RE: Splitting the IETF-Announce list?
Title: RE: Splitting the IETF-Announce list? Why is it a good idea? That's what mail filters are for. With filters, you can create as many folders as you like, and treat them as separate lists. You can even auto delete the messages that you are not interested in. IETF Announce is just fine- it has existed for years in its current form. Splitting the list on one complain doesn't make much sense at all, all Pete need to do is to take help from someone who can define filters on his system. Cheers, --brijesh Corona Networks Inc. -Original Message- From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 4:29 PM To: Pete Resnick Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Splitting the IETF-Announce list? good idea. offhand, I would make the split be between publishing activity and other announcements. Hence, both I-Ds and RFC announcements would be on one list, whereas IETF Meeting, IETF Last call, Working Group Action announcements would be on the other. d/ At 04:02 PM 11/13/2001 -0600, Pete Resnick wrote: I am interested in getting all of the posts to the IETF-Announce list *except* for the greatest bulk of those posts: Internet Draft announcements. I find it hard to believe that I -- Dave Crocker mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Brandenburg InternetWorking http://www.brandenburg.com tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.273.6464
RE: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked
Title: RE: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked Anthony, May be you can, but many of us who join IETF list would like to only read something that is related to the charter of the list. My friend, you are supporting the wrong person. The IETF list should not be treated as the speaker's corner in the Hyde Park. The person was previously given a chance to amend. --bk Corona Networks Inc. -Original Message- From: Anthony Atkielski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 1:09 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked I guess those of us who might be interested in hearing all opinions--and not just those that agree with your own--are out of luck, eh? I can decide for myself which messages I do or do not wish to read; I don't need your help. -- Anthony - Original Message - From: Harald Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 20:20 Subject: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked After having read the 4 messages that Jim Fleming sent to the list after having received my warning note, I have revoked Jim Fleming's posting privilleges to the IETF list. This revocation will remain in effect for the next month. Harald T. Alvestrand IETF Chair
RE: end-to-end w/i-Mode? (was Re: imode far superior to wap)
-Original Message- From: John Day [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] No. it's the world's biggest NAT, and NAT *breaks the end-to-end model of IP*. Well, there is a big difference between WAP's breaking the e2e model and i-mode. WAP does an application gateway and uses no Internet protocols. At least, i-mode is using IP, TCP, HTTP, etc. John, Who cares what protocol a device runs as long as it delivers the application that satisfies its intended users? Most subscribers couldn't care less if i-mode used CLNP and TP4 instead of IP and TCP. i-mode is interesting because it uses a sub-set of html, which makes life lot easier for web based application designers. Accusing them of breaking it, then puts the vast majority of subnets connected to the Internet into the same category. What's your point? It hardly seems appropriate to put i-mode and WAP in the same category. NAT *breaks the end-to-end model of IP*. The biggest problem with NAT is that you can't deliver "push" applications from a server in the global realm to devices in the NAT world without using weird proxy mechanisms. If you do that, that is nothing but a different version of "WAP". Cheers, --brijesh Ennovate Networks INc.
RE: imode far superior to wap
James, We have gone through WAP v/s non-WAP threads several times on this list. Let us hope this does not become another meaningless thread with little technical merits in the arguments. What is the use of criticizing a technology? If it is not good for a purpose, or only the second best, it will die itself. IETF, ISO or ITU can't sustain any standard unless someone in the world sees some merits in it. Some people out there see WAP is good for them, and some others see it a temporary diversion from the "real" deal. So what is new about it. Cheers, --brijesh Ennovate Networks Inc. -Original Message- From: James P. Salsman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2000 9:03 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: imode far superior to wap Apparently WAP is collapsing, both in terms of the general opinion of engineers and pundits, and now customer revenues. The Invisible Hand needs to slap some sense into the overly-greedy WAP Forum and their all-too-pervasive accomplices. Imode is far more widely used in Japan, as it is a very superior open standard that anyone can author and browse on any platform. I would ask that everyone in the IETF who cares about these things make an informal personal effort to try to get cellular carriers to migrate towards a solution like imode. Looking around a Google search on "imode" will pretty clearly show how it works. I don't know if cellular phones cause brain damage (although perhaps that could explain the WAP Forum's pathetic bytecode-based rejection of Moore's Law), but trying to use WAP is like viewing Medusans in the Star Trek universe [TOS episode 60, "Is There In Truth No Beauty?" http://www.lcarscom.net/tos3.htm ]. Cheers, James
RE: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
-Original Message- From: Anthony Atkielski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Mahadevan Iyer writes: At first glance, it seems sheer idiocy to use an open network like the Internet to control critical matter= of-life-and-death public infrastructure like power systems. What do you think? I think there are lots of idiots out there preparing to do exactly this. My logics have failed me due to the above text: which of the following you mean. 1) Any one who is preparing to do above will belong to a set called "Idiots", 2) Only people who already belong to a set called "Idiots" are preparing to do it. Hey - don't take it seriously it is friday. On a change note, what about the use of secure tunnels using IPSEC? Won't that solve problem. Perhaps not in all cases. I think you need - security, performance guarantee, network path reliability and ability to control restoration paths. Security is only one dimension to the issue of who controls the end to end delivery system in critical applications. It is hard to be sure of an event outcome if you are not in control of all variables that can affect the system. Basic control theory. Do you think people who design these systems flunked their control theory course (may be they concentrated too much on computer science :-))? Cheers, --brijesh Ennovate Networks Inc.
RE: IP service definition
-Original Message- From: Randy Bush [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] It is akin to standardizing on what kind of light can come in your neighbourhood. properly done, and with no adjectives or judgement spin, it could be a taxonomy of what kinds of light are known. this might be useful, witness a recent discussion re wap of what is being on the internet. Hi Randy, Yes - both AOL and WAP aren't IP solutions in true sense, but both are unqualified commercial success for the organizations promoting them. Yes, you can go ahead and blame AOL and WAP forum for them but who would you blame for creating NAT. NAT is no less offender of the end to end design paradigm, than WAP and AOL. Why criticize WAP forum if it decided not to hide wireless devices behind NAT boxes. After hearing Java and Windows on every device, I am hearing NAT and BGP for every thing from some vendors. Who is controlling these standards - is it IETF. Or it is OK to do any thing as long as your implementation gets published as an I-D or RFC (in that case AOL and WAP forums should perhaps publish their specs as RFCs). Hear..hear.. Cheers, --brijesh (personal views only)
RE: Is WAP mobile Internet??
Bob Braden writes: -Original Message- Jon Postel would have said: If it speaks IP (UDP/TCP are not necessary), then it's Internet, else not. I will add a bit to this discussion. 1. A WAP phone without an IP address is not an Internet device. And, no one claims so. 2. A WAP device can have both IP and non-IP addresses. So a WAP device could be an Internet device at one time and non-Internet device a bit later (at least in theory). 3. An IP address is not very useful on most mobile (cellular) devices. A lot of useful services and applications can be provided without IP on the wireless devices. That includes sending and receiving mails to/from the Internet, and limited web browsing via proxy gateways. 4. Wireless web access using IP is already here, but very few bother to use it. Networks with the ability to handle IP traffic such as CDPD have traditionally very low (as per my info, under 15% or so) capacity utilization and just about every network is under utilized, and in big loss situation, so much for IP access in wireless devices. At the same time GSM SMS which needs no IP addressing has a tremendous demands. So go figure out utility and economics of IP addresses in wireless devices for now. Cheers, --brijesh Ennovate Networks Inc.
RE: WAP - What A Problem...
