Re: [netlmm] [MEXT] [netext] NEXTEXT2: first draft of the bof description

[Hesham Soliman <hesham at elevatemobile.com>]

Hi Raj, 

I had a brief offline chat with Julien and thought that I could refine my
suggestion a bit more to make the point clearer. My point is that there are
currently two slightly different points being made about the requirement on
host involvement 1) no SW on the host and the more nuanced 2) no protocol
support on the host. I won't even get into the reasons for point 2) above
and I'll let the people who raise it provide those reasons, I can't figure
out any technical reasons there.

Anyway, my point is that 1) above is not an issue today because it already
happens on a very large scale, so requiring it for a specific feature like
multihoming is hardly a leap. I can imagine ads for "download your wireless
optimiser from wwww.operator.com and save money" (ok not very creative).
The subtle difference between 1) and 2) is IMO a moot point anyway because
2) simply says that operators don't want protocol support in the network,
but that support already exists in the form of PMIP and if you have PMIP you
have MIP. So, both motivations seem to be on shaky ground.
And yes, you can of course integrate 3G modems in computers, but you can
also integrate mobility code in the same computers with the 3G support. The
SW that is provided with the modems is not only connection SW it actually
provides a number of features (e.g. Receiving SMS, account information,
email ....etc) so it's a clear move by operators to be present on those
machines. I don't think it's anything like WLAN connctions SW.

Of course it's worth mentioning that the elephant in the room is the binary
requirement on host support of protocols. We need to have a yes/no answer as
to whether there is a requirement to NOT have protocol support in the host.
At the moment this is being kept very vague.

Hesham

>> => No one I know can get a 3G data card to access the Internet from their PC
>> without having to install a piece of software  on their PC to make it work.
>> So I think your assumption that the operator cannot mandate software on the
>> host is questionable, because they already do (unfortunately).
> 
> The situation that you describe above was the same when 802.11 first rolled
> around as well.
> You had to install a piece of software that came with the PC card. But that
> has changed with 
> wifi now being an integral part of the notebook computers.
> And I think you could expect 3G chipsets and access built-in as well in due
> course of time. At least I know of a few
> operators in the US (as well as notebook manufacturers) who offer such
> net/notebook computers,
> i.e with integrated 3G access. I do not know what additional sw is loaded on
> these but at least the end user
> is not installing anything else.
> Does it imply that such hosts will include the software that would enable host
> mobility? Its an open question (i.e unknown)
> and will depend largely on operator choices and vendors.
> 
> -Raj
> 
>> Hesham
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netlmm mailing list
> netlmm at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm