RE: WAP - What A Problem...

[Erkki Kolehmainen]

-Original Message-
From: Anthony Atkielski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2000 12:42 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: WAP - What A Problem...


> For some countries it is more feasible for people to
> use mobile technology than to try to put in place the
> fiber, and copper necessary to allow them to communicate
> using some of what might be called the more traditional
> methods.

If they are that lacking in mere wires, they probably aren't in a position
to profit from access to the Internet in the first place.  That is, if they
lack telephones (and that's all they need for broadband, or at least it's
the better part of the battle), why would they be surfing the Web?  First
things first.

> WAP, and mobile technology is a necessary component to
> the future of the global economy.

Countries without landlines are not going to be a part of the global economy
unless they upgrade in a major way very soon.

Actually this just reinforces my point.  Countries have no infrastructure at
all and already we are trying to sell them WAP.  Hmm.

EIK:

I'm somewhat surprised. Are you saying that everybody should go through the
same evolutionary steps e.g. for the telephone system and not start using
new technologies as they become available?
Wireless communication, albeit typically slower and more error prone, is
both faster and cheaper to install (and thus much more practical) in several
parts of the world than conventional land lines. Furthermore, for good
reasons e.g. in Finland, a country where fixed wire telephony has been well
established and highly popular, the mobile phone density has already
surpassed it and exceeds 50 % of the population.
__
Erkki I. Kolehmainen
TIEKE Tietotekniikan kehittämiskeskus ry
TIEKE Finnish Information Technology Development Centre 
Salomonkatu 17 A, 10th floor, FIN-00100 HELSINKI, FINLAND
Phone: +358 9 4763 0301, Fax: +358 9 4763 0399
http://www.tieke.fi[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: WAP - What A Problem...

[Eric Brunner]

> Do you mean that WAP is:
> - overhyped?
...

Rats. I thought he ment the bit about the frog genes gone awry.
Self-pollenating dino-phibs. Oh well, back to the data.

Cheers,
Eric

Possible mix-up in hotel assignment for Pittsburgh IETF

[Ken Hornstein]

I was one of the people who got bumped from the DoubleTree to the Hilton.
When I called today to verify my reservation at the Hilton, I discovered
that there were _two_ Kenneth Hornstein's that have a reservation at
the Hilton; one with my address, and another one with a different Amex
number who was from Santa Clara, CA.

I am suspecting that there was an error when people got bumped from the
DoubleTree to the Hilton, and my name got assigned to someone else's
information.  If you were one of the people who got bumped from the
DoubleTree to the Hilton, you're from Santa Clara, and you used an Amex
card, I'd advise checking your reservation at the Hilton.

(And if there _is_ a Kenneth Hornstein who is from Santa Clara and is
going to the Pittsburgh IETF, my apologies :-) ).

--Ken

Re: WAP - What A Problem...

[Anthony Atkielski]

> But it would be a grave mistake to cease working on
> future developments while waiting for everyone to be
> able to share what we have now ...

It hasn't gotten as far as sharing.  We don't even have the "old" stuff in
place and running, and already people want to replace it.

You know, I'd much rather have greatly improved cellular-telephone voice
quality than a tiny screen on a tiny phone for Internet services that I'll
never use.  I'd like to see the older technologies actually implemented and
working smoothly before they are thrown away in favor of ever newer
technologies.

Right now I have a DSL line that is _supposed_ to allow 1000 kbps on the
downlink.  However, since nobody bothers to update the infrastructure behind
it, sometimes I get more like 32 kbps on the line.  And now people are
talking about wireless connections.  Well, I'd rather keep my DSL and see it
actually run at its rated speed than adopt yet another jury-rigged lab
experiment that will be declared obsolete before it even works correctly.
Some of us have work to do, and we don't have the luxury or desire to just
sit around trying to imagine "what next?"

> ... and that's not looking form the perspective of those
> who already have and don't want to be held back.

I want what I've already been promised before they get what they are still
dreaming about.

> This doesn't mean that we should stop assisting the
> rest of the world ...

Why the rest of the world?  Look in your own backyard.  How many people do
you know with even a broadband connection?  For an accurate assessment, stop
people on the street and ask them if they have broadband Internet access,
and see what numbers you come up with.

> ... but neither should be be slowing down on advances
> just because some don't yet have what we currently use -
> if we're good enough, they may never need to.

If we don't stop dreaming and start actually implementing, they'll never
have anything at all.

Re: WAP - What A Problem...

[Anthony Atkielski]

> For some countries it is more feasible for people to
> use mobile technology than to try to put in place the
> fiber, and copper necessary to allow them to communicate
> using some of what might be called the more traditional
> methods.

If they are that lacking in mere wires, they probably aren't in a position
to profit from access to the Internet in the first place.  That is, if they
lack telephones (and that's all they need for broadband, or at least it's
the better part of the battle), why would they be surfing the Web?  First
things first.

> WAP, and mobile technology is a necessary component to
> the future of the global economy.

Countries without landlines are not going to be a part of the global economy
unless they upgrade in a major way very soon.

Actually this just reinforces my point.  Countries have no infrastructure at
all and already we are trying to sell them WAP.  Hmm.