-Original Message- From: Alan Simpkins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 2:04 PM This I can agree with, the next question that naturally follows then is is WAP the right protocol for a fixed wireless application, or are we talking about yet another set of standards and protocols. I would tend to think that one set should work for both. WAP's working space is in cellular phones and two way pagers, i.e.., in hand-held (or pocket kept) mobile devices in cellular environment with fixed cell channels and continuous location update. Though TCP/IP could have been used here too - but carriers and manufacturers of cell phones/pagers chose not to use for reasons that have been previously discussed here with great vigor by some folks :-). Fixed location or limited mobility computers will most likely be connected using WLL or specialized Wireless Broadband Internet Access equipment or similar other options. They are no different than any computer in the building using Wireless LAN, and should/will use TCP/IP. Have a look at website of Adaptive Broadband which designs wireless Internet access equipment for ISPs. Cheers, --brijesh
RE: WAP and IP
Vernon Schryver writes -Original Message- From: Mohsen BANAN-Public [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... There is a genuine need for a reliable efficient transport that accommodates *short* and *occasional* exchanges. There are many occasions where UDP is too little and TCP is too much. I've often heard that from telephant advocates, but I've never seen anything plausible from them. See, my friend, if you call any one who doesn't agree with your views on TCP/IP with names like "telephant advocate", reasoning is not going to convince you. It is like convincing a life long republican to vote for Al Gore - he/she has already closed the door to make sure that nothing can come in. Mohsen may be accused of any thing, but calling Mohsen whose aim is to create an open alternative to WAP is hilarious. And, Mohsen at least understands the issues involved in wireless cellular communication, something that can be said of many other TCP/IP for every thing advocates. Cheers, --brijesh (personal opinions only)
RE: WAP and IP
There were quite lot of responses to my mail on this topic so here is what I have to say. It is hard to defend the WAP as only possible solution or the most elegant solution for any one. Though in the past few years I spent quite lot of time thinking about how to make data applications run with little change on different wireless technologies (that includes CDPD, DataTECH (aka, ARDIS), GPRS, FLEX/ReFLEX messaging systems, GSM/CDMA - IWUs, and of course how to use SMS more usefully). I am no longer concerned whether WAP succeeds, or is replaced by something else. I believe that quite lot of misgivings about WAP comes from the people who only take a partial view of the problems - that is if you put TCP and IP magically on today's wireless devices than every thing will be hunky-dory. Wrong. Let us restrict our discussion to what is *CURRENTLY available rather than the next generation networks* (note emphasis here). RF spectrum is pre-allocated, channel size and number of available channels to each carrier are pre-defined, cell channel configurations are difficult to change, and all communication has to take place within these constraints. If you ignore this reality, there is nothing to discuss because than we are talking on imaginary planes. Let us take case of a CDPD device that has a IP address. CDPD has one of the largest coverage in US and is geared for data communication. Now CDPD works at 19.2 Kbps, and uses spare capacity from AMPs channel, and when no channel is available that a device looks for voice gaps in other channels to send data. I measured losses of a CDPD channel many many years ago (using a MDIS for which I wrote the code ;-)), and I noticed that packet loss could be as much as 3 %. CDPD modem that I used gave me about 1100 byte throughput using TCP (well, half the channel went in framing overheads of the MDLP and over the air protocol, and TCP slow starts.). With these kind of losses TCP throughput tanks!. So we need a wireless medium aware version of TCP or some hacks for TCP to be efficient under losses (see relevant literature). Also note quite lot of communication between wireless device and the network happens in the background without a user being aware of it. So he can turn off his device any time, or remove its batteries to clean the nodes. I believe, TCP apps don't take this behaviour very kindly :-). Now for a moment forget about allocating IP addresses to 60 million plus cellular phones and 20 millions or so other wireless devices in US (I may be wrong in these numbers by millions). IP with NAT is not a true solution, as it is not possible to initiate communication between two end points without a proxy mediator, or unless the address of the one of the end points is fixed, and known to other party. Now a typical web page with all its glorious graphics is about 50-400 Kbytes. Just compute how many seconds it will take to load on currently available wireless channel speeds. Mail enclosures can be in Megabytes. Faxes can be even lot larger. Let us assume that a cellular network has some rich techno folks that are willing to pay $0.50 per minute to browse web using cellular modems. But the longer a customer stays, the service is being degraded to other