[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Requirements
I think of wireless as a category of technology that has a collection or difficult set of (and some unique) issues associated with it. All these issues need to be addresses before wireless becomes a "good" Internet access choice. My two cents... Regards John
Burke Chris-CCB007 wrote:
> I think the "wireless" debate within IETF can be diffused by identifying a set of system characteristics that are not unique to (e.g. narrowband) wireless systems, but that are shared by these systems and many others.
>
> A class of systems, if you will, with a different / modified / expanded set of technical and economic drivers for the many value judgements that go into deciding what is a "good" protocol.
>
> BY DEFINITION, a "good" internet protocol is one that is interoperable across the whole internet, and so this is one element of the value system that cannot be relaxed in my opinion.
>
> Here's a quick attempt at a short list of the characteristics of such systems, which I have (as a thought experiment) described without using the word "wireless"...
>
> 1) Systems in which mobility, end-to-end security, and managed end-to-end QoS must all operate simultaneously.
>
> 2) Systems in which communication bandwidth is scarce (one definition of scarcity, is that the "cost" - monetary, time, resource opportunity cost, etc - of transporting the traffic is NOT insignificant when compared to the value of the traffic itself)
>
> 3) Systems in which multiple administrative domains must interoperate at policy boundaries, with potentially different internal policies and capabilities within each domain, and with each domain potentially wanting to assess charges to some other party for the use of domain resources (not to put to fine a point on it, but THE INTERNET was created to solve exactly this problem oh so many years ago...)
>
> I hope many other readers of this list will agree that, if the IETF were to adequately address the requirements of this class of systems, there would be little need for "wireless specific" IETF work other than to accommodate specific link layers.
>
> Chris Burke
> Internet Content and Software Group
> Motorola Global Customer Solutions
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Kempf [mailto:James.Kempf@Sun.COM]
> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 10:04 AM
> To: tjc@lacunanet.net; gja@ureach.com
> Cc: more@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Requirements
>
> Grenville,
>
> Let me first clarify one point....
>
> At this point, there is no proposed WG and the intent of the BOF is
> not to start a WG. While it is possible that a WG
> might come out of the BOF, it is more likely that the BOF will
> result in an updating of the requirements in the draft. See the recently
> published draft from the Next Steps in Signalling (NSIS) BOF,
> draft-bradner-nsis-bof-00.txt, as an example.
>
> Now, with respect to the issue of "is it just a link layer"...
>
> With respect to the wireless Internet, I agree that it is a lot more
> than simply a link layer. What I was trying to make clear is that
> this has traditionally been the argument at IETF for not having
> specific WGs to deal with wireless. The problem with this argument
> is that it is becoming more and more clear (at least to me) that
> there are problems in the wireless/mobility problem space which
> go beyond the typical wired link layer. So even if it is just
> a link layer, it is still a qualitatively different kind of link
> layer. And, in addition, there are the problems that mobility brings.
>
> A way to see this is to ask "what is the difference between a
> fixed wireless and mobile wireless?" There are differences, but
> when you mix in mobility, then things get more complicated.
>
> Hope this doesn't sound too confusing...
>
> jak
>
> >Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 09:55:58 -0700
> >From: grenville armitage <gja@ureach.com>
> >To: tim clifford <tjc@lacunanet.net>
> >CC: more@ops.ietf.org
> >Subject: Re: Requirements
> >
> >
> >I'm not sure I follow your phrase "...talking about more than
> >a link layer.." Are you saying the proposed MORE WG is about
> >more than a link layer, or that wireless Internet is about more
> >than a link layer? The latter is certainly true, but if you mean
> >the former then I'm unclear what MORE will contribute
> >over and above existing efforts to develop IP-level mobility
> >solutions in the IETF.
> >
> >cheers,
> >gja
> >
> >tim clifford wrote:
> >>
> >> which would seem to imply that we need to try to convince people at the ietf
> >> (i think its a misnomer to say "convince the ietf") that we're talking about
> >> more than a link layer, maybe the right term is mobility, or roaming
> >> services, or disadvantaged user devices, or large populations of always on
> >> subscribers ;-)
> >>
> >> tc
> >>
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: owner-more@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-more@ops.ietf.org]On Behalf
> >> > Of James Kempf
> >> > Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 11:47 AM
> >> > To: more@ops.ietf.org; jgw@cisco.com
> >> > Subject: Re: Requirements
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > John,
> >> >
> >> > There is no such catalog. In general, IETF has been resistent to
> >> > making wireless a special category. It is viewed as just another link
> >> > layer.
> >
> >____________________________________________________________________
> >Grenville Armitage http://members.home.net/garmitage/
> >