Re: IETF Wireless LAN history

[Joe Touch]

RJ Atkinson wrote:
> 
> At 16:15 29/06/00 , Joe Touch wrote:
> 
> >DS appears to be better for large, flat spaces (largely 2-dimensional,
> >under 3 stories tall, since transcievers on the middle floor largely
> >cover the upper and lower).
> >
> >FH is better for more spherical spaces (largely 3-dimensional).
> 
> These optimisations do not appear to matter significantly in practice
> in the locations that IETFs have been held or in other places where
> I have experience with DS/FH being overlaid (a work campus environment).

That is interesting - it was the deciding factor in the deployment here.
DS was not capable of covering the 3-D space sufficiently, due the the
number of overlapping cells required, and the number of "channels"
available.

> >And DS and FH do not play well together, i.e., it's much better to stay
> >away from concurrent overlapping installations. I had earlier measured a
> >BW penalty of between 1/2 to 3/4 (transferring data over only one of the
> >two technologies at a time, in a concurrent deployment).
> 
> IETF/DC is a fine counter-example of why the above might theoretically
> be true, 

See "measured" above. Theory was not involved. :-)

but is not really true in deployed networks.  IETF/DC had both
> overlaid on the same 3D spaces and both worked OK.  Obviously one
> must be thoughtful about the channel/frequency plan and such like
> (which is true regardless of overlaid networks).

Agreed.

Joe

Re: IETF Wireless LAN history

[RJ Atkinson]

At 16:15 29/06/00 , Joe Touch wrote:

>DS appears to be better for large, flat spaces (largely 2-dimensional,
>under 3 stories tall, since transcievers on the middle floor largely
>cover the upper and lower).
>
>FH is better for more spherical spaces (largely 3-dimensional).

These optimisations do not appear to matter significantly in practice
in the locations that IETFs have been held or in other places where
I have experience with DS/FH being overlaid (a work campus environment).

>And DS and FH do not play well together, i.e., it's much better to stay
>away from concurrent overlapping installations. I had earlier measured a
>BW penalty of between 1/2 to 3/4 (transferring data over only one of the
>two technologies at a time, in a concurrent deployment).

IETF/DC is a fine counter-example of why the above might theoretically
be true, but is not really true in deployed networks.  IETF/DC had both
overlaid on the same 3D spaces and both worked OK.  Obviously one
must be thoughtful about the channel/frequency plan and such like
(which is true regardless of overlaid networks).

Ran
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: WAP - What A Problem...

[Robert Elz]

Date:Thu, 29 Jun 2000 18:29:15 +0200
From:"Anthony Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID:  <007201bfe1e7$2b9b5b80$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

  | I know it's not very sexy to drop the blue-sky toys, but doesn't anyone ever
  | work on improving and democratizing existing infrastructure instead of
  | widening the gap between what people really have and what looks cool in the
  | lab?

There is plenty of the former going on - not as much as could be done
perhaps, but there isn't none either.

But it would be a grave mistake to cease working on future developments
while waiting for everyone to be able to share what we have now - and
that's not looking form the perspective of those who already have and
don't want to be held back.  If we insisted that everyone had ethernet
in their buildings before we took the next step forward, there'd be all
these buildings in parts of the world still having thick orange cable
dragged through them - but because network research and advances didn't
stop, much of the world got to avoid that step, and even the thinner
more flexible black cable - perhaps now much of it might even be able to
avoid cabling altogether.

This doesn't mean that we should stop assisting the rest of the world
until we have the one perfect technology, that would be absurd, but neither
should be be slowing down on advances just because some don't yet have
what we currently use - if we're good enough, they may never need to.

kre

Re: IETF Wireless LAN history

[Joe Touch]

"Theodore Y. Ts'o" wrote:
> 
>Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 13:22:32 -0400
>From: RJ Atkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> Actually, IETF has made IEEE 802.11-DSSS the convention for wireless
>LANs at all IETF meetings for some time now.  This has been supported
>at least at Oslo, DC, Adelaide, (and will be at Pittsburgh).  It probably
>has been  supported for some significant time before Oslo, though I
>don't have first-hand remembrance of that.  In DC, Nortel was pushing
>their 802.11-FH system, but a full 802.11-DS system was up and running
>in parallel.
> 
> I'm not sure that it's been officially decided as the convention, but
> it's certainly been the practice most of the time (although the Nortel
> use of frequency hoppers was a certainly an exception to this rule).
> 
> I think there was one other time that frequency hoppers were used in the
> past; I seem to recall dispairing that we would *ever* settle on a
> standard 802.11 type when I broke down and purchased a 802.11-FH PCMCIA
> card.  That way, I'd be ready no matter what a particular IETF meeting
> site decided to use.
> 
> It would be good if we could standardize on one particular type, but as
> I recall the last time the issue was raised, it was explained to me that
> different systems worked better in different RF environments, so we
> should get used to switching back and forth between DS and FH cards.
> If we we could depend on it always being 802.11-DS, that might make a
> number of people's lives easier.

DS appears to be better for large, flat spaces (largely 2-dimensional,
under 3 stories tall, since transcievers on the middle floor largely
cover the upper and lower).

