Re: Roadmap question

["Shane Bryan" <dbryans gmail com>]

On 1/23/07, Dan Williams <dcbw redhat com> wrote:

On Tue, 2007-01-23 at 09:25 -0800, Shane Bryan wrote:
> Does NM have plans (near or far) to also manage connections to
> WiMax/WMAN (802.16) networks and/or Digital Cellular (aka WWAN)
> networks?

Both; but certainly cellular before WiMAX.  What the cell bits require
is the integrated PPP support, which we're working on.

Is there a release target for PPP or is the support more "opportunistic".  IOW, is anyone working on it now with good progress towards, say, the next release, or is it lower priority to other objectives and gets attention as time permits?  Just trying to get a full understanding, not questioning anyones priorities or schedule.

I'd really like to support WiMAX in the future too, but we'll need quite
a few things before that happens.  First, we need to know what the
interface to the card looks like.  Second, how much of the stack will be
running in firmware versus how much will be running on the host.  Third,
how to tune various things that might need tuning, and fourth, we need
drivers for WiMAX cards :)

Heh, details, details...

On that note, what are people hearing about OSS based drivers for these devices.  I can name a few that are somming out with PCMCIA or SOC based solutions in the next year or two:

• Intel Rosedale 2 (802.16d/e combined)
• Sequans' SQN1110 SOC
• ZyXEL WiMax PCMCIA
• Beceem - Apparently has a ref design kit with PCMCIA card prototypes

Any of these promise OSS Drivers?

I know that if Intel makes WiMax part of their Centrino brand, then they have usually provided base functionality in some form of OSS driver (even if it has firmware chunks or user space proprietary code).  What about other manufacturers?

Companies like Sprint have committed to "mobile" WiMAX (802.16e) as
their 4G cellular standard, and I would like to support them in the same
manner as I'd like to support current GSM/CDMA cellular cards.

 

> I've seen recent announcements of WiMax deployments in the Portland,
> OR area and other places around the world, and was curious if these
> wireless networks (in the functional sense of the word) were
> considered in scope for what NM is designed for, or is this lower
> level than NM ( i.e. does it need to be implimented in wireless tools
> or dscape or ???)?

Well, WiMAX bits would certainly require a configuration interface of
some kind to be able to receive stuff like strength and maybe other
tunables.  But GSM/CDMA cards get away without this sort of thing
because they simply present a serial interface that you can dial and
talk PPP over.

Yeah, this is what I was thinking...that it's not all just kernel space.  Authentication methodologies might differ enough to require UI changes in the collection of authentication information, correct?  What else?

> If not NM, is anyone aware of other projects or companies working on
> WiMax and WWAN connection manager/configuration tools similar to what
> NM is doing for WLAN?

The plan is to support the wider-area regulated frequency networks in
much the same way as WLANs are right now, with the caveat that they
never connect automatically unless you tell the configuration to do so,
unlike current WLAN devices.

Why the caveat?  Perceived risk?  Assumption that more local network is more secure, appropriate, or faster?  Just curious.

If I am connected to a the "Metropolis" WiMax network at home, why would it be assumed that I would want to connect to $tarbuck$ WiFi instead when I am enjoying my morning coffee?  Wouldn't network consistancy be desirable, I mean that's one of the key selling features of Mobile WiMax isn't it?

Again, having not been privy to the reasons behind the above caveat, I'm just interested in hearing the thoughts and reasons behind it.

Thanks for the reply Dan,

Shane...