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? Best Regards Li -----Original Message----- From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:alexandru.petre...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 12:28 AM To: Xueli; Ted Lemon; STARK, BARBARA H Cc: HOMENET Working Group; mif@ietf.org 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:image002.jpg@01CF9A07.BF8CD480 > > 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:homenet-boun...@ietf.org] 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 <bs7...@att.com> > 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 > > home...@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet > > > > _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list > home...@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet > _______________________________________________ mif mailing list mif@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