FH is better for more spherical spaces (largely 3-dimensional).

And DS and FH do not play well together, i.e., it's much better to stay
away from concurrent overlapping installations. I had earlier measured a
BW penalty of between 1/2 to 3/4 (transferring data over only one of the
two technologies at a time, in a concurrent deployment).

The decision of what to use may depend on the local environment.

Joe

Re: IETF Wireless LAN history

[Robert G. Ferrell]

>Or you can use *one* bullet, and watch the other 99 devices get disconnected
>very quickly ;)
>
>For some reason, my manager hasn't approved this technique as a cost-cutting
>move - I'm not sure why... ;)

I think the ammo manufacturers have a pretty strong lobby.

RGF

Robert G. Ferrell, CISSP

 Who goeth without humor goeth unarmed.

Re: IETF Wireless LAN history

[Phil Neumiller]

Its very likely that within a year, almost all cellular phones will have BT in
them.  The interference issues between 802.11 and BT are a problem.  BT tends
to win in this battle. So, BT is something folks will probably need to learn
to live with.

begin:vcard 
n:Neumiller;Phillip
tel;pager:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
tel;cell:iDen 847-9804238 / CDMA 847-370-3899
tel;home:847-516-2009
tel;work:847-576-9624
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
url:www.mot.com/bluetooth
org:Motorola, Inc.;Personal Area Networking (PAN)
adr:;;50 E Commerce Drive;Schaumburg;IL;60195;USA
version:2.1
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:Advanced Standards and Architecture
fn:Phil Neumiller
end:vcard

RE: WAP - What A Problem...

[Brijesh Kumar]

> -Original Message-
> From: Alan Simpkins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 2:04 PM
>
> This I can agree with, the next question that
> naturally follows then is is WAP the right protocol
> for a fixed wireless application, or are we talking
> about yet another set of standards and protocols. I
> would tend to
> think that one set should work for both.


WAP's working space is in cellular phones and two way pagers, i.e..,
in hand-held (or pocket kept) mobile devices in cellular environment
with fixed cell channels and continuous location update. Though TCP/IP
could have been used here too - but carriers and manufacturers of cell
phones/pagers chose not to use for reasons that have been previously
discussed here with great vigor by some folks :-).

Fixed location or limited mobility computers will most likely be
connected using WLL or specialized Wireless Broadband Internet Access
equipment or similar other options. They are no different than any
computer in the building using Wireless LAN, and should/will use
TCP/IP.  Have a look at website of Adaptive Broadband which designs
wireless Internet access equipment for ISPs.

Cheers,

--brijesh

Re: IETF Wireless LAN history

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Thu, 29 Jun 2000 15:11:29 EDT, John Stracke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  said:
> Don't be silly.  We can't kill people for that.  We'll shoot the *devices*.

If 100 people buy offending devices, you use 100 bullets right away.  And that
only solves the problem until they find a way to contact .RealFastCards.com
and order new ones - at which point you need 100 more bullets.

Or you can use *one* bullet, and watch the other 99 devices get disconnected
very quickly ;)

For some reason, my manager hasn't approved this technique as a cost-cutting
move - I'm not sure why... ;)

-- 
Valdis Kletnieks
Operating Systems Analyst
Virginia Tech



 PGP signature

Re: IETF Wireless LAN history

[John Stracke]

Randy Bush wrote:

> > OK, we have come to use and like the 802.11 nets at the IETF meeting. What
> > will happen if many attendees also turn up BlueTooth devices? AFAIK, they
> > operate on the same frequency band, and the BT devices emit enough noise
> > to seriously hamper 802.11 operation!
>
> simple, we take them out and have them shot for attacking critical network
> infrastructure

Don't be silly.  We can't kill people for that.  We'll shoot the *devices*.

--
/==\
|John Stracke| http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.|
|Chief Scientist |=|
|eCal Corp.  |Until you stalk and overrun, you can't devour|
|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|anyone. --Hobbes |
\==/

Re: WAP - What A Problem...

[John Stracke]

Alan Simpkins wrote:

> This I can agree with, the next question that
> naturally follows then is is WAP the right protocol
> for a fixed wireless application,

I'm pretty sure it isn't--IIRC, fixed-wireless equipment gives
point-to-point links at something like T1 speed.

In addition, the fact that all your users are running over the same
wireless link gives you some maintainability advantages.  For example,
you can monitor their bandwidth usage en masse; and you have only one
link to secure instead of one per user.  Basically the same advantages
as sharing a T1 line among 100 people instead of buying 100 modems.

--
/==\
|John Stracke| http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.|
|Chief Scientist |=|
|eCal Corp.  |"Who died and made you king?" "My father."   |
|[EMAIL PROTECTED]| |
\==/

Re: IETF Wireless LAN history

[Theodore Y. Ts'o]

   Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 13:22:32 -0400
   From: RJ Atkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Actually, IETF has made IEEE 802.11-DSSS the convention for wireless
   LANs at all IETF meetings for some time now.  This has been supported 
   at least at Oslo, DC, Adelaide, (and will be at Pittsburgh).  It probably 
   has been  supported for some significant time before Oslo, though I 
   don't have first-hand remembrance of that.  In DC, Nortel was pushing 
   their 802.11-FH system, but a full 802.11-DS system was up and running 
   in parallel.

