>>>>>> I believe we need a MMBearerType enum in the 0.6 API, so that we can >>>>>> tell in CreateBearer() whether we want a 3GPP or CDMA (well, or POTS) >>>>>> bearer. This property would be redundant for 3GPP-only, CDMA-only or >>>>>> POTS-only modems, but would be mandatory if we have a mixed >>>>>> 3GPP(LTE)+CDMA bearer. This value would also be shown as a property in >>>>>> the Bearer interface, so that we can know the type of the bearer behind >>>>>> a given DBus path. Another possibility to avoid the new enum would be to >>>>>> assume that if "apn" is given when creating the bearer, we want a 3GPP >>>>>> bearer, while if no "apn" is given we really want a CDMA bearer. But not >>>>>> sure I like to rely just on this "apn"-based logic. What do others think? >>>>> >>>>> The problem with that approach is handoffs. If you create a 3GPP/LTE >>>>> bearer and then leave LTE coverage where the device hands off to EVDO, >>>>> now your 3GPP bearer is a CDMA bearer. In this scenario there's no >>>>> interruption of packet data service and you don't even know anything >>>>> happened except that the access technology changed from LTE to EVDO. >>>> >>>> Well, that is already some indication that we can use. If we had a 3GPP >>>> bearer connected, and suddenly the access technology changed to EV-DO, >>>> then we could internally mark the CDMA bearer as connected and mark the >>>> 3GPP one as disconnected. If done in that order, we wouldn't be issuing >>>> any state change notification. This, assuming that for mixed technology >>>> modems we have different technology-specific bearers. The only drawback >>>> of having technology-specific bearers is that for the user not using the >>>> Simple interface, it would mean needing to create two bearers with two >>>> CreateBearer() calls. But I don't think that that is a big deal; if the >>>> user of a mixed CDMA+LTE modem just creates a 3GPP bearer and gets it >>>> connected, and then we detect the connection handed off to CDMA, we can >>>> request the disconnection of the bearer and that's it. If the user >>>> didn't create a CDMA bearer, we would need to assume she didn't want a >>>> CDMA connection. If using the Simple interface, all that would be >>>> automatic, different bearers would be created automatically. >>> >>> there is no guarantee that the IP connection details stay the same. >> >> There is no IP connection detail stored in the ModemManager bearers, so >> that wouldn't be a big deal for us I guess. Maybe I'm missing something. > > Except for Static mode :) >
Indeed, yes. Which reminds me I need to allow subclasses of the bearers to report the static IP addresses. -- Aleksander _______________________________________________ networkmanager-list mailing list networkmanager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list