Re: [16NG] I-D Action:draft-ietf-16ng-ipv4-over-802-dot-16-ipcs-07.txt

"Riegel, Maximilian (NSN - DE/Munich)" <> Thu, 03 June 2010 20:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B9B83A68B3 for <>; Thu, 3 Jun 2010 13:41:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.11
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.11 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-1.11]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jMwFTCLyUeR4 for <>; Thu, 3 Jun 2010 13:41:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46BCA3A68E9 for <>; Thu, 3 Jun 2010 13:41:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by ( with ESMTP id o53KetLJ031381 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <>; Thu, 3 Jun 2010 22:40:55 +0200
Received: from ( []) by ( with ESMTP id o53Kerp5005093 for <>; Thu, 3 Jun 2010 22:40:55 +0200
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 3 Jun 2010 22:40:43 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 22:40:40 +0200
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Thread-Topic: [16NG] I-D Action:draft-ietf-16ng-ipv4-over-802-dot-16-ipcs-07.txt
thread-index: AcsCyP3ZBHNAbCjOQayyAgLl5L5ETwAk2FIg
References: <>
From: "Riegel, Maximilian (NSN - DE/Munich)" <>
To: <>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Jun 2010 20:40:43.0405 (UTC) FILETIME=[095BE3D0:01CB035D]
Subject: Re: [16NG] I-D Action:draft-ietf-16ng-ipv4-over-802-dot-16-ipcs-07.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: 16ng working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2010 20:41:12 -0000

Is it really reasonable to progress this I-D towards RFC? Meanwhile
IEEE802.16 as well as WiMAX Forum are moving towards an combined IP-CS,
which is capable to transfer IPv4 packets as well as IPv6 packets over
the same service flows.

IMHO, it would make much more sense to merge the IPv6-CS and the IPv4-CS
specification text into a common IP-CS text.


-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 5:00 AM
Subject: [16NG] I-D

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
This draft is a work item of the IP over IEEE 802.16 Networks Working
Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Transmission of IPv4 packets over IEEE
802.16's IP Convergence Sublayer
	Author(s)       : S. Madanapalli, et al.
	Filename        :
	Pages           : 13
	Date            : 2010-06-02

IEEE 802.16 is an air interface specification for wireless broadband
access.  IEEE 802.16 has specified multiple service specific
Convergence Sublayers for transmitting upper layer protocols.  The
packet CS (Packet Convergence Sublayer) is used for the transport of
all packet-based protocols such as Internet Protocol (IP) and IEEE
802.3 (Ethernet).  The IP-specific part of the Packet CS enables the
transport of IPv4 packets directly over the IEEE 802.16 Media Access
Control (MAC).

This document specifies the frame format, the Maximum Transmission
Unit (MTU) and address assignment procedures for transmitting IPv4
packets over the IP-specific part of the Packet Convergence Sublayer
of IEEE 802.16.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the