I'm not sure that it's been officially decided as the convention, but
it's certainly been the practice most of the time (although the Nortel
use of frequency hoppers was a certainly an exception to this rule).  

I think there was one other time that frequency hoppers were used in the
past; I seem to recall dispairing that we would *ever* settle on a
standard 802.11 type when I broke down and purchased a 802.11-FH PCMCIA
card.  That way, I'd be ready no matter what a particular IETF meeting
site decided to use.

It would be good if we could standardize on one particular type, but as
I recall the last time the issue was raised, it was explained to me that
different systems worked better in different RF environments, so we
should get used to switching back and forth between DS and FH cards.  
If we we could depend on it always being 802.11-DS, that might make a
number of people's lives easier.

Probably due to overlap in organisational membership and the 
   broad International acceptance of IEEE 802 standards, IEEE 802.11-DSSS 
   has also become the de facto standard for use at several other 
   networking meetings (e.g. NANOG, RIPE).

For what it's worth, 802.11-DS (both 2 and 11 mbits support) appears to
be the de facto standard at the main Usenix technical conference as
well.

- Ted

Re: IETF Wireless LAN history

[Angelos D. Keromytis]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
crosoft.com>, Christian Huitema writes:
>OK, we have come to use and like the 802.11 nets at the IETF meeting. What
>will happen if many attendees also turn up BlueTooth devices? AFAIK, they
>operate on the same frequency band, and the BT devices emit enough noise to
>seriously hamper 802.11 operation!

BT has a very, very short range, so (supposedly) it shouldn't hurt anyone's
wavelan performance (that's the theory anyhow).
-Angelos

RE: IETF Wireless LAN history

[RL 'Bob' Morgan]

> OK, we have come to use and like the 802.11 nets at the IETF meeting.
> What will happen if many attendees also turn up BlueTooth devices?
> AFAIK, they operate on the same frequency band, and the BT devices
> emit enough noise to seriously hamper 802.11 operation!

Right, that was why Dan brought this up.  It is said that a likely
approach if/when Bluetooth starts to proliferate is for all 802.11 sites
currently using 2.4Ghz to migrate to 5Ghz; hence yet more card purchases
for IETF attendees at some point.  I've heard of corporate installations
where access point locations were designed with 5Ghz diameters in mind
even though 2.4Ghz is being installed today.  The idea that Bluetooth and
2.4Ghz 802.11 be designed to coexist seems to be getting less attention
for some reason.

 - RL "Bob"

RE: IETF Wireless LAN history

[Randy Bush]

> OK, we have come to use and like the 802.11 nets at the IETF meeting. What
> will happen if many attendees also turn up BlueTooth devices? AFAIK, they
> operate on the same frequency band, and the BT devices emit enough noise
> to seriously hamper 802.11 operation!

simple, we take them out and have them shot for attacking critical network
infrastructure

RE: IETF Wireless LAN history

[Christian Huitema]

OK, we have come to use and like the 802.11 nets at the IETF meeting. What
will happen if many attendees also turn up BlueTooth devices? AFAIK, they
operate on the same frequency band, and the BT devices emit enough noise to
seriously hamper 802.11 operation!

Christian Huitema

Re: WAP - What A Problem...

[Alan Simpkins]

This I can agree with, the next question that
naturally follows then is is WAP the right protocol
for a fixed wireless application, or are we talking
about yet another set of standards and protocols. I
would tend to 
think that one set should work for both.

Regards, Alan
--- John Stracke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alan Simpkins wrote:
> 
> > For some countries it
> > is more feasible for people to use mobile
> technology
> 
> But better still is fixed-wireless, which can
> deliver bandwidth
> more cheaply, because you have more predictable
> signal
> conditions.  Unless you're talking about nomadic
> headers getting
> online out in the Sahara--in which case, development
> money would
> be better spent on, say, reforestation.
> 
> --
>
/=\
> |John Stracke| http://www.ecal.com |My opinions
> are my own.   |
> |Chief Scientist
> ||
> |eCal Corp.  |"How quietly do you think we can
> nail these back|
> |[EMAIL PROTECTED]|in?" --Calvin 
>  |
>
\=/
> 
> 
> 


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/

Re: WAP - What A Problem...

[John Stracke]

Alan Simpkins wrote:

> For some countries it
> is more feasible for people to use mobile technology

But better still is fixed-wireless, which can deliver bandwidth
more cheaply, because you have more predictable signal
conditions.  Unless you're talking about nomadic headers getting
online out in the Sahara--in which case, development money would
be better spent on, say, reforestation.

