[16NG] Re: some thoughts on IPv6-over-IPv6CS

["JinHyeock Choi" <[e-mail]>]

Alex

thanks for your prompt reply.

> Just one comment, I will not insist on this.

glad to hear that. :-)

> JinHyeock Choi wrote:
> > Dear Alex
> >
> > Kindly find my in-line comments.
> >
> >>>>> IEEE 802.16 also defines a secondary management connection
> >>>>> that can be used for host configuration.  However support for
> >>>>>  secondary management connections is not mandatory.  A
> >>>>> transport connection has the advantage of it being used for
> >>>>> host configuration as well as for user data.
> >>>> Are you specifying something about the use of the management
> >>>> connections? If not, take it out.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Not really specifying anything w.r.t the management connection.
> >>> This came up during discussion with Alex Petrescu and I added it
> >>>  just for the sake of completeness. Within the scope of this I-D,
> >>>  the management connection has no relevance. I can take it out.
> >>
> >> Yes, the issue is that 802.16 recommends the RS/RA to happen on a
> >> Secondary Management Connection (instead of on a Transport
> >> Connection). Clarifications on the list suggested that probably
> >> nobody uses a SMC. But that doesn't mean that the IEEE spec isn't
> >> saying so.
> >
> > As of my knowledge, 802.16 doesn't mandate which connection to use
> > for RS/RA.
>
> Well I thought that mentioning of sl address autoconf happening on the
> SMC, check citation below.
>
> > Actually in the beginning of IPv6 over 802.16 IP CS work, we gave
> > much thought on which connection to use for Neighbor Discovery
> > messages such as RS/ RA or NS/ NA. (because those messages can carry
> >  multicast destination address and unspecified source address,
> > special features are required for the connection.)
>
> What came out of the discussion?
>
> > Unfortunately 802.16 spec is not perfectly clear about this. While
> > there are a few vague statements which may be interpreted to
> > recommend the Secondary Management Connection, upon discussing with
> > 802.16 & WiMAX people, we found out that neither the statements were
> >  written with that intention nor the actual 802.16 SS and BS were
> > implemented that way. Transport Connection (especially Initial
> > Service Flow for WiMAX case) is universally agreed as long as our
> > experience & knowledge goes. If there is something missing or wrong,
> >  kindly let me know.
>
> Look.  Let's ignore WiMax for a very short moment.  All we're left with
> is the 802.16-2005 spec:
>
> > IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [IETF RFC 2462] based on the
> >  value of a TLV tuple in REG-RSP. Establishment of IP connectivity
> > shall be performed on the SS's Secondary Management Connection (see
> > Table 110).
>
> First issue is the use of SMC for RS/RA.
>
> The second item is the value in REG-RSP.  That value is equivalent to
> the M-bit in RA.
>
> Both issues can be solved directly and solely in the IETF draft, until
> the IEEE spec is updated.
>
> I agree discussion and clarification happened, at least on the list, but
> its results should be documented.  I agree that IEEE 802.16 may be fed
> back and modified suggestions.  I would like that to happen.  If that
> happens then some coherency is gained.
>
> Remark we can't put deadlines on IEEE document advancement, so maybe
> just hold on for a while.

The above citation may give the impression that SMC is for RS/ RA but
doesn't clearly mandate it. I don't think it's productive for us to
further debate how to interpret the expression. However, both issues
can bring forth some confusion and I guess maybe we'd better give
feedback to 802.16 to right them.

Best Regards

JinHyeock

_______________________________________________
16NG mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng