Le 28/10/2014 05:10, Xueli a écrit :
Hello Alex
Thank you for your nice comment. The scenario here is for the fixed
operators rather than the mobile phone for higher bandwidth. I make
this clarification in the new version architecture draft as： ” Hosts
in the customer site may connect to the Internet through the CPE, the
3G/4G network, or both. In most cases the majority of the hosts
connects to the Internet through the CPE only and will experience
slow Internet access when the bandwidth provided by the fixed access
network is fully utilized (e.g., the traffic over the fixed access
network reached its maximum capacity or a pre-specified threshold set
by the operator). So we are considering the scenario with CPE
extension with multiple access networks.
I would like to know additional information on the internet drafts
you mentioned, do you mind to provide more information on this?
Sure, it is about these documents;
Flow Binding Support for Mobile IP
draft-ietf-mip4-multiple-tunnel-support-08.txt
Flow Bindings in Mobile IPv6 and Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support
RFC 6089
and this post:
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mip4/current/msg03728.html
Best Regards Li
-----Original Message----- From: Alexandru Petrescu
[mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, October 23,
2014 12:28 AM To: Xueli; Ted Lemon; STARK, BARBARA H Cc: HOMENET
Working Group; [email protected] Subject: Re: “Hybrid Access for Broadband
Networks” (WT-348)
Hello Xueli,
Several people look at this problem as an IP problem. Instead of
considering a cellular+dsl combination in a homebox, they considered
cellular+wifi on a smartphone. But the goal was the same: augment
the bandwidth perceived by the end user.
In implementation it is however quite challenging. The more tempting
the expectations of augmenting bandwidth by simply adding network
interfaces (as in adding RAM to a busy computer), the higher the
desillusion when facing the challenges of implementation.
Some consider it simply as a local computer policy problem (and hence
no new communicaiton standards needed), but others consider that
there is a need of a server in the infrastructure to which these
interfaces would first connect (a sort of an 'anchor').
If such a technology is developped, it will surely be useful for more
than homenets - it will be useful for multi-interfaced smartphones,
useful for mobile routers installed in vehicles, and more that I can
not think of.
Alex PS: there are a few IETF Internet Drafts about how would
smartphones would use this, with Mobile IPv4 and Mobile IPv6
extensions, but there are no widespread implementations.
Le 22/10/2014 11:48, Xueli a écrit :
Hello
Thanks Barbara to send this liaison out.
Hybrid Access network is that Residential gateway (RG, or CPE) is
extended with more than two access lines
(e.g. DSL + LTE) in order to provide higher bandwidth for the
customers. The scenario and architecture are shown as follows
cid:[email protected]
Right now, we have two individual drafts, one for architecture and
requirements, and the other one is for an optional solution.
The draft
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lhwxz-hybrid-access-network-architec
ture-00 ; ) proposes the architecture and gap analysis.
The solution draft proposes one option for the solutions,
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-heileyli-gre-notifications-00
We did not combine them as one draft, because we believe there may
be other candidates, and we would like to have further discussions
in the related groups and IETF.
We used to present it in Homenet in Toronto.
Now the authors have invited Orange to join this architecture
work. We will send out the new version of these drafts soon.
We are glad to invite the experts for comments.
Best Regards
Li Xue on the co-authors behalf
-----Original Message-----
From: homenet [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ted
Lemon
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 3:05 AM
To: STARK, BARBARA H
Cc: HOMENET Working Group
Subject: Re: [homenet] Fwd: New Liaison Statement, "Broadband
Forum Work on “Hybrid Access for Broadband Networks”(WT-348)"
On Oct 21, 2014, at 2:55 PM, STARK, BARBARA H <[email protected]>
wrote:
FYI. I made sure they were aware of IETF mif and homenet
activities in this area. I intend to try to prevent having to
track efforts that try to do the same thing in two different
ways. But some of the BBF effort may be focused on what can be
done around "bonding" of multiple
interfaces that are under the control of a single service provider.
I don't see this in mif or homenet.
Thanks. I couldn't really tell what was being proposed from the
Liaison statement, so this information is helpful.
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing
list [email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