--
/=\
|John Stracke| http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.   |
|Chief Scientist ||
|eCal Corp.  |"How quietly do you think we can nail these back|
|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|in?" --Calvin   |
\=/

RE: IETF Wireless LAN history

[RJ Atkinson]

At 09:54 29/06/00 , Dan Kohn wrote:
>I will bite regarding one issue near and dear to IETF hearts -- which is the
>seeming need to buy yet another 802.11 card for each IETF meeting.  And yes,
>I am actually suggesting an approach that would require one more purchase:

 Actually, IETF has made IEEE 802.11-DSSS the convention for wireless
LANs at all IETF meetings for some time now.  This has been supported 
at least at Oslo, DC, Adelaide, (and will be at Pittsburgh).  It probably 
has been  supported for some significant time before Oslo, though I 
don't have first-hand remembrance of that.  In DC, Nortel was pushing 
their 802.11-FH system, but a full 802.11-DS system was up and running 
in parallel.

 Probably due to overlap in organisational membership and the 
broad International acceptance of IEEE 802 standards, IEEE 802.11-DSSS 
has also become the de facto standard for use at several other 
networking meetings (e.g. NANOG, RIPE).

Ran
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: WAP - What A Problem...

[John Stracke]

Anthony Atkielski wrote:

> I know it's not very sexy to drop the blue-sky toys, but doesn't anyone ever
> work on improving and democratizing existing infrastructure

Well, sure.  Improving--look at MPLS.  Democratizing--there used to be (maybe
still is) an annual effort called Net Day, where volunteers would come out to
schools and install LANs and stuff.  But that's not something that's going to
be technically controversial, since what gets donated is almost always
commodity equipment--both because it's cheap and because it means the schools
will have an easier time maintaining it.

--
/===\
|John Stracke| http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own. |
|Chief Scientist |==|
|eCal Corp.  |"Why did you become a spokesmodel?" "Oh, well,|
|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|I've always liked pointing." -- _LA Story_|
\===/

Re: WAP - What A Problem...

[Gilbert Cattoire]

At 18:29 +0200 29/06/00, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
>I don't understand why so much effort is expended on things like WAP when
>99% of the real world still doesn't have any access at all to the Internet,
>much less wireless access.  And even of those who do, most have such slow
>connections that even download a simple test page is an ordeal.

Refreshing...


>
>I know it's not very sexy to drop the blue-sky toys, but doesn't anyone ever
>work on improving and democratizing existing infrastructure instead of
>widening the gap between what people really have and what looks cool in the
>lab?

Yes indeed. It would be interesting to know how many of us on this 
list agree with you.

Yet again, as I just mentioned in an earlier post, isn't it a matter 
regarding business models rather than technology?
What looks cool in the lab is quite often related to what is dear to 
investors'eyes.
WAP is just such a thing, regardless of technical niceties : a closed 
proprietary system built for a closed business model blessed with 
himalayan piles of cash.
Is it healthy ? With the Internet spirit in mind, does anyone need to 
dwell in the intricacies of gateways and so on to answer this 
question ? I would suggest this daring task : when in doubt, reboot 
your mindset.

best to all,




Gilbert Cattoire

==
+33 (0)6 08 35 15 82
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
==

RE: Bluetooth

[Gilbert Cattoire]

At 11:26 -0400 29/06/00, Taylor, Johnny wrote:
>Give me some back ground information and how they fit in the communication
>world! Then we can open the discussions!

How they might fit : depending on the definition of "communication world".
As far as I am concerned, toying with audio and video on wireless LAn 
technology ,
bluetooth and 802.11 are indeed worth looking at.
802.11 's been used during the last Cannes film festival by Canal + 
[now famous for having joined Seagram alongside Vivendi in a a 
controversial trio] for live audio and video transmission.
It did not work that well : interference problems were, not 
surprisingly, unavoidable.
[Question of the day : how do you set up a 802.11 compliant wireless 
Lan in a microwave oven test lab ?]

However you can be sure there will be a sudden wave of interest from 
the media industry in the near future. Is that a fit worth 
considering ? Prepare yourself for a joyous salad of standards, old 
and new,  in the industry bowl. Granted, it's a fascinating 
perspective.

The cooks will again brilliantly save the situation [going back to 
gas oven ?],  the difficulty will be more in defining the proper 
business models than in integrating the technology.
 
[ Okay : It's not supposed to be the IETF's problem, or is it ? 
That's another thread I'd love to see on this list: I believe there 
are too few "hybrid projects" on the Internet, truly bringing 
engineering and business together for the sake of evolution. Do I 
make myself clear ? That's the "new economy" I believe in, and it's 
rarely the one that gets the headlines.]

Jonathan [who started the thread], what did you mean by "new viruses"?
Any fantasies about them ?