customers in the cell as channels are being occupied by a single customer. Is it good make many customers happy, or bother about one rich online junkie? Therefore, there is a clear CURRENT need to restrict amount of information from over all system point of view, even though some of the customers may be able to pay for it. And also note that not all mass marketed devices have memory to implement TCP/IP in all its glory or store mammoth size Web pages or email locally on the device. When Palm pilot with 16 Mbytes with built is microphone and speaker will sell for $39.95, that will be different case. Of course some current RF medium such as ReFLEX network can't run TCP because many devices need to compete simultaneously for a channel and continuous allocation of channel is not guaranteed. Add to that even if there was enough bandwidth, small screen's on some of the today's devices can't meaningfully display all contents of modern web sites. So why bother delivering huge graphics and mail enclosures to these devices. That decision requires some gateway/filters whether WAP or any other type between wireless and wired side. As discussed above, there are many constraints to deal with. Therefore, even though WAP has many problems and perhaps may not be needed when devices become more powerful and have full implementation of TCP/IP. It is unlikely even then that wireless channel bandwidth will *magically become plentiful for ALL*. I don't think WAP is closing that route for ever, and better channel speeds and more powerful devices, will make use of WAP on some networks undesirable. However, note that many people are still doubtful if US carriers will be able to move from current TDMA networks to the next generation UMTS in the
RE: IP over MIME (was Re: WAP Is A Trap -- Reject WAP)
Chuck writes, It's my understanding that disturbances in The Force were actually routed using an ancient precursor to IP. I don't know about it, but the myth goes that ET communicated with his folks using IP :-). The captured packet trace is "UndecodableDatalink:IPheader:TCPheader:"ET go home"" Cheers, --brijesh
RE: WAP Is A Trap -- Reject WAP
Mohsen writes: Brijesh PS: By the way, ReFLEX is perfectly fine for two way messaging Brijesh applications. No. ReFLEX is not perfectly fine. It is not IP based. Hi Mohsen, What kind of argument is this? If it is not IP based it is not good ! This is an emotional response, not a technical one. Using the same arguments, the whole phone system isn't good because it has nothing to do with IP (or at least was true till VoIP came), and same is true of all G2 TDMA, CDMA and GSM cellular systems (and don't forget AMPS, CDECT and many other wireless standards). If you want to say that WAP is not good because it closes alternative solutions, I very much agree with you (which a good reason to fight for). But to say that an existing wireless standard that has millions of users is no good, isn't a proper argument. I agree that ReFLEX is a proprietary standard, and proprietary standards (with controlled licensing as ReFLEX is) are bad for consumers - you can definitely argue on that basis. But you cannot argue on technical merits of the protocol itself because it is very efficient in delivery of email messages. Using a 25 KHz channel it can support thousands of devices. It is not only very efficient in usage of radio spectrum, and it is well known that under-ground or in-building penetration of FLEX/ReFLEX systems is far better than any other cellular systems. Of course, it is not designed for interactive real time operations - but email doesn't require sub-milli seconds response nor do many telemetry systems such as coke machine and electric meters in houses. Even ARDIS network, the grand daddy of wireless data networking in US, has nothing to do with IP. The WAP's goal was to support just about every possible Radio layer. It is all inclusive and does support IP devices (which use CDPD, GPRS or CDMA/GSM - IWUs). Moreover, TCP/IP isn't designed for wireless channels which have limitations on bandwidth, frequent handovers, channel errors, and periods when channel isn't available at all (of course, number of solutions some of them are pure software hacks, such as snooping TCP halfway at BS etc., have been proposed. Of course, we haven't yet figured out how to initiate an application between two devices when both sit behind NATs at this scale (try sending a TCP connection message from one cellular phone to another cellular phone in the car and assume that both have them have no permanent IP addresses !). You will need true IPv6 without which IP with NAT isn't going to go long distance in wireless devices. What I wished to point out was that you definitely have a good objective, but the approach is not right. The real issue is should all technology be supported by a single set of WAP Forum derived specifications. What is good for ReFLEX (@9600 bauds) isn't good for CDPD at 19.2 Kbps and definitely isn't good at 170kbps GPRS, or 2 Mbits/sec G3 micro cells. I think there you have some good arguments. Given that most cellular devices or systems come from three super heavy weights, and two heavy weights, any solutions that doesn't get supported by some of them, has little chance to get adopted in near future. But try - you definitely can, and should. Cheers, --brijesh Ennovate Networks Inc. (my personal views only, and in no way reflect opinions of my organization.)
RE: IP over MIME (was Re: WAP Is A Trap -- Reject WAP)
Keith Moore writes: -Original Message- WAP might evolve into something more useful, but I don't see how it will replace IP in any sense. One is an architecture for supporting application on diverse wireless systems, and other is a network layer packet transport mechanism. Two aren't even comparable. WAP's goal is not to replace IP, but mediate between non-IP wireless devices, and existing IP based wire line applications. WAP as it currently exists isn't a solution to any future problem - it is a solution to the problem of how to build a consumer information service over SMS and cell phones with limited displays. No. It is a solution of how to support meaningful applications over a wireless channel with *limited bandwidth*, and use the same application over wide variety of radio protocols and systems without change (or minimal change). Meaningful applications include some of current wire line applications. The size of display has nothing to do with it. The bottleneck is BANDWIDTH not the display size (you may have a device that has a screen size of 1 meter by 1 meter - but that doesn't obviate the need of devising mechanisms that better utilize the radio spectrum. But cell networks are starting to deploy far better data delivery services than SMS (more bandwidth, less latency) and I expect that cell phones will get better display capabilities along with PDA functionality (and likewise, PDAs will get wireless data capability). Under these conditions, WAP as we know it today isn't very interesting. See above. The size of display isn't the issue. Contrary to what you say, most people who work in cellular industry think that WAP is very interesting piece of work given the limitations of the systems that are *widely deployed and used today*. As far as wireless industry is concerned, the die is already cast - WAP, BlueTooth and UMTS are three future technologies. cheers, --brijesh (my personal views only.)
RE: WAP Is A Trap -- Reject WAP
Mohsen Banan, I tried hard to agree what you said - but many inaccuracies and assumptions made in the article made my task so hard that I had to finally give up reading it. Having spent last several years in the wireless industry, and also having written some "not-so-open" as you say, but widely adopted wireless specifications nevertheless, I have some sympathy with your cause. But you may need to weed out some of the rhetoric that is not technically correct. It is an open secret that wireless industry is a closed cartel of three super heavyweights (Motorola, Ericsson, and Nokia) and two heavy weights (Lucent and Nortel). There is no role for any smaller organization in the set up. Hope God give you wisdom to accept this truth with cheerfulness, as many other small companies in the wireless industry have accepted ;-). Cheers, --brijesh (my personal opinion only, and this in no way represents opinion of my employer.) PS: By the way, ReFLEX is perfectly fine for two way messaging applications. The WAP Trap An Expose of the Wireless Application Protocol Mohsen Banan [EMAIL PROTECTED] for: Free Protocols Foundation http://www.FreeProtocols.org Version 1.6 May 26, 2000
RE: draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complications-02.txt
In his previous mail, Thomas Narten writes: Now, consider someone in the process of deploying massive numbers of devices (100's of millions) together with the infrastructure to support them (e.g., wireless). With IPv4, they face not only the necessity of using NAT to get to outside destinations, but also the use of NAT _internally_ because there isn't enough private address space to properly number the internal part of the infrastructure. I don't know about you, but it scares me to read the various forecasts about how wireless will transform the landscape over the next few years. E.g., more wireless phones with internet connectivity than PCs. The numbers are just staggering and the associated demand for addresses will be astonishing. We ain't seen nothing yet. The basic assumptions in your answer are: 1) wireless devices will need an IP address. 2) Wireless devices will need to run TCP over IP for doing file transfer, web browsing etc. These are neither necessary, nor desirable solutions for wireless data or voice devices providing data. Most end user don't care whether their wireless email comes using an IP address or using a GSM ID or a Re-FLEX capcode. Wireless standards folks, if they want, can continue to keep NAT and IPv6 addresses away from end wireless devices. Cheers, --brijesh Ennovate Networks Inc.,
RE: GSM 900 /1800, UMTS bandwidth
If you are using a GSM 900/1800 network for internet access what are the optimal bandwidth qualities, and what are the bandwidth qualities of existing UMTS networks? I don't know if I really understand your questions. If you connect with appropriate modem/device you should be able to get the following channel bandwidth for data applications.: 2+ = GSM Phase 2+ GSM CSD = GSM Circuit Switched Data (14.4kbps * n) GPRS = General Packet Radio System Data (up to 164 kbps) EDGE = Enhanced Data GSM Environment (up to 560 kbps) UMTS = Universal Mobile Telephone Service (up to 2 Mbps but only in a micro cell.) Cheers, --brijesh
