Re: [mif] “Hybrid Access for Broadband Networks” (WT-348)
Xueli <xueli@huawei.com> Tue, 28 October 2014 04:11 UTC
Return-Path: <xueli@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BA911A0364; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 21:11:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.339
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.339 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, J_CHICKENPOX_84=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 c-X4bl8MHuFn; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 21:11:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E6BB71A020A; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 21:11:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BOC68862; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 04:11:05 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML410-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.41) by lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 04:11:04 +0000
Received: from NKGEML504-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.7.168]) by nkgeml410-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.41]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 12:10:57 +0800
From: Xueli <xueli@huawei.com>
To: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>, "STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com>
Thread-Topic: “Hybrid Access for Broadband Networks” (WT-348)
Thread-Index: AQHP7hVMKwQDYikd/UqCpyrRYAba8JxE7LCQ
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 04:10:57 +0000
Message-ID: <01FE63842C181246BBE4CF183BD159B449036E28@nkgeml504-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <20141021160652.24101.60334.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4BBD7952-84F7-40F9-9034-8DD7A1F2A05C@nominum.com> <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E61130EA59FC@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> <E8CCD261-8A5C-4249-AF65-468FB1441647@nominum.com> <01FE63842C181246BBE4CF183BD159B4490350AD@nkgeml504-mbx.china.huawei.com> <5447DB20.9080505@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5447DB20.9080505@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.97.86]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mif/Iu9CY930Y32RQwCasLgv2TX5zMk
Cc: HOMENET Working Group <homenet@ietf.org>, "mif@ietf.org" <mif@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mif] “Hybrid Access for Broadband Networks” (WT-348)
X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List <mif.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mif/>
List-Post: <mailto:mif@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 04:11:10 -0000
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? 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 >
- [mif] Fwd: New Liaison Statement, "Broadband Foru… Ted Lemon
- Re: [mif] Fwd: New Liaison Statement, "Broadband … Michael Richardson
- [mif] =?Windows-1252?Q?RE:_[homenet]_Fwd:_New_Lia… Xueli
- [mif] =?Windows-1252?Q?RE:_[homenet]_Fwd:_New_Lia… pierrick.seite
- Re: [mif] =?Windows-1252?Q?RE:_[homenet]_Fwd:_New… Hui Deng
- [mif] =?Windows-1252?Q?Re:_[DMM]_RE:_[homenet]_Fw… Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [mif] “Hybrid Access for Broadband Networks” … Alexandru Petrescu
- [mif] =?Windows-1252?Q?RE:_[homenet]_Fwd:_New_Lia… Xueli
- [mif] =?iso-8859-1?Q?RE:_[DMM]_RE:_[homenet]_Fwd:… Xueli
- Re: [mif] “Hybrid Access for Broadband Networks” … Xueli
- Re: [mif] [DMM] RE: [homenet] Fwd: New Liaison St… Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [mif] [DMM] RE: [homenet] Fwd: New Liaison St… Hui Deng
- Re: [mif] [DMM] RE: [homenet] Fwd: New Liaison St… pierrick.seite
- Re: [mif] [DMM] RE: [homenet] Fwd: New Liaison St… Hui Deng
- Re: [mif] [DMM] RE: [homenet] Fwd: New Liaison St… Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [mif] [DMM] RE: [homenet] Fwd: New Liaison St… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [mif] [DMM] RE: [homenet] Fwd: New Liaison St… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [mif] [DMM] RE: [homenet] Fwd: New Liaison St… Xueli
- Re: [mif] [DMM] RE: [homenet] Fwd: New Liaison St… Hui Deng
- Re: [mif] “Hybrid Access for Broadband Networks” … Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [mif] [DMM] RE: [homenet] Fwd: New Liaison St… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [mif] [DMM] RE: [homenet] Fwd: New Liaison St… Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [mif] [DMM] RE: [homenet] Fwd: New Liaison St… Xueli
- Re: [mif] [DMM] RE: [homenet] Fwd: New Liaison St… Xueli
- [mif] Follow up with BBF proposal Hui Deng
- Re: [mif] =?Windows-1252?Q?RE:_[homenet]_Fwd:_New… Alper Yegin
- Re: [mif] =?Windows-1252?Q?RE:_[homenet]_Fwd:_New… Xueli
- Re: [mif] Follow up with BBF proposal Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [mif] Follow up with BBF proposal Ted Lemon
- Re: [mif] Follow up with BBF proposal Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [mif] Follow up with BBF proposal Hui Deng
- Re: [mif] Follow up with BBF proposal Alper Yegin
- [mif] 答复: Follow up with BBF proposal Xueli
- Re: [mif] Follow up with BBF proposal Alper Yegin
- Re: [mif] Follow up with BBF proposal Margaret Wasserman
- Re: [mif] Follow up with BBF proposal Hui Deng
- Re: [mif] Follow up with BBF proposal Alper Yegin
- [mif] Hybrid Access Problem Margaret Wasserman
- Re: [mif] Hybrid Access Problem Michael Richardson
- Re: [mif] Hybrid Access Problem Ted Lemon
- Re: [mif] Hybrid Access Problem Erik Kline
- Re: [mif] Follow up with BBF proposal Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [mif] Hybrid Access Problem Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [mif] Follow up with BBF proposal Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [mif] Hybrid Access Problem Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [mif] Hybrid Access Problem Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [mif] Follow up with BBF proposal Hui Deng
- Re: [mif] Follow up with BBF proposal Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [mif] Follow up with BBF proposal Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [mif] Hybrid Access Problem Michael Richardson
- Re: [mif] Follow up with BBF proposal Ted Lemon
- Re: [mif] Hybrid Access Problem Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [mif] Follow up with BBF proposal Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [mif] Follow up with BBF proposal Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [mif] Follow up with BBF proposal pierrick.seite
- Re: [mif] Hybrid Access Problem pierrick.seite
- Re: [mif] Hybrid Access Problem Behcet Sarikaya