Best to all,

Gilbert


Gilbert Cattoire

==
+33 (0)6 08 35 15 82
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
==

RE: Bluetooth

[Parkinson, Jonathan]

The new Compaq iPAQ H3630 Pocket PC
(http://www.compaq.co.uk/press/releases/2000/177.asp) this will sync with
other devices thanks to the new Bluetooth jacket thats been developed. Hmm
nice Shiny !

http://www.compaq.co.uk/products/handheld/pocketpc/


-Original Message-
From: Joe Touch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 4:52 PM
To: Dan Kohn
Cc: Parkinson, Jonathan; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bluetooth




Dan Kohn wrote:
> 
> I will bite regarding one issue near and dear to IETF hearts -- which is
the
> seeming need to buy yet another 802.11 card for each IETF meeting.  And
yes,
> I am actually suggesting an approach that would require one more purchase:
> 
> I was at Bluetooth Congress in Europe this month (which sounds better than
> saying the Bluetooth Congress in Monte Carlo), and Bluetooth products are
> definitely gathering momentum.  
...
> This would then leave the 2.4 GHz band for Bluetooth, and allow both
> Bluetooth and 802.11 to be simultaneously active from the same laptop.  I
> think most LANs will be wireless in a couple years simply for the
> convenience of avoiding cabling (even for desktop computers), and that
> people will want to sync up with their Palm Pilots and their cellphones

Palm syncs with laptops fine over IR now.

Joe

Re: WAP - What A Problem...

[Alan Simpkins]

 I would tend to disagree, working for a
communications 
company that specializes in working with
multinationals 
and dealing with the associated infrastrucures in
foriegn countries I have found that in many countries
it is not financially feasible, nor geagraphically
feasible to try to create the kind of communications
infrastructure in place that we enjoy in some of the
more industrialized countries. For some countries it
is more feasible for people to use mobile technology
than to try to put in place the fiber, and copper
necessary to allow them to communicate using some of
what might be called the more traditional methods.
WAP, and mobile technology is a necessary component to
the future of the global economy.

Regards, Alan


--- Anthony Atkielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't understand why so much effort is expended on
> things like WAP when
> 99% of the real world still doesn't have any access
> at all to the Internet,
> much less wireless access.  And even of those who
> do, most have such slow
> connections that even download a simple test page is
> an ordeal.
> 
> I know it's not very sexy to drop the blue-sky toys,
> but doesn't anyone ever
> work on improving and democratizing existing
> infrastructure instead of
> widening the gap between what people really have and
> what looks cool in the
> lab?
> 
>   -- Anthony
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Jon Crowcroft" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "'IETF Mailing List'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 09:10
> Subject: Re: WAP - What A Problem...
> 
> 
> >
> > a technical discussion worth reading is at
> >
>
http://www.osopinion.com/Opinions/MikeBanahan/MikeBanahan1.html
> >
> > it would seeem (as i've suspected for a while)
> that the community in
> > charge of this development has the same problem as
> the guy who built
> > jurassic park - they haev no discipline, or
> understanding of computing
> > and the software/jhardware interface tradeoffs  -
> this is qutie a
> > common problem in communications work - people
> come from one side of
> > the tracks (either jsut software or just
> engineering, or ust plain
> > theory) - systems architecture is hard stuff, but
> there is little
> > point standing on the toes of giants, when its
> possible to stand on
> > their shouldersit both ends of the problem
> space, whether
> > application level and devising new markup
> languages for restricted
> > display, or low level work in customising
> > protocol stacks for resource scarce environments 
> , there is a body of
> > public work out there, and of researchers who are
> willing to
> > cosntructively critique proposals provided they
> are carried out in a
> > public way with optimally zero cost for access to
> early drafts, but
> > at least low entry cost - it is also a good idea
> to let those wacky
> > media lab types get their hands on hardware
> prototypes, since they
> > will (as william gibson puts it) "find a street
> use for things" - its
> > instructive to see how wavelan and its cousins
> have fared so well
> > after being handed over to the ietf - if we'd have
> PCMCIA GSM and GPRS
> > (and bluetooth) cards, despite battery power or
> other clunkiness
> > problems, we might haev made less of a dogs dinner
> of things...(when i
> > say we, i mean the interdisciplinary, apparently
> unstructured, but
> > actually highly organised force that will fit
> anything to IP, and not
> > vice versa)
> >
> > give me a level long enough and we can moev the
> earth - give the wrong
> > end of the same level to the wrong people and they
> can crush a
> > diamond.
> >
> >
> > j.
> >
> >
> 


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/

Re: WAP - What A Problem...

[Anthony Atkielski]

I don't understand why so much effort is expended on things like WAP when
99% of the real world still doesn't have any access at all to the Internet,
much less wireless access.  And even of those who do, most have such slow
connections that even download a simple test page is an ordeal.

I know it's not very sexy to drop the blue-sky toys, but doesn't anyone ever
work on improving and democratizing existing infrastructure instead of
widening the gap between what people really have and what looks cool in the
lab?

  -- Anthony

- Original Message -
From: "Jon Crowcroft" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'IETF Mailing List'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 09:10
Subject: Re: WAP - What A Problem...


