IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dispatch] SIP and GSM/UMTS with OpenBTS

Tim Panton new <thp@westhawk.co.uk> Thu, 13 February 2014 17:19 UTC

Return-Path: <thp@westhawk.co.uk>
X-Original-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 029991A02CF for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 09:19:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Frb9daphZgyV for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 09:19:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp002.apm-internet.net (smtp002.apm-internet.net [85.119.248.221]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAE1D1A02C5 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 09:19:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 2307 invoked from network); 13 Feb 2014 17:19:17 -0000
X-AV-Scan: clean
X-APM-Authkey: 83769 13576
Received: from unknown (HELO zimbra003.verygoodemail.com) (85.119.248.218) by smtp002.apm-internet.net with SMTP; 13 Feb 2014 17:19:17 -0000
Received: from zimbra003.verygoodemail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra003.verygoodemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BCCD18A057E; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 17:19:17 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from limit.westhawk.co.uk (limit.westhawk.co.uk [192.67.4.33]) by zimbra003.verygoodemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B85BB18A04FB; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 17:19:16 +0000 (GMT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\))
From: Tim Panton new <thp@westhawk.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <39B5E4D390E9BD4890E2B3107900610112662679@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 17:19:04 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <0A527A1E-0789-41D8-902B-A1B12F03E69C@westhawk.co.uk>
References: <040E1A40-BC55-4CFC-834A-FC958DEFDE25@rangenetworks.com> <00C069FD01E0324C9FFCADF539701DB3BBF23E22@sc9-ex2k10mb1.corp.yaanatech.com> <CAHBDyN5-O3pNury3RUNzstGHO8NCq6pV3ewHt_Yrxjd1k-if5Q@mail.gmail.com> <948FB37B-F2D4-4462-8B29-D03FDF65215F@rangenetworks.com> <93B4EA30-0734-439E-A129-B3B91B077720@rangenetworks.com> <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B12F6C3@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <2B05935E-EB65-4B36-ABD3-09DE9921F8A7@westhawk.co.uk> <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B12F7CE@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <CACy T-3mAJX4uPDcXDz7j6xOAA+OSDoRguQ51EvZk9=LTG8KzJQ@mail.gmail.com> <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B12FA06@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <DE4C1B56-0D67-4210-9FFA-EC0BC866E081@westhawk.co.uk> <201402121601.s1CG1q0W4835781@shell01.TheWorld.com> <39B5E4D390E9BD4890E2B3107900610112662068@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se> <017BBEA0-CDBE-453D-9E98-77F470BC9181@rangenetworks.com> <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B1319E6@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> < 52FCF23D.7070608@iptel.org> <39B5E4D390E9BD4890E2B3107900610112662679@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se>
To: Ivo Sedlacek <ivo.sedlacek@ericsson.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827)
Cc: "dispatch@ietf.org" <dispatch@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dispatch] SIP and GSM/UMTS with OpenBTS
X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List <dispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:dispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 17:19:22 -0000

On 13 Feb 2014, at 16:57, Ivo Sedlacek <ivo.sedlacek@ericsson.com> wrote:

> The question should be:
> 
> 	Should IETF work on a new solution for a market where a solution exists and the existing solution is equal or superior to the newly proposed one?
> 

Actually, yes, on the off-chance the person making that evaluation could be wrong.


> Argument for statement "the existing solution is equal or superior to the newly proposed one" is:
> - the existing 3GPP solution is already developed, tested, mass produced and mass deployed and thus benefits from economies of scale.
> - no existing 3GPP requirement was identified as unnecessary for the new solution so complexity of the existing solution and new solution is the same.
> 
> If you believe that statement "the existing solution is equal or superior to the newly proposed one" is incorrect, please prove it.


Apples and oranges - If I want a continent spanning, roaming capable billion dollar GSM network, then I need an IMS system.
If I want an Um to SIP gateway I can run off solar power and hang in a tree, I'll go for an openBTS like solution.

They aren't comparable goals.


Tim.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email