Re: L3 consequences of WLAN offload in cellular networks (was - endless DHCPv6 thread)

[Christopher Morrow]

On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Cameron Byrne  wrote:
> The state of the industry is the support of nomadic mobility from cellular
> to / from Wi-Fi , there is nearly no support of mobile IP that I have seen.
>
> It is going more and more in this direction. At T-Mobile USA we have
> evolved our wifi calling features from fully mobile UMA / GAN to non-mobile
> IMS wifi calling.

great! is that now available on all tmo-us handsets? :)

/troll

Re: L3 consequences of WLAN offload in cellular networks (was - endless DHCPv6 thread)

[Masataka Ohta]

Alexander Harrowell wrote:

> Alternatively, you can work on the assumption that the WLAN
> is solely for nomadic use rather than true mobility, but a
> lot of devices will prefer the WLAN whenever possible.
> 
> Thoughts/experiences?

It depends on applications.

If mobile devices act as clients to 3G servers, what is important
is not IP addresses but 3G IDs, which must be authenticated even
if the mobile devices use WLAN.

On the other hand, if mobile devices act as servers to clients
in the Internet, fixed IP addresses, not necessarily IETF
standard mobile IP, are required.

Application developers with their own IP address spaces may
bundle services for fixed IP addresses with their applications
requiring fixed IP addresses. The applications may use, to
maintain the fixed IP addresses, their own protocols at the
application layer, or IETF standard mobile IP at the IP layer.

Masataka Ohta

Re: L3 consequences of WLAN offload in cellular networks (was - endless DHCPv6 thread)

[Dobbins, Roland]

On Dec 30, 2011, at 9:34 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:

> The state of the industry is the support of nomadic mobility from cellular to 
> / from Wi-Fi , there is nearly no support of mobile IP that I have seen.

Concur.  This .pdf preso may also be of interest:



---
Roland Dobbins  // 

The basis of optimism is sheer terror.

  -- Oscar Wilde

Re: L3 consequences of WLAN offload in cellular networks (was - endless DHCPv6 thread)

[Cameron Byrne]

On Dec 30, 2011 9:16 AM, "Alexander Harrowell" 
wrote:
>
> In the DHCP v6 thread, there was some discussion of
> mobility and its IP layer consequences. As various people
> pointed out, cellular networks basically handle this in the
> RAN (Radio Access Network) and therefore at layer 2,
> transparently (well, as much as things ever are) for IP
> purposes. It therefore shouldn't be a problem.
>
> However, as one contributor pointed out, more and more
> cellular operators are migrating traffic onto WLAN for
> various reasons, notably:
>
> 1) Spectrum - it's unlicensed, i.e. free
> 2) Capex - the equipment is cheaper
> 3) Capacity - it's a cheap way of providing high speed
> 4) Signalling load - it gets rid of the signalling traffic
> associated with detaching and attaching devices from the
> core network. This is especially important in view of some
> smartphones' behaviour.
>
> Of course much of the signalling is associated with the
> Mobility Management features, and getting rid of it by
> punting everything to WLAN implies that you lose the
> benefits of this.
>
> That suggests that if you're going to do this on a big
> scale you need to implement Mobile IP or else keep
> backhauling traffic from the WLAN access points to the
> cellular core network (GAN/Iu interface), which has obvious
> effects on the economics of the whole idea.
>
> Alternatively, you can work on the assumption that the WLAN
> is solely for nomadic use rather than true mobility, but a
> lot of devices will prefer the WLAN whenever possible.
>
> Thoughts/experiences?
>
>

The state of the industry is the support of nomadic mobility from cellular
to / from Wi-Fi , there is nearly no support of mobile IP that I have seen.

It is going more and more in this direction. At T-Mobile USA we have
evolved our wifi calling features from fully mobile UMA / GAN to non-mobile
IMS wifi calling.

Cb

>
> --
> The only thing worse than e-mail disclaimers...is people
> who send e-mail to lists complaining about them
 On Dec 30, 2011 9:16 AM, "Alexander Harrowell" 
wrote:

> In the DHCP v6 thread, there was some discussion of
> mobility and its IP layer consequences. As various people
> pointed out, cellular networks basically handle this in the
> RAN (Radio Access Network) and therefore at layer 2,
> transparently (well, as much as things ever are) for IP
> purposes. It therefore shouldn't be a problem.
>
> However, as one contributor pointed out, more and more
> cellular operators are migrating traffic onto WLAN for
> various reasons, notably:
>
> 1) Spectrum - it's unlicensed, i.e. free
> 2) Capex - the equipment is cheaper
> 3) Capacity - it's a cheap way of providing high speed
> 4) Signalling load - it gets rid of the signalling traffic
> associated with detaching and attaching devices from the
> core network. This is especially important in view of some
> smartphones' behaviour.
>
> Of course much of the signalling is associated with the
> Mobility Management features, and getting rid of it by
> punting everything to WLAN implies that you lose the
> benefits of this.
>
> That suggests that if you're going to do this on a big
> scale you need to implement Mobile IP or else keep
> backhauling traffic from the WLAN access points to the
> cellular core network (GAN/Iu interface), which has obvious
> effects on the economics of the whole idea.
>
> Alternatively, you can work on the assumption that the WLAN
> is solely for nomadic use rather than true mobility, but a
> lot of devices will prefer the WLAN whenever possible.
>
> Thoughts/experiences?
>
>
>
> --
> The only thing worse than e-mail disclaimers...is people
> who send e-mail to lists complaining about them
>