On Tue, 2007-01-23 at 10:11 -0800, Shane Bryan wrote: > On 1/23/07, Dan Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 2007-01-23 at 09:25 -0800, Shane Bryan wrote: > > Does NM have plans (near or far) to also manage connections > to > > WiMax/WMAN (802.16) networks and/or Digital Cellular (aka > WWAN) > > networks? > > Both; but certainly cellular before WiMAX. What the cell bits > require > is the integrated PPP support, which we're working on. > > Is there a release target for PPP or is the support more > "opportunistic". IOW, is anyone working on it now with good progress > towards, say, the next release, or is it lower priority to other > objectives and gets attention as time permits? Just trying to get a > full understanding, not questioning anyones priorities or schedule.
It would be nice to get it into 0.7, but I'm not sure that's possible in the timeframe. It's pretty much #4 on the list of stuff to do, and only the top 3 are "blockers" for a 0.7 release. > I'd really like to support WiMAX in the future too, but we'll > need quite > a few things before that happens. First, we need to know what > the > interface to the card looks like. Second, how much of the > stack will be > running in firmware versus how much will be running on the > host. Third, > how to tune various things that might need tuning, and fourth, > we need > drivers for WiMAX cards :) > > Heh, details, details... > > On that note, what are people hearing about OSS based drivers for > these devices. I can name a few that are somming out with PCMCIA or > SOC based solutions in the next year or two: > * Intel Rosedale 2 (802.16d/e combined) > * Sequans' SQN1110 SOC > * ZyXEL WiMax PCMCIA > * Beceem - Apparently has a ref design kit with PCMCIA card > prototypes > Any of these promise OSS Drivers? I have heard nobody promise OSS drivers for WiMAX. Furthermore, since the spectrum is _licensed_ spectrum, I wouldn't expect quite as much willingness from manufacturers or providers (like Sprint or Clearwire) to release/allow OSS implementations of some stuff. There is quite a big difference here between licensed/unlicensed in what companies might do to protect the integrity of the network. > I know that if Intel makes WiMax part of their Centrino brand, then > they have usually provided base functionality in some form of OSS > driver (even if it has firmware chunks or user space proprietary > code). What about other manufacturers? Unsure. Nobody has publicly discussed any plans WRT WiMAX and Linux yet AFAIK. > Companies like Sprint have committed to "mobile" WiMAX > (802.16e) as > their 4G cellular standard, and I would like to support them > in the same > manner as I'd like to support current GSM/CDMA cellular cards. > > > > I've seen recent announcements of WiMax deployments in the > Portland, > > OR area and other places around the world, and was curious > if these > > wireless networks (in the functional sense of the word) > were > > considered in scope for what NM is designed for, or is this > lower > > level than NM ( i.e. does it need to be implimented in > wireless tools > > or dscape or ???)? > > Well, WiMAX bits would certainly require a configuration > interface of > some kind to be able to receive stuff like strength and maybe > other > tunables. But GSM/CDMA cards get away without this sort of > thing > because they simply present a serial interface that you can > dial and > talk PPP over. > > Yeah, this is what I was thinking...that it's not all just kernel > space. Authentication methodologies might differ enough to require UI > changes in the collection of authentication information, correct? > What else? Unsure, since nobody has really talked about a Linux WiMAX stack yet. But it's probably combination of kernel device drivers and userland configuration dialing software. > > If not NM, is anyone aware of other projects or companies > working on > > WiMax and WWAN connection manager/configuration tools > similar to what > > NM is doing for WLAN? > > The plan is to support the wider-area regulated frequency > networks in > much the same way as WLANs are right now, with the caveat that > they > never connect automatically unless you tell the configuration > to do so, > unlike current WLAN devices. > > Why the caveat? Perceived risk? Assumption that more local network > is more secure, appropriate, or faster? Just curious. Neither. It's more that current cellular providers usually charge per kilobyte for the majority of their data plans. Wifi providers like T-Mobile usually do it by the day, and lock you out after your time has expired. That's _not_ traditionally been the case with cellular companies. Not everyone buys the "unlimited" plans, and in some cases (ie, Verizon) "unlimited" actually means "unlimited, but with a 5GB/month unstated limit". So it's pretty much irresponsible to turn on cellular autoconnection by default. I wouldn't expect the pricing model of _mobile_ WiMAX to be all that different from cellular. Obviously there will be a checkbox somewhere that you can check to autoconnect and use your cell card over the wifi, it just won't be checked by default. > If I am connected to a the "Metropolis" WiMax network at home, why > would it be assumed that I would want to connect to $tarbuck$ WiFi > instead when I am enjoying my morning coffee? Wouldn't network > consistancy be desirable, I mean that's one of the key selling > features of Mobile WiMax isn't it? Right; but do you really want to autoconnect and have it "always on" and used when you have, say, a 40MB/month limit with charges of $1/MB over that? That's Sprint's "lite" plan right now, for example. Dan _______________________________________________ NetworkManager-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
