Le 04/09/2014 12:31, Charles E. Perkins a écrit :
Hello folks,
I have asked this same question many times, in different words...
Namely, if we design a solution that fits the requirements, and bridges
the gaps as analyzed in the gap analysis document, have we succeeded?
My answer is no. As of now it may look as a homework - yes it solves
the problem statement, yes it gets a high grade, yes it can. But what
if no, deployments wouldn't need it.
Or, is there a requirement for the work to be adopted by 3GPP?
Even then - even if there were a req from 3GPP (a row in an excel
sheet, an "IPv6" mentioned in a 3GPP doc) - one would rather need a
commitment of deployment from 3GPP.
What if we design for IEEE 802 Wireless, which is currently carrying the
preponderance of the world's wireless data, and will almost assuredly
continue to carry a greater proportion?
Yes, and with the advent of cheap 802.11ac's huge bandwidth (1.2GB/s)
one of the strong selling points of Mobile IP is the ability to offer
session continuity when handover cellular/802-Wireless - the
heterogeneity to some extent.
Additionally, there are many possibilities of doing Mobile IP in a
802-Wireless only environment: large indoor hotspot areas, long
11p-covered roads, etc. These are exhibited in trials.
But, sorry for saying again, one couldn't stop wondering whether these
are to be embraced by deployments.
Why is the 'tethering' application on operator's smartphones preferring
to use a form of IPv6 prefix sharing rather than Mobile IP/NEMO?
Why there is no session continuity app in these smartphones?
Why one has to always click on some icon on their smartphones to (1)
switch on/off 'mobile data', (2) turn on/off WiFi?
Given these behaviours one may wonder how much the session continuity
aspect is need by end users.
There are some answers I heard about this... for example when one needs
a session to be stable one by instinct will try to not move. Hardly can
one walk and talk: two things at a time.
Alex
Regards
Charlie P.
On 9/4/2014 3:14 AM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Hi,
....
In DMM, precedents and the keen NETEXT, there seems to be a
hard-rooted disconnect between the product developped - (P)Mobile IP -
and the deployments. We know for a fact that 3GPP deployments
(2G/3G/4G) do not use (P)Mobile IP. We also know that 3GPP specs do
mention Mobile IP. To such a point that I wonder whether 3GPP has not
the same disconnect as here.
On another hand, we do have indications of where (P)Mobile IP is used
- the trials, the projects, the kernel code, and not least the
slideware attracting real customers.
The worry: develop DMM protocol while continuing the disconnect.
Alex
_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
