tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17500930.post8935820350401525601..comments2024-03-20T22:57:03.923+00:00Comments on Dean Bubley's Disruptive Wireless: Will the WiFi Blackberry support multiple philosophies?Dean Bubleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05719150957239368264noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17500930.post-87725691744363043702007-09-27T13:37:00.000+01:002007-09-27T13:37:00.000+01:00Hey Dean,Excellent article. RIM is in between the...Hey Dean,<BR/><BR/>Excellent article. RIM is in between their current revenue generator (mobile operators) and large revenue opportunity (enterprise SIP PBX). They could provide a SIP only client, but customers would want the full service with seamless roaming.<BR/><BR/>LucAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17500930.post-7544107213106088832007-07-14T21:08:00.000+01:002007-07-14T21:08:00.000+01:00I don't get the point of these UMA/Wifi phones. Yo...I don't get the point of these UMA/Wifi phones. You only need UMA/Wifi if your cell network is crap. Just look at the Nordics. Anywhere you go your cell phone just works. And I mean anywhere: countryside, basements, elevators, at home, in the loo. Why mess around with silly Wifi cludges when you can just build a proper cell phone network? All this UMA stuff is so ass backwards.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17500930.post-38945283040859206452007-07-11T15:21:00.000+01:002007-07-11T15:21:00.000+01:00FrankMy whole point is that there won't be an IPse...Frank<BR/><BR/>My whole point is that there won't be an IPsec tunnel from within an enterprise WLAN to the carrier network in most cases. The device will typically be connecting locally via WLAN to the LAN & IP-PBX. Most enterprise FMC solutions will not be "anchored" in the carrier network at all, but in the PBX or WLAN switch, under the control of the IT dept.<BR/><BR/>Also, it's entirely possible to have a good WiFi/SIP implementation on the handset without VCC.Dean Bubleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05719150957239368264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17500930.post-37248393389985959072007-07-11T14:20:00.000+01:002007-07-11T14:20:00.000+01:00I'm not familiar with this "handover client".I thi...I'm not familiar with this "handover client".<BR/><BR/>I think what 'UMAer' is getting at is that BSS transitions (i.e. a client's move from one BSSID to another) don't operate that smoothly, and that even under the most ideal conditions it takes anywhere from 10 to 20 msec, while most of the time it's in the 100 to 150 msec range when using IEEE 802.1X with pre-auth and PMK caching turned on. According to Extricom, an enterprise Wi-Fi vendor based in Israel, unless there is a seamless handoff the IPSec tunnel between the handset and carrier network will likely break, disrupting the call. While I've done a lot of roaming testing, I haven't tried with an IPSec client, so I don't know if that's the case.<BR/><BR/>While we wait for 802.11r to trudge through the IEEE process, we still have IAPP/802.11f as a bare minimum, and Cisco with their CCX program to enhance the experience.<BR/><BR/>In regards to handsets, I believe that once handset vendors start implementing VCC the enterprises will clamor to use those handsets because they're Wi-Fi optimized and likely have a strong/good SIP stack.<BR/><BR/>Frank<BR/><BR/>FrankFrank Bulkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02004215342995023858noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17500930.post-78012422467565846082007-07-11T09:58:00.000+01:002007-07-11T09:58:00.000+01:00Hi UMAerYes, that's my point - the current enterpr...Hi UMAer<BR/><BR/>Yes, that's my point - the current enterprise WLAN is usually based on proprietary AP-AP handoff, plus a proprietary controller, usually linked into the fixed LAN and enterprise IT security domain. And UMA wasn't designed to either work with that, or be easily extensible to work in such non-operator-controlled environments. It also doesn't "play nicely" with IP-PBXs in terms of call control.<BR/><BR/>VCC - we both know it's still quite early days. There are a number of "pre-VCC" SIP-based operator implementations, which over time will progress towards a more standardised proposition. That said, it's still an open question if they'll inter-work with corporate WLAN & IP-PBX infrastructures either. I'd expect the PBX co's to be more friendly towards it though, as they're generally SIP advocates.<BR/><BR/>On the topic of which - a number of RIMs operators are also working with the more "enterprise-controlled" approach to SIP dual-mode, where the mobility management is anchored in the PBX, usually under the enterprise control (although occasionally hosted/centrex). So I'd expect to see BT Global Services, Orange Business etc pitching that type of solution to their corporate customers. <BR/><BR/>Having said that, I could also envisage a dual-mode-dual-mode approach, using local WiFi+SIP while on a company campus, but perhaps WiFi+UMA from a hotspot.Dean Bubleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05719150957239368264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17500930.post-51606755870476182212007-07-11T00:06:00.000+01:002007-07-11T00:06:00.000+01:00Dean, Just two comments from the UMA front:First, ...Dean, <BR/><BR/>Just two comments from the UMA front:<BR/><BR/>First, it's not that 'UMA isn't designed to work with complex switched Wi-Fi networks'. It's that there is no 802.11 standard defined for handing over between Wi-Fi APs. Any device that does handover with the companies mentioned has software from the respective company downloaded on it. <BR/><BR/>When the standard (802.11r?) is complete, UMA will support it. But Samsung, Nokia, Motorola, LG... don't want to support the Aruba, Cisco, and Trapeze handover client, it's too much. <BR/><BR/>Second, while 'most of RIMs operators aren't using UMA', I can say that none of RIMs operators are using VCC. It's pretty clear the RIM product is for T-Mobile and will likely get to Orange as well. But I don't know why anyone would add support for a standard that isn't complete and that no operator is supporting.Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08842299940187829570noreply@blogger.com