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

Full agreement that deployment of IEEE802.16 MBS channels should be supported for multicast and broadcast services. The decision whether to use unicast channels or multicast channels is up to the operator and depends on the number of subscribers of a particular service per cell. This should be clearly mentioned in the annex.

Special link layer support of broadcasting Ethernet packets is a different topic and is not related to multicast and broadcast services. This distinction will be made more clear in the revised text of the annex. However I see some need to provide a little background on the rationale not to deploy MBS channels for realizing Ethernet behavior.

Bye
Max

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Jongtaek Oh [mailto:jtoh@hansung.ac.kr] 
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 4:29 AM
To: Riegel, Maximilian (NSN - DE/Germany - MiniMD); 16ng@ietf.org
Cc: Daniel Park; 김형규과장님; 차용주박사
Subject: Re: [16NG] WGLC: draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802.16-02

Last night, I have met two KT members to discuss about MBS or MCBCS for IEEE 802.16e network.
Also, we talked about IETF 16ng issues.

We agreed on that the radio link of 802.16 network should support broadcasting/multicasting channel for MBS service,
even if unicasting channel could be used for MBS services. It should be up to service provider's decision, according to business and/or
service model.

And next, it would be better that IETF should deal with just on Internet protocol issues, not evolving radio technology.
That means, too much detailed description and restricting words about the functions of radio link are not proper to be included in RFCs.

Thank you for the discussion.

Jongtaek Oh
Hansung Univ.
Seoul, Korea

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Riegel, Maximilian" <maximilian.riegel@nsn.com>
To: "Jongtaek Oh" <jtoh@hansung.ac.kr>kr>; <16ng@ietf.org>
Cc: "?????" <yjtcha@kt.co.kr>kr>; "?????" <woojaa@samsung.com>om>; "??????" <hyungkim@kt.co.kr>kr>; "?????" <nh_lim@samsung.com>om>; "Daniel Park" <soohong.park@samsung.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 6:47 PM
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:jtoh@hansung.ac.kr] 
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 6:05 AM
To: 16ng@ietf.org; 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" <soohong.park@samsung.com>
To: <16ng@ietf.org>
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:soohong.park@samsung.com] 
>> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 3:50 PM
>> To: 16ng@ietf.org
>> 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
>> 16NG@ietf.org
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 16NG mailing list
> 16NG@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng
>

_______________________________________________
16NG mailing list
16NG@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng