Re: [MEXT] [dmm?] Surprising assertion about make-before-break handover prevalance
<Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com> Thu, 04 August 2011 21:21 UTC
Return-Path: <Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com>
X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix)
with ESMTP id A4FC921F8879 for <mext@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Thu, 4 Aug 2011 14:21:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.682
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No,
score=-102.682 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.083, BAYES_00=-2.599,
USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com
[127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cyNChLkvDZas for
<mext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 14:21:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mgw-sa01.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [147.243.1.47]) by
ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1C7521F8877 for <mext@ietf.org>;
Thu, 4 Aug 2011 14:21:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vaebh104.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh104.europe.nokia.com
[10.160.244.30]) by mgw-sa01.nokia.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP
id p74LM5Sd030032; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 00:22:06 +0300
Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.7]) by vaebh104.NOE.Nokia.com
over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675);
Fri, 5 Aug 2011 00:22:05 +0300
Received: from 008-AM1MMR1-005.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.60) by
NOK-AM1MHUB-03.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.7) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS)
id 8.2.255.0; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 23:22:04 +0200
Received: from 008-AM1MPN1-024.mgdnok.nokia.com ([169.254.4.61]) by
008-AM1MMR1-005.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.60]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.002;
Thu, 4 Aug 2011 23:22:02 +0200
From: <Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com>
To: <charles.perkins@earthlink.net>, <mext@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [MEXT] [dmm?] Surprising assertion about make-before-break
handover prevalance
Thread-Index: AQHMUuyMHmpdQRSJykeD7X8pFNgavw==
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 21:22:01 +0000
Message-ID: <CA607467.1CAFC%basavaraj.patil@nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E3B0677.8050705@earthlink.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.0.101115
x-originating-ip: [173.74.219.186]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <290FE8FC3DC71044AFC45D9F6A80E97C@nokia.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Aug 2011 21:22:05.0384 (UTC)
FILETIME=[8F1F1480:01CC52EC]
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
Subject: Re: [MEXT] [dmm?] Surprising assertion about make-before-break
handover prevalance
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mext>,
<mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>,
<mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 21:21:57 -0000
Hi Charlie, I guess you are referring to handovers across different access types (wifi<->3G) etc. Whether you can accomplish a make-before-break handover in such scenarios depends on the device in many cases. So there is no black-or-white answer to your question at the present time. Will devices keep multiple radios powered on simultaneously in the future? It depends. Battery technology still lags the advances of radio, processors and displays on devices. And hence it generally boils down to optimizing battery in handheld devices which implies that you would not want to always keep multiple radios switched "On" all the time. You could if you were willing to carry around a battery backpack all the time :) Or keep your device plugged into a power source or charge it every few hours... Algorithms will/may help a device to turn on/off various radios to enable better handover performance. And multiple radios could be simultaneously operational for brief periods of time to enable the make-before-break handover scenarios. DMM design should not be overly concerned about the make-before-break handovers IMO. DMM is focused on optimizing the latency, reducing backhaul traffic etc. I don¹t believe DMM is a way to enable handovers with better performance. It would be a benefit if performance of even the break-before-make handover scenario improves as a result of DMM. W.r.t devices a couple of examples: 1. On my Nokia N900 (Maemo), I can operate both the wifi and 3G radios simultaneously (requires an update to the software that ships on the device). Normal operation however is either wifi or 3G. 2. On my N8 (S^3), I can have cellular data (PDP context) and wifi connectivity running in parallel all the time. But there is no good reason to do that. And hence the setting is to have either 3G or Wifi data connectivity. -Basavaraj On 8/4/11 3:52 PM, "ext Charles E. Perkins" <charles.perkins@earthlink.net> wrote: > >Hello folks, > >Sorry if this is considered to be imperfectly relevant, >but I'm curious whether or not handovers in the future >would be typically make-before-break. Or [even "worse"], >in terms of radio interfaces, whether typically wireless >devices in the future will keep multiple radios powered >on all the time. > >This might well have an impact on assumptions about >dmm. It was claimed that, for instance, iPad and iPhone >usually have both interfaces active. I know that when >I'm using my iPad I do not keep both radios turned on, >but I do not claim to be a typical user, and anyway I >do not have an iPhone. > >Comments will be appreciated! > >Regards, >Charlie P. > >_______________________________________________ >MEXT mailing list >MEXT@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
- [MEXT] [dmm?] Surprising assertion about make-bef… Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [MEXT] [dmm?] Surprising assertion about make… Basavaraj.Patil
- Re: [MEXT] [dmm?] Surprising assertion about make… Stuart W. Card
- Re: [MEXT] [dmm?] Surprising assertion about make… Hesham Soliman
- Re: [MEXT] [dmm?] Surprising assertion about make… Sri Gundavelli
- Re: [MEXT] [dmm?] Surprising assertion about make… Hesham Soliman
- Re: [MEXT] [dmm?] Surprising assertion about make… Sri Gundavelli
- Re: [MEXT] [dmm?] Surprising assertion about make… Hesham Soliman
- Re: [MEXT] [dmm?] Surprising assertion about make… Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [MEXT] [dmm?] Surprising assertion about make… Hesham Soliman