RE: [16NG] WGLC: draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802.16-02

[Burcak Beser <[e-mail]>]

I did not hear any issues with 802.16 broadcast channel(s). If there were any issues, then the communication of IEEE 802.16 transmission management will have a lot of issues as well and the unicast service flows will not be utilized at all.

Lets make the assumption that all SS' but one can connect at 64QAM, and a single one can only connect with QPSK If we want to send multicast packets to some number of SS connected, the advantage of sending individual packets disappear with 4 SS (all of them being 64QAM) or 1 SS (connected through QPSK). More than that the broadcast through QPSK channel will be more advantageous.

For applications such as IPTV the use of Broadcast (or Multicast) Service Flows will almost always (practically always) be the most efficient.

I would like to understand better why Broadcast channels are not even considered.

Kind regards,
-burcak

-----Original Message-----
From: Riegel, Maximilian [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 2:48 AM
To: Jongtaek Oh; [e-mail]
Cc: ?????; ?????; ??????; ?????
Subject: RE: [16NG] WGLC: draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802.16-02

Please do not mix up MBS services (MCBCS in the WiMAX Forum) with MBS in the IEEE802.16 specification. MBS in the IEEE802.16 specification describes the possibility to share a downlink connection with multiple MSs/SSs.

MBS Services are fully supported by this I-D (please see chapter 6.1).

There are good reasons not to deploy IEEE802.16 MBS channels for Ethernet broadcasts. Annex A lists purely for information some of the issues coming up with deployment of IEEE802.16 MBS channels.

Indeed there is an ongoing activity in the WiMAX Forum on MCBCS, which works on network solutions to increase the efficiency of MBS channels especially at the cell edge. The issues listed in annex A will remain, but the effects on the link capacity will become smaller. Unfortunately new issues will appear for real deployments.

Is there any publication explaining the benefits and issues of
IEEE802.16 MBS channels more in detail? Annex A is little bit too much radio and I would like to remove annex A if there is any reference we can use instead.

Any hint for a reference?

Bye
Max

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Jongtaek Oh [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 6:05 AM
To: [e-mail]; Daniel Park
Cc: ?????; ?????; ??????; ?????
Subject: Re: [16NG] WGLC:
draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802.16-02

I have some comment about the
draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802.16-02,
especially for broadcasting and multicasting issue.

1. Firstly, it describes the functionality of IEEE 802.16 network for MBS services, very pessimistically.
    As it mentioned, the specification and technology for MBS is not perfect. But it is under developing by NWG of WiMax forum,
    and the broadcasting and/or multicasting in the radio link could be possible, not impossible.
    This draft is for standard RFC, not for informative RFC, so only specification related matters must be defined in the draft
    and leave the room for new technology can come in.

2. MBS service is important for network operators and service providers to compete with the other cellular networks.
    For example, 3GPP Release99 can broadcast messages using cell broadcasting technology.
    WiMax forum is developing MCBCS related technologies and specifications which deals with the solution against the problems the appendix A cited.
    For example, the unicasting or the broadcasting methods are to be decided at the BS or AR according to the number of users in the cell.
    If all the IETF documents exclude the possibility of broadcasting and multicasting transmission method, then they could be useless to the WiMax industry.

In conclusion, I suggest to remove all the sentences which state the negative respects of  multicast/broadcast for 802.16 network including Appendix A.


Jongtaek Oh
Hansung Univ.
Seoul, Korea




----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Park" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 11:43 AM
Subject: RE: [16NG] WGLC:
draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802.16-02


> reminding...
>
> No show in the list for this WGLC. If you have any comments/feedbacks
on
> this call, please speak up now. Also, if you are ok with this version
(no
> changes), please show up your positive on this list. Otherwise, this
WGLC
> can't pass...!
>
> Daniel Park
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Daniel Park [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 3:50 PM
>> To: [e-mail]
>> Subject: [16NG] WGLC: draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802.16-02
>>
>> Folks,
>>
>> This is a WGLC on draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802.16-02
>> "Transmission of IP over Ethernet over IEEE 802.16 Networks".
>>
>> o Intended publication: Proposed Standard RFC
>>
>> The latest version can be found at:
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-et
>> hernet-over-80
>> 2.16-02.txt
>>
>> Due to vacation period, it will expire on September 7 2007.
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------
>> Daniel Park & Gabriel Montenegro
>> Chairs, 16NG Working Group
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 16NG mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng
>>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 16NG mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng
>


_______________________________________________
16NG mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng




_______________________________________________
16NG mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng