Re: [16NG] What is your opinions regarding to IEEE802.16?
" 김상언 " <kim.sangeon@gmail.com> Mon, 16 April 2007 11:03 UTC
Return-path: <16ng-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1HdP00-0003k9-GO; Mon, 16 Apr 2007 07:03:56 -0400
Received: from 16ng by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43)
id 1HdOzy-0003hM-Vb
for 16ng-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Apr 2007 07:03:54 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HdOzy-0003fm-LI
for 16ng@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Apr 2007 07:03:54 -0400
Received: from an-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.132.249])
by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HdOzx-00025g-6w
for 16ng@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Apr 2007 07:03:54 -0400
Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id d30so1821937and
for <16ng@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Apr 2007 04:03:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta;
h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
b=dBhjBpZF1/LuqT8wSni3n2/teyV5y6kg/59dGpdkmLVxomF1GnYsHY2uyMR+MlaEmCp8uduGMgJPynDByximb++JdZiRrMT8N7t/Fta6/PzurNhKa5gSAElk5K6r5PfdgjcgvuvTE2NMk1aIrFuBzHydGOdM0e0c68f1RH9FUX4=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta;
h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
b=ULM7EEkkdkEYcso/jMI+bxf4JUqZXIlnmZ9fd0aTbMASXZRLnDqFDC4cNaer8dZRIXRTp9rSLOL5xVLol/sq7a245qP3sdNvcRLKhZNrF9l77NnEUnyD9kUouqmyWC4ROf5S/K3QTvg+0CACLI41BBubujLsG1BzhcDEUylAEI0=
Received: by 10.100.143.1 with SMTP id q1mr1555866and.1176721432558;
Mon, 16 Apr 2007 04:03:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.100.164.1 with HTTP; Mon, 16 Apr 2007 04:03:52 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <7d5d1f6f0704160403q1a6088b9k9b69a7993a792fa8@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 20:03:52 +0900
From: "=?EUC-KR?B?sei7877w?=" <kim.sangeon@gmail.com>
To: qinxia <alice.Q@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [16NG] What is your opinions regarding to IEEE802.16?
In-Reply-To: <005501c77fea$fe7c9200$7505a40a@china.huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <7d5d1f6f0704151906q51bb1435r62dede409b2258b5@mail.gmail.com>
<005501c77fea$fe7c9200$7505a40a@china.huawei.com>
X-Spam-Score: 0.5 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 287c806b254c6353fcb09ee0e53bbc5e
Cc: elwynd@dial.pipex.com, bernarda@microsoft.com, 16ng@ietf.org,
dthaler@microsoft.com
X-BeenThere: 16ng@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: 16ng working group discussion list <16ng.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng>,
<mailto:16ng-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/16ng>
List-Post: <mailto:16ng@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:16ng-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng>,
<mailto:16ng-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0309090264=="
Errors-To: 16ng-bounces@ietf.org
2007/4/16, qinxia <alice.Q@huawei.com>om>: > > Hello, > > Please see inline. > > Best regards > > Alice > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ??? [mailto:kim.sangeon@gmail.com] > > Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 10:07 AM > > To: bernarda@microsoft.com; elwynd@dial.pipex.com; > > dthaler@microsoft.com > > Cc: 16ng@ietf.org > > Subject: [16NG] What is your opinions regarding to IEEE802.16? > > > > Dear Authors of the RFC 4840, > > > > IEEE 802.16 specifies several convergence sublayer (CS) > > including ATM, IPv4 packet, IPv6 packet, IPv4 over EThernet, > > IPv6 over Ethernet, IPv4 over VLAN, IPv6 over VLAN and more. > > Also, it should be used management plane to identify CS > > because 802.16 MAC frame does not have a CS identification field. > > > > Whereas, IP family uses its header to identify for the upper > > layer service. > > For example, Ethernet type at the Ethernet header is used > > 0X0800 and 0X86DD for IPv4, IPv6 respectively. > > The protocol field at the IP header uses for identification > > of the upper layer protocol, in reference at > > http://www.iana.org/assignments/protocol-numbers > > > > If the IEEE802.16 systems are implemented for IPv4 packet > > only. It doesn't matter. > > When we try to dual stack, both native IPv4 over IEEE802.16 > > and native IPv6 IEEE802.16, it is more difficult than > > Ethernet based IP due to absence of CS type at the 16 MAC header. > > > ==> why does MAC header need to identify the CS type of frame? > Even though CS type is indicated on the very MAC header, the frame is > still needed > to be classified with classifier due to QoS support. > The inner information such as IP 5 turple is still needed sometimes. According to the section 3.1 of RFC4840, it is recommended that "Link-layer protocols should enable network packets (IPv4, IPv6, ARP, etc.) to be demultiplexed in the link layer" > Even if connection identifier (CID) field of 16 header can be > used between base station and subscriber station, multiple CS > should be processed at the BS. > Also, prefix model IP family over IEEE802.16 such as shared > prefix and per-MS prefix impacts on network architecture and > implementation. > > Which is preferred prefix model? > Are you agree to require dual stack over IEEE 802.16 system > (may be stupid question, but is is possible IPv6 over IPv4 > tunnel for IPv6 packet delivery) ? > What is your preferred CS ? and Why? > > thanks ------------------------------------------------ Sang-Eon Kim Senior Researcher Infra. Lab., KT 139-791, Woomyeon-dong, Seocho-gu, Seoul, Korea Voice: +82-2-526-6117 Mobile: +82-10-3073-4084 E-mail: Kim.SangEon@gmail.com ------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ 16NG mailing list 16NG@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng