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

["Noll, Kevin" <kevin.noll at twcable.com>]

I've been lurking here for a while watching the conversation. Please
accept my apologies for dropping in unexpectedly, but I thought I might
give at least one operator's viewpoint.

You are correct that most data cards being sold today require you to
install the carrier's software. This software typically contains a
connection manager and the OS drivers required to operate the data card.
Technically speaking, the data cards that I have worked with do not all
*require* the connection manager to operate, though it varies from card
to card. Obviously, though, they *do* need the drivers.

What we saw with WiFi was a technology that began as an add-on to our
computing devices (laptops, etc.). WiFi grew, matured, and became so
widely accepted that operating systems began to ship with native
drivers, the add-on device became integrated into the computing devices
and we no longer needed to install 3rd-party drivers or connection
software.

As a network provider/operator, we like this model because it is very
expensive to write and maintain the connection software and drivers and
keep the user's device up to date. Adding a mobility stack to the
software being installed adds significantly to this cost. We are seeing
the cost come down, but there's still the issue of configuration and
what-not.

We expect to see open networks and technologies like WiMAX (and possibly
LTE) change the traditional cellular data-card model to one that is more
similar to WiFi, hopefully driving down the cost of the software and
moving the software development tasks out of the operator and into the
OS vendor community.

This said, I think it would be a mistake to make any assumptions on
either of the two points mentioned below. 

1. In the future the carrier may not deliver software with the data
card, so it's probably a bad assumption to say that the carrier would
simply deliver a mobility stack with the device.

2. It's probably a good assumption to say that devices will eventually
have native mobility stacks. We are already seeing this development in
mainstream operating systems. This is similar to the evolution of WiFi.

3. It's probably not a good assumption to say that *all* devices will
have the perfect combination of native support or carrier support.

4. At least some carriers prefer to manage mobility inside the network
rather than on the customer device. This is something that we are
constantly discussing internal to our organization, with vendors, and
with other operators.

Based on this, the case for extending the functionality of PMIP6 is
pretty strong, at least in my opinion. 

On the other hand, we will also continue following the development of
native stacks and evaluate when and how best to use them in our product
offerings. Similarly, we will continue to evaluate whether or not we
need to deliver a mobility stack with our data card software.

Thanks!

--kan--
--
Kevin A. Noll



P Go Green! Print this email only when necessary. Thank you for helping Time Warner Cable be environmentally responsible.
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: netlmm-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:netlmm-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Hesham Soliman
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 11:59 PM
To: Basavaraj.Patil at nokia.com; marcelo at it.uc3m.es
Cc: netext at ietf.org; netlmm at ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netlmm] [MEXT] [netext] NEXTEXT2: first draft of the bof
description


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


_______________________________________________
netlmm mailing list
netlmm at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm
This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner
Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential,
or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail
is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which
it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this
E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents
of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be
unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify
the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any
copy of this E-mail and any printout.