>
> a technical discussion worth reading is at
> http://www.osopinion.com/Opinions/MikeBanahan/MikeBanahan1.html
>
> it would seeem (as i've suspected for a while) that the community in
> charge of this development has the same problem as the guy who built
> jurassic park - they haev no discipline, or understanding of computing
> and the software/jhardware interface tradeoffs  - this is qutie a
> common problem in communications work - people come from one side of
> the tracks (either jsut software or just engineering, or ust plain
> theory) - systems architecture is hard stuff, but there is little
> point standing on the toes of giants, when its possible to stand on
> their shouldersit both ends of the problem space, whether
> application level and devising new markup languages for restricted
> display, or low level work in customising
> protocol stacks for resource scarce environments  , there is a body of
> public work out there, and of researchers who are willing to
> cosntructively critique proposals provided they are carried out in a
> public way with optimally zero cost for access to early drafts, but
> at least low entry cost - it is also a good idea to let those wacky
> media lab types get their hands on hardware prototypes, since they
> will (as william gibson puts it) "find a street use for things" - its
> instructive to see how wavelan and its cousins have fared so well
> after being handed over to the ietf - if we'd have PCMCIA GSM and GPRS
> (and bluetooth) cards, despite battery power or other clunkiness
> problems, we might haev made less of a dogs dinner of things...(when i
> say we, i mean the interdisciplinary, apparently unstructured, but
> actually highly organised force that will fit anything to IP, and not
> vice versa)
>
> give me a level long enough and we can moev the earth - give the wrong
> end of the same level to the wrong people and they can crush a
> diamond.
>
>
> j.
>
>

Re: Bluetooth

[Joe Touch]

Dan Kohn wrote:
> 
> I will bite regarding one issue near and dear to IETF hearts -- which is the
> seeming need to buy yet another 802.11 card for each IETF meeting.  And yes,
> I am actually suggesting an approach that would require one more purchase:
> 
> I was at Bluetooth Congress in Europe this month (which sounds better than
> saying the Bluetooth Congress in Monte Carlo), and Bluetooth products are
> definitely gathering momentum.  
...
> This would then leave the 2.4 GHz band for Bluetooth, and allow both
> Bluetooth and 802.11 to be simultaneously active from the same laptop.  I
> think most LANs will be wireless in a couple years simply for the
> convenience of avoiding cabling (even for desktop computers), and that
> people will want to sync up with their Palm Pilots and their cellphones

Palm syncs with laptops fine over IR now.

Joe

RE: Bluetooth

[Taylor, Johnny]

Give me some back ground information and how they fit in the communication
world! Then we can open the discussions! 

-Original Message-
From: Parkinson, Jonathan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 10:17 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Bluetooth


Hi folks 
Anyone care to start a discussion about Bluetooth and how it
may/will impact the future of communications ? And the new generation of
Virus's that could come along with this technology.


Thanks
Jon


> Jonathan Parkinson
> EMEA Operations Management Center.
> Remote Server and Network Management Group.
> Unix Support .
> Compaq Computer Limited 
> 
> Tel: DTN 7830 1118
> Tel: External +44 (0)118 201118
> Fax: +44 (0)118 201175
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 

RE: Bluetooth

[Dan Kohn]

I will bite regarding one issue near and dear to IETF hearts -- which is the
seeming need to buy yet another 802.11 card for each IETF meeting.  And yes,
I am actually suggesting an approach that would require one more purchase:

I was at Bluetooth Congress in Europe this month (which sounds better than
saying the Bluetooth Congress in Monte Carlo), and Bluetooth products are
definitely gathering momentum.  I expect the Ericsson wireless headset
shipping Q3 to be a killer product over the next 2 years, as people get
tired of dangling wires from headset cords and (for safety reasons) would
rather have a 1 milliwatt Bluetooth transceiver next to their head than a
300 milliwatt cellphone.

The remaining standards battle I see (now that HomeRF has been largely
killed off by Bluetooth FUD), is to settle once and for all that 802.11
should win as the wireless LAN technology of choice and that Bluetooth is
the only feasible wireless cable replacement technology that can actually
get into cellphones and other cheap digital devices.  Since the most
important attribute for 802.11 is bandwidth (its competition is 100BaseT),
while the most important attribute for Bluetooth is a $5 chip price, the
most likely outcome is for 802.11 to move up to the 5 GHz ISM band where it
can provide 54 Mbps (and up), significantly faster than the 11 Mbps
theoretically available today at 2.4 GHz, while offering the same ~$100
price point and propagation characteristics.

This would then leave the 2.4 GHz band for Bluetooth, and allow both
Bluetooth and 802.11 to be simultaneously active from the same laptop.  I
think most LANs will be wireless in a couple years simply for the
convenience of avoiding cabling (even for desktop computers), and that
people will want to sync up with their Palm Pilots and their cellphones
without having to disconnect from the network, which is the scenario today.
However, dual simultaneous use will work perfectly with Bluetooth at 2.4 GHz
and 802.11 at 5 GHz.

- dan
--
Daniel Kohn 
 Both US  and UK 
 numbers forward to the same automated operator to reach me.


-Original Message-
From: Parkinson, Jonathan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, 2000-06-28 07:17
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Bluetooth


Hi folks 
Anyone care to start a discussion about Bluetooth and how it
may/will impact the future of communications ? And the new generation of
Virus's that could come along with this technology.


