Re: [16NG] Re: multicast and IPv6 over ETHCS

Riegel, Maximilian wrote:
> Alex,
> 
> I do not know why RFC4541 has become INFORMATIONAL.

I don't know either, so it is.  Would you like to suggest change its status?

But it looks logical for IP-over-ETHCS to refer first and foremost to
MLDv2 (Proposed Standard) and only after that works refer an
INFORMATIONAL usage of it. No?

> There may be other reasons than that it addresses functions below the
>  IP layer. But I still believe that the IETF is the right place to 
> write specifications on how IP packets are carried over foo.

Yes, IP-over-foo.  I completely agree.

> And in the case of IPoETHo802.16 it is not a particular framing 
> format but particular functions in the link layer supporting IP 
> behavior, which we have to specify.

Excuse me, but 'particular functions in the link layer' are not to be
specified at IETF.

We can try to dissect what 'particular functions in the link layer' is.
  For example, does that function build a link-layer packet?  Does that
function write an IP address in an IP-or-above header?

> If I am following your statement, PPP would not be in the scope of 
> the IETF.

Right, that was solved by saying PPP is not link-layer but layer 2/3.
It doesn't build headers.  More recently one sees PANA (full UDP) and
EAP (independent of link-layer) and ppp doesn't get much upgrade at  IETF.

But, why do you mention ppp here?  Do you see ppp anywhere in the
IP-over-ETHCS context?  I'd be glad to know.  And I'm asking this
because ppp is used everywhere on GPRS/UMTS, and pppoe is used on some
HSDPA.

Using ppp changes the landscape completely and if it's the case it
should be stated.

>>> Bye Max BTW: Link layer multicast is not provided by the Ethernet
>>>  Convergence Layer but by a bridge device in the system deploying
>>>  the ETH-CS for transmitting Ethernet frames over IEEE802.16.
>> Thanks for this clarification.  So one is tempted to call the 
>> document "IP over bridge device in the system deploying the ETH-CS
>>  for transmitting Ethernet frames over IEEE 802.16".   A
>> terminology issue.
> 
> You can just call it 'IP over Ethernet over IEEE802.16'. The bridge 
> device together with the ETH-CS transport is exactly what is regarded
>  as 'Ethernet'.

Do you mean the SS must have this 'bridge device' built-in?

If SS doesn't have the 'bridge device' built-in then maybe there's
nothing to be specified for the SS.

Do you mean brctl? (bridge software on linux).  This is software not
hardware and is present in Bluetooth, but not on the SS, only on the AP.
(Bluetooth had same problem of making ptp links look as
  multicast-capable, see PAN profile).

Alex

_______________________________________________
16NG mailing list
16NG@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng