Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] do we need a client protocol?

From: "Greger V. Teigre" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 09:34:14 +0200

Let me share some "running code" with you:
Running SIP Express Router (http://iptel.org/) with OPTIONS ping from 
the server to a Nokia E70 every 30 seconds (as the E70 does not have any 
NAT traversal awareness, but it will respond 200 OK to the OPTIONS), the 
E70 will take you through a full work day (8+ hours), with a 
registration on WLAN (802.11g), as well as standard GSM on. Talk time 
about 1-1.5 hours. The WLAN access point is a standard <$100 device.

The biggest problem has actually been the TCP/IP stack, where actually 
getting an IP address can be a problem. See 
http://www.iptel.org/config/nokia_e70 for more info.

Add a Bluetooth headset to the mix and you got yourself less time, but 
it works surprisingly well...

My experience is that an active 3G connection drains more battery than 
an active SIP registration with 30 sec pings over WLAN. I don't know 
mobile inner workings good enough to back that up, though...
g-)

David Barrett wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dean Willis [mailto:[email-masked]]
>> Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] do we need a client protocol?
>>
>>     
>>> None of this has anything to do with SIP.  Unless I'm
>>> misunderstanding it, it's just not possible for a battery-conscious
>>> device to continuously listen on an IP network at this point.  What
>>> am I missing?
>>>       
>> Details, mostly. Missing details. It's an ugly world out there, and
>> much of what we imagine to be the Internet isn't what we imagine it
>> to be.
>>     
>
> Good, thanks for those details.  So:
>
> - Some mobile applications listen for a 'page' to fire up the IP stack
> - Some PDAs can go 4-6 hours in IP "listen" mode.
> - Many mobile IP devices have no NAT/FW
> 	. But they might have them "further out"
>
> These details seem to largely reaffirm that IP-based applications generally
> can't spend a long time in "listen" mode without high battery drain, and
> thus maybe it's a distraction to even spend energy discussing it in the
> context of P2PSIP.
>
> Until the whole IP network listen/battery-life thing has been worked out in
> a more general fashion (ie, one that doesn't require layer 2 tricks between
> the client and the network), it's probably premature to worry about.
>
> Do you agree, or did I misunderstand your conclusion?
>
> -david
>
>
>   
_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip

---

From: "Greger V. Teigre" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 09:39:49 +0200

To answer the question directly: I believe mobile devices over WLAN 
should be considered. There is also a category of tablet-type, 
battery-powered devices (when is it a mobile and when is it a PC?). With 
regards to mobile devices over 3G, I believe GET/PUT operations can be 
of interest to applications (if such operations are allowed, ref. 
opendht.org).
IMHO, we cannot afford to not consider battery-constrained devices.
g-)

---

From: "David Barrett" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 01:09:44 -0700

Ah, that's encouraging.  Also, I completely ignored the possibility of a SIP
phone that only makes outgoing calls - it seems that this is certainly
possible.

-david

  _____  

From: Greger V. Teigre [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 12:34 AM
To: David Barrett
Cc: 'Dean Willis'; 'Wei Gengyu'; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] do we need a client protocol?

Let me share some "running code" with you:
Running SIP Express Router (http://iptel.org/) with OPTIONS ping from the
server to a Nokia E70 every 30 seconds (as the E70 does not have any NAT
traversal awareness, but it will respond 200 OK to the OPTIONS), the E70
will take you through a full work day (8+ hours), with a registration on
WLAN (802.11g), as well as standard GSM on. Talk time about 1-1.5 hours. The
WLAN access point is a standard <$100 device. 

Add a Bluetooth headset to the mix and you got yourself less time, but it
works surprisingly well...

My experience is that an active 3G connection drains more battery than an
active SIP registration with 30 sec pings over WLAN. I don't know mobile
inner workings good enough to back that up, though...
g-)

David Barrett wrote: 

-----Original Message-----
From: Dean Willis [mailto:[email-masked]]
Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] do we need a client protocol?

 

 

-david