Re: [homenet] “Hybrid Access for Broadband Networks” (WT-348)

Le 28/10/2014 05:10, Xueli a écrit :
> Hello Alex
>
> Thank you for your nice comment. The scenario here is for the fixed
> operators rather than the mobile phone for higher bandwidth. I make
> this clarification in the new version architecture draft as： ” Hosts
> in the customer site may connect to the Internet through the CPE, the
> 3G/4G network, or both.  In most cases the majority of the hosts
> connects to the Internet through the CPE only and will experience
> slow Internet access when the bandwidth provided by the fixed access
> network is fully utilized (e.g., the traffic over the fixed access
> network reached its maximum capacity or a pre-specified threshold set
> by the operator). So we are considering the scenario with CPE
> extension with multiple access networks.
>
> I would like to know additional information on the internet drafts
> you mentioned, do you mind to provide more information on this?

Sure, it is about these documents;

Flow Binding Support for Mobile IP
draft-ietf-mip4-multiple-tunnel-support-08.txt

Flow Bindings in Mobile IPv6 and Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support
RFC 6089

and this post:
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mip4/current/msg03728.html

>
> Best Regards Li
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Alexandru Petrescu
> [mailto:alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 23,
> 2014 12:28 AM To: Xueli; Ted Lemon; STARK, BARBARA H Cc: HOMENET
> Working Group; mif@ietf.org Subject: Re: “Hybrid Access for Broadband
> Networks” (WT-348)
>
> Hello Xueli,
>
> Several people look at this problem as an IP problem.  Instead of
> considering a cellular+dsl combination in a homebox, they considered
> cellular+wifi on a smartphone.   But the goal was the same: augment
> the bandwidth perceived by the end user.
>
> In implementation it is however quite challenging.  The more tempting
> the expectations of augmenting bandwidth by simply adding network
> interfaces (as in adding RAM to a busy computer), the higher the
> desillusion when facing the challenges of implementation.
>
> Some consider it simply as a local computer policy problem (and hence
> no new communicaiton standards needed), but others consider that
> there is a need of a server in the infrastructure to which these
> interfaces would first connect (a sort of an 'anchor').
>
> If such a technology is developped, it will surely be useful for more
> than homenets - it will be useful for multi-interfaced smartphones,
> useful for mobile routers installed in vehicles, and more that I can
> not think of.
>
> Alex PS: there are a few IETF Internet Drafts about how would
> smartphones would use this, with Mobile IPv4 and Mobile IPv6
> extensions, but there are no widespread implementations.
>
> Le 22/10/2014 11:48, Xueli a écrit :
>> Hello
>>
>> Thanks Barbara to send this liaison out.
>>
>> Hybrid Access network is that Residential gateway (RG, or CPE) is
>> extended with more than two access lines
>>
>> (e.g. DSL + LTE) in order to provide higher bandwidth for the
>> customers. The scenario and architecture are shown as follows
>>
>> cid:image002.jpg@01CF9A07.BF8CD480
>>
>> Right now, we have two individual drafts, one for architecture and
>> requirements, and the other one is for an optional solution.
>>
>> The draft
>> (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lhwxz-hybrid-access-network-architec
>>
>>
ture-00  ; ) proposes the architecture and gap analysis.
>>
>> The solution draft proposes one option for the solutions,
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-heileyli-gre-notifications-00
>>
>> We did not combine them as one draft, because we believe there may
>> be other candidates, and we would like to have further discussions
>> in the related groups and IETF.
>>
>> We used to present it in Homenet in Toronto.
>>
>> Now the authors have invited Orange to join this architecture
>> work. We will send out the new version of these drafts soon.
>>
>> We are glad to invite the experts for comments.
>>
>> Best Regards
>>
>> Li Xue on the co-authors behalf
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>> From: homenet [mailto:homenet-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ted
>> Lemon
>>
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 3:05 AM
>>
>> To: STARK, BARBARA H
>>
>> Cc: HOMENET Working Group
>>
>> Subject: Re: [homenet] Fwd: New Liaison Statement, "Broadband
>> Forum Work on “Hybrid Access for Broadband Networks”(WT-348)"
>>
>> On Oct 21, 2014, at 2:55 PM, STARK, BARBARA H <bs7652@att.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> FYI. I made sure they were aware of IETF mif and homenet
>>> activities in this area. I intend to try to prevent having to
>>> track efforts that try to do the same thing in two different
>>> ways. But some of the BBF effort  may be focused on what can be
>>> done around "bonding" of multiple
>> interfaces that are under the control of a single service provider.
>> I don't see this in mif or homenet.
>>
>> Thanks.   I couldn't really tell what was being proposed from the
>> Liaison statement, so this information is helpful.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> homenet mailing list
>>
>> homenet@ietf.org
>>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________ homenet mailing
>> list homenet@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
>>
>