Phil;
> The best defense against WAP is an open handheld platform that allows
> end users (and independent vendors and open-source developers) to run
> applications and network protocols of their own choice. As long as
> the service providers support IP (perhaps in addition to WAP), the
> open platform users can just ignore WAP and run standard Internet
> applications. And they can benefit from all the work currently being
> done in the IETF and elsewhere on making the Internet protocols work
> even better over wireless than they already do.
Please state your wish carefully.
IP is NOT enough.
> The Internet end-to-end model will once again prevail, putting the
> cellular service providers back into their proper place as providers
> of packet pipes, nothing more. And life will be good again. :-)
IP over NAT is, in no way, end-to-end.
WAP and IP over NAT are equally bad.
See the attached mail in IETF more than a month ago.
Masataka Ohta
--
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complications-02.txt
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> from "vinton
g. cerf" at "Apr 30, 2000 06:20:48 am"
To: "vinton g. cerf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 17:41:59 +0859 ()
CC: Matt Holdrege <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Thomas Narten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL68 (25)]
Content-Length: 1614
Status: RO
Vint;
> that's right - they use iMODE on the DOCOMO mobiles. iMODE and
> WAP seem to have that in common: a non-IP radio link protocol
> and an application gateway. Of course, this limits the applications
> to those that can be "translated" in the gateway, while an end to
> end system (such as the Ricochet from Metricom) would allow
> essentially any application on an Internet server to interact
> directly with the mobile device because the gateway would merely
> be an IP level device, possibly with NAT functionality.
> With a JAVA interpreter or other similar capability in the
> mobile, one could imagine considerable competition for development
> of new applications. As it stands, only the applications NTT
> chooses to implement in the translating gateway are accessible.
An interesting thing is that iMODE is so successful that DOCOMO
is suffering from the usual problems (lack of scalability and
robustness) caused by violating the end to end principle.
iMODE is now infamous for its frequent service interruption.
DOCOMO users are refunded for the interruption.
> Since HTTP is one of the "applications" served, there is still
> a lot of room for competition, I suppose.
To make the competition fair, the important questions are:
Is it fair if providers using iMODE or WAP are advertised
to be ISPs?
Is it fair if providers using NAT are advertised to be ISPs?
My answer to both questions is
No, while they may be Internet Service Access Providers and
NAT users may be IP Service Providers, they don't provide
Internet service and are no ISPs.
Any oppositions?
Masataka Ohta
