Subject: [mif] How the current application of mobile host works in the MIF

From: Hui Deng <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 09:23:43 +0800

Hello, all

One strong motivation for MIF to propose is to support the mobile terminal
which has multiple interfaces and would like to visit Internet.

Let me try to clarify some difference here:
1) History
Applications in the host don't choose the source address, it relies on
socket to do it.

2) Now (MIF)
It has come out a new component which is called as the connection manager,
when the mobile has multiple interface, subscriber could decide which
interface to use based
on the connection manager.
Then it lead to various ways to do implementations, application may talk
with the connection manager
then talk with socket, another case is application may only talk with the
connection manager,
the connection manager could talk with the socket et al.

Anyhow, it is the scenario and current practice which MIF is targeting.

One related document which I could find about the connection manager as the
below link shows

http://www.forum.nokia.com/info/sw.nokia.com/id/190358c8-7cb1-4be3-9321-f9d6788ecae5/S60_Platform_IP_Bearer_Management_v1_0_en.pdf.html

Thanks for your discussion.
Best regards,

-Hui Deng

---

From: "Yong-Geun Hong" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 00:00:14 +0900

Hi, Hui.

Thanks for your initiation of useful discussion.

And thanks for valuable information of connection manager. It is very
interesting. 

I agree a new component (connection manager) for a host with multiple
interfaces.

When we implemented a host with multiple interfaces, we also used similar
approach. 

But, when we designed the similar component, our rules were different as
follows;

1.     The existence of multiple interfaces should not be shown to
subscriber.

2.     The impact of multiple interfaces must be minimized into current
TCP/IP mechanism.

3.     The component which is similar to connection manager is implemented
in both MAC (L2) and Network (L3) layer. 

So, I ask to mif.

1.     Should a subscriber be aware of multiple interfaces in a host?

2.     If the existence of multiple interfaces of a host influences on
current TCP/IP mechanism, which scope (layer) should we consider?

3.     Should an application be aware of multiple interfaces in a host?

Best regards.

Yong-Geun.

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Hui
Deng
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 10:24 AM
To: mif
Subject: [mif] How the current application of mobile host works in the MIF

Hello, all

 
2) Now (MIF)

 
 http://www.forum.nokia.com/info/sw.nokia.com/id/190358c8-7cb1-4be3-9321-
f9d6788ecae5/S60_Platform_IP_Bearer_Management_v1_0_en.pdf.html 

-Hui Deng

---

From: Hui Deng <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 23:07:02 +0800

Hi, Yong-Geun,

2009/2/10 Yong-Geun Hong <[email-masked]>

> interesting.
 Thanks,

> 1.     The existence of multiple interfaces should not be shown to
Does IPhone user know it?

> in both MAC (L2) and Network (L3) layer.
Let's see current OS how to do it.

> So, I ask to mif.
Let me try to reply personally

>   1.     Should a subscriber be aware of multiple interfaces in a host?
yes

> current TCP/IP mechanism, which scope (layer) should we consider?
mif is not necessarily bind to any lspcific ayer at the moment. scope is
more host related when it has multiple interface.

>   3.     Should an application be aware of multiple interfaces in a host?
good questions, there are two ways to do it.

thanks for your comments.

-Hui

>
>
> Best regards.
>
>
>
> Yong-Geun.
>
>
>
> *From:* [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] *On Behalf Of *Hui
> Deng
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 10, 2009 10:24 AM
> *To:* mif
> *Subject:* [mif] How the current application of mobile host works in the
> MIF
>
>
>
> Hello, all
>

---

From: Jacni Qin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 02:09:40 +0800

hi hui,

So, I ask to mif.

> good questions, there are two ways to do it.

could you say it more clearly?

thanks,

Jacni

---

From: Hui Deng <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 01:06:49 +0800

to reply another thread together to you here, inline below please.

2009/2/18 Jacni Qin <[email-masked]>

> could you say it more clearly?
Here I said
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mif/current/msg00170.html

thanks

-Hui