: Maintaining Registration
• Issue: How an MIHF in the network can maintain the
registration status for an MIHF UE while the UE may change
its transport address(es)
• Registration ID needs to be assigned during initial registration
• A transport address cannot serve as a registration ID because
it can change after MN’s movement
• A new identifier needs to be defined for this purpose
• The same ID may be used for re-registration
• Does a registration ID need to be carried in each MIH message?
21-06-0469-00-0000
Issue 3: Multiple Interfaces
• Issue: How an MIHF in the network can maintain the transport
address(es) of an MIHF UE when the UE has multiple
interfaces
• Exchanging transport addresses during registration is needed
for mapping a particular registration to transport address(es)
required by transport protocol
• When adding or deleting a transport address, re-registration
would be needed
21-06-0469-00-0000