RE: thoughts on "ideal"

["Dana L. Blair" <dblair@cisco.com>]

Comments below.

>   -----Original Message-----
>   From: owner-more@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-more@ops.ietf.org]On Behalf
>   Of tim clifford
>   Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 10:08 AM
>   To: More@Psg. Com
>   Subject: thoughts on "ideal"
>
>
>   there are a few places where the requirements draft points to
>   some "ideal"
>   case, it seems prior to some justification.
>
>   for example
>   "The ideal IP access infrastructure is one where the RAN is an
>   IP network
>   where
>   base stations, base station controllers, and mobile terminals
>   communicate
>   via IP
>   protocols. "
>
>   I would stop far short of calling this ideal; similar
>   initiatives in the DSL
>   environment decided upon an ATM/l2tp access infrastructure; in
>   general the
>   access networks for internet services seem to be layer 2.  So I can
>   understand that IP in the RAN is an interesting and may yet to be proven
>   ideal, but i'd be happier with a requirements draft that
>   doesn't make these
>   judgements.  maybe its a candidate?

The term ideal is probably not appropriate in a requirements document, but
IP may be the best candidate.

>
>   outside of the MWIF technical reports has anyone seen a
>   justification for IP
>   in radio networks as proposed.

Benefits of IP in the RAN are:
1. Re-use of existing IP infrastructure and Management
	systems.  However, if you don't already have IP
	you can't re-use it.

2. Greater voice density for backhaul from BTS when IP
	using encapsulation of voice samples instead of circuit 	switched or AAL2.

3. Common network and management infrastructure for data
	and voice since data support already requires IP
	routing and IP tunneling.

thanks,
Dana



>
>   tim
>
>