Re: CAPWAP BOF follow up: nmrg - CAPWAP

["James Kempf" <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com>]

> > Thanx much for your participation in the list, it goes beyond
> > what one can reasonably expect of an AD at this stage.
>
> you left off the <sarcasm> tag
>

No sarcasm meant. :-)

> > Seriously, though, the 3GPP UTRAN cellular protocols are
> > standardized for interoperability, but the load balancing
> > algorithms are up to the vendors.  In practice, they achieve good
> > load balancing because the vendors know what they are doing, and
> > spend a lot of time and money developing their algorithms. From
> > Bernard's comments, it sounds like some of the 802.11 vendors
> > either don't know what they are doing or aren't spending enough
> > money on the problem, so an interoperable protocol might not, in
> > practice, do much to help. Which is what I meant.
>
> i believe that a bit of thought will make you suspect that a
> multi-device environment, where different devices have different
> load-balancing algorithms, or even the same algorithms with
> different constants, will lead to serious thrashing.
>

Maybe. 3GPP load balancing seems to work with various kinds of phones
(Nokia, Siemens, Sony-Ericsson) and GPRS though. I should probably look more
deeply into the specs before saying more.

> > Also, BTW, I got some email from an EE Times correspondent and
> > spoke with him on the phone for about a half hour. He had the
> > misconception that IETF had decided to standardize LWAPP. I
> > quickly dissuaded him of that, and tried to put him straight
> > about where the discussion is at.
>
> great.  then do tell the rest of us!
>

Still in the initial phases, no problem statement yet. Other than that, your
guess for an outcome is as good as mine.

            jak