Phil;
The best defense against WAP is an open handheld platform that allows
end users (and independent vendors and open-source developers) to run
applications and network protocols of their own choice. As long as
the service providers support IP (perhaps in addition to WAP), the
open platform users can just ignore WAP and run standard Internet
applications. And they can benefit from all the work currently being
done in the IETF and elsewhere on making the Internet protocols work
even better over wireless than they already do.
Please state your wish carefully.
IP is NOT enough.
The Internet end-to-end model will once again prevail, putting the
cellular service providers back into their proper place as providers
of packet pipes, nothing more. And life will be good again. :-)
IP over NAT is, in no way, end-to-end.
WAP and IP over NAT are equally bad.
See the attached mail in IETF more than a month ago.
Masataka Ohta
--
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complications-02.txt
In-Reply-To:
<4(_dot_)3(_dot_)1(_dot_)2(_dot_)20000430061634(_dot_)0117de78(_at_)shoe(_dot_)reston(_dot_)mci(_dot_)net>
from "vinton
g. cerf" at "Apr 30, 2000 06:20:48 am"
To: "vinton g. cerf" <vcerf(_at_)MCI(_dot_)NET>
Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 17:41:59 +0859 ()
CC: Matt Holdrege <holdrege(_at_)lucent(_dot_)com>, Thomas Narten
<narten(_at_)raleigh(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com>,
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL68 (25)]
Content-Length: 1614
Status: RO
Vint;
that's right - they use iMODE on the DOCOMO mobiles. iMODE and
WAP seem to have that in common: a non-IP radio link protocol
and an application gateway. Of course, this limits the applications
to those that can be "translated" in the gateway, while an end to
end system (such as the Ricochet from Metricom) would allow
essentially any application on an Internet server to interact
directly with the mobile device because the gateway would merely
be an IP level device, possibly with NAT functionality.
With a JAVA interpreter or other similar capability in the
mobile, one could imagine considerable competition for development
of new applications. As it stands, only the applications NTT
chooses to implement in the translating gateway are accessible.
An interesting thing is that iMODE is so successful that DOCOMO
is suffering from the usual problems (lack of scalability and
robustness) caused by violating the end to end principle.
iMODE is now infamous for its frequent service interruption.
DOCOMO users are refunded for the interruption.
Since HTTP is one of the "applications" served, there is still
a lot of room for competition, I suppose.
To make the competition fair, the important questions are:
Is it fair if providers using iMODE or WAP are advertised
to be ISPs?
Is it fair if providers using NAT are advertised to be ISPs?
My answer to both questions is
No, while they may be Internet Service Access Providers and
NAT users may be IP Service Providers, they don't provide
Internet service and are no ISPs.
Any oppositions?
Masataka Ohta