Thanks
Jon


> Jonathan Parkinson
> EMEA Operations Management Center.
> Remote Server and Network Management Group.
> Unix Support .
> Compaq Computer Limited 
> 
> Tel: DTN 7830 1118
> Tel: External +44 (0)118 201118
> Fax: +44 (0)118 201175
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 

RE: Bluetooth

[Randy Bush]

> I will bite regarding one issue near and dear to IETF hearts -- which is the
> seeming need to buy yet another 802.11 card for each IETF meeting.

btw, those daze are over, at least for the moment.

from the current version of draft-ymbk-termroom-op-03.txt,

   2.5 Wireless LAN
   ...
   The IETF Wireless LAN MUST support at least the 802.11-DS
   technology.

randy

RE: Bluetooth

[Scot Mc Pherson]

There isn't a theoretical limit of 11 Mbps on 2.4 GHz. There are already
higher speed Ethernet (although not 802.11) that operate on that
spectrum. 30 Mbps is the fastest Ethernet on 2.4 GHz in commercial
production right now. The reason why the bandwidth is 11Mbps/6Mbps is
the chipset, not the frequency it runs on.



-Original Message-
From: Dan Kohn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 9:54 AM
To: Parkinson, Jonathan; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Bluetooth


I will bite regarding one issue near and dear to IETF hearts -- which is
the
seeming need to buy yet another 802.11 card for each IETF meeting.  And
yes,
I am actually suggesting an approach that would require one more
purchase:

I was at Bluetooth Congress in Europe this month (which sounds better
than
saying the Bluetooth Congress in Monte Carlo), and Bluetooth products
are
definitely gathering momentum.  I expect the Ericsson wireless headset
shipping Q3 to be a killer product over the next 2 years, as people get
tired of dangling wires from headset cords and (for safety reasons)
would
rather have a 1 milliwatt Bluetooth transceiver next to their head than
a
300 milliwatt cellphone.

The remaining standards battle I see (now that HomeRF has been largely
killed off by Bluetooth FUD), is to settle once and for all that 802.11
should win as the wireless LAN technology of choice and that Bluetooth
is
the only feasible wireless cable replacement technology that can
actually
get into cellphones and other cheap digital devices.  Since the most
important attribute for 802.11 is bandwidth (its competition is
100BaseT),
while the most important attribute for Bluetooth is a $5 chip price, the
most likely outcome is for 802.11 to move up to the 5 GHz ISM band where
it
can provide 54 Mbps (and up), significantly faster than the 11 Mbps
theoretically available today at 2.4 GHz, while offering the same ~$100
price point and propagation characteristics.

This would then leave the 2.4 GHz band for Bluetooth, and allow both
Bluetooth and 802.11 to be simultaneously active from the same laptop.
I
think most LANs will be wireless in a couple years simply for the
convenience of avoiding cabling (even for desktop computers), and that
people will want to sync up with their Palm Pilots and their cellphones
without having to disconnect from the network, which is the scenario
today.
However, dual simultaneous use will work perfectly with Bluetooth at 2.4
GHz
and 802.11 at 5 GHz.

- dan
--
Daniel Kohn 
 Both US  and UK 
 numbers forward to the same automated operator to reach me.


-Original Message-
From: Parkinson, Jonathan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, 2000-06-28 07:17
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Bluetooth


Hi folks 
Anyone care to start a discussion about Bluetooth and how it
may/will impact the future of communications ? And the new generation of
Virus's that could come along with this technology.


Thanks
Jon


> Jonathan Parkinson
> EMEA Operations Management Center.
> Remote Server and Network Management Group.
> Unix Support .
> Compaq Computer Limited 
> 
> Tel: DTN 7830 1118
> Tel: External +44 (0)118 201118
> Fax: +44 (0)118 201175
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 

RE: Bluetooth

[Randy Bush]

to me, the most salient difference between bluetooth and 802.11 is the
addressing.  with a three bit address, i see bluetooth as a viable
competitor for infrared ports.

randy

Re: WAP - What A Problem...

[Jon Crowcroft]

a technical discussion worth reading is at
http://www.osopinion.com/Opinions/MikeBanahan/MikeBanahan1.html

it would seeem (as i've suspected for a while) that the community in
charge of this development has the same problem as the guy who built
jurassic park - they haev no discipline, or understanding of computing
and the software/jhardware interface tradeoffs  - this is qutie a
common problem in communications work - people come from one side of
the tracks (either jsut software or just engineering, or ust plain
theory) - systems architecture is hard stuff, but there is little
point standing on the toes of giants, when its possible to stand on
their shouldersit both ends of the problem space, whether
application level and devising new markup languages for restricted
display, or low level work in customising
protocol stacks for resource scarce environments  , there is a body of
public work out there, and of researchers who are willing to
cosntructively critique proposals provided they are carried out in a
public way with optimally zero cost for access to early drafts, but
at least low entry cost - it is also a good idea to let those wacky
media lab types get their hands on hardware prototypes, since they
will (as william gibson puts it) "find a street use for things" - its
instructive to see how wavelan and its cousins have fared so well
after being handed over to the ietf - if we'd have PCMCIA GSM and GPRS
(and bluetooth) cards, despite battery power or other clunkiness
problems, we might haev made less of a dogs dinner of things...(when i
say we, i mean the interdisciplinary, apparently unstructured, but
actually highly organised force that will fit anything to IP, and not
vice versa)

give me a level long enough and we can moev the earth - give the wrong
end of the same level to the wrong people and they can crush a
diamond.


j.