IEEE MEDIA INDEPENDENT HANDOVER DCN: Title: Application Considerations in Handover Date Submitted: July, 15, 2004 Presented at IEEE session #76 in Portland, OR Authors or Source(s): Mahalingam Mani Abstract: Application Perspectives & Implications in Handover.

IEEE presentation release statements This document has been prepared to assist the IEEE 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 The contributor is familiar with IEEE patent policy, as outlined in Section 6.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual and in Understanding Patent Issues During IEEE Standards Development Section 6.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manualhttp://standards.ieee.org/guides/opman/sect6.html#6.3

Handover Primitives Discovery Media Hardware Detection Announcement/Advertisement Selection Association/Link-in Authentication & Authorization Context Transfer Dissociation Handover is Mobility-event-driven Wire-line or wireless Is a key aspect of media-independent-interworking Primary Goal of Handover is to provide a Framework to coordinate actions initiated by mobility events (triggers)

A Trigger Reference Model Triggers are asynchronous events delivered as Alerts/alarms: push-model Monitored (polled): pull-model Events and Consumers Consumers register with “L2.5” service interface Events are reported into “L2.5” handler interface(s) There is a m-to-n relationship between consumers and events The L2.5 semantic is primarily a clearing-house for triggers/events Coordination network-wide CAPWAP can facilitate but not required to coordinate

Services of “L2.5” Consolidation De/RegDe/Mux MSEH (Network-wide) Coordination Service MSM: Media-Specific Event Handlers (MSEH) Consolidation (of Event Registration) Registration/deregistration Mux/Demux operations of registration Coordination

Cross-network Triggers What is the scope of Triggers? Applications are interested in events that may occur from anywhere within a roaming domain (ESS, e.g.) Applications may also be interested in source of event For location services Emergency location resolution Load-balancing High availability To make Handover meaningful to seamless Mobility across a homogeneous roaming domain triggers should be uniquely identifiable in a domain L2.5 should be conducive for realization in and across multiple network access points

Handover Context Attributes When a network/device handover happens several aspects are handed over/changed Clients Interface/Media IP address (possibly) Session Transport Location Infrastructure (Network Access Point) Clients association/dissociation Client contexts –QoS, Security, Location,… Seamless Handover, where desired,

Events & Location There are generally three variants of locating a mobile client Absolute: Client-centric position Determined by client coordinates or references to APs/cells Absolute: Triangulation through the Infrastructure Relative To the cell/AP – as assessed by infrastructure The popular methods are the latter two These approaches call for use of network-centric trigger

Handout scenario: WLAN->WWAN Alluding to the scenario discussions (M. Williams) one scenario is the one network coverage overlapping the another. When the hand-in is to the overlapping (cell)network from smaller network (WLAN) A cross-cell event is required to provide a trigger to initiate handout to meet seamless handover needs This argues for triggers to be abstractable 1. In the infrastructure 2. Across multiple cells/APs

Summary Handover must allow for distributed dissemination of triggers Triggers must be allowed to be uniquely identified across a homogeneous network domain Handover triggers must also allow for disjoint authorization of clients (while network-network transitive trust & signaling is implied) (dual or multi-homes) Must allow centralized and Federated Trust models Handover must also allow for disjoint profile (multi-homes) besides H-MIH, V-MIH models