[16NG] RE: 16NG Digest, Vol 4, Issue 40


PLEASE REMOVE ME FROM YOUR LIST
>From: 16ng-request@ietf.org
>Reply-To: 16ng@ietf.org
>To: 16ng@ietf.org
>Subject: 16NG Digest, Vol 4, Issue 40
>Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 22:01:14 -0400
>
>Send 16NG mailing list submissions to
>	16ng@ietf.org
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>	https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>	16ng-request@ietf.org
>
>You can reach the person managing the list at
>	16ng-owner@ietf.org
>
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>than "Re: Contents of 16NG digest..."
>
>
>Today's Topics:
>
>    1. RE:
>       I-DACTION:draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802.16-01.txt
>       (Burcak Beser)
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Message: 1
>Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 19:00:49 -0700
>From: "Burcak Beser" <Burcak.Beser@telsima.com>
>Subject: RE:
>	[16NG]I-DACTION:draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802.16-01.txt
>To: "Riegel, Maximilian" <maximilian.riegel@siemens.com>
>Cc: 16ng@ietf.org
>Message-ID:
>	<A5CAD07A651F8447AD5D411A81AACCB47C2EFC@MSONE.sc.telsima.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"
>
>Max,
>
>I am not aware of anything missing in the 802.16 regarding downlink
>broadcast and multicast data transmissions. Can you elaborate on what is
>missing?
>
>Regards,
>-burcak
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Riegel, Maximilian [mailto:maximilian.riegel@siemens.com]
>Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 11:28 AM
>To: Burcak Beser
>Cc: 16ng@ietf.org
>Subject: RE:
>[16NG]I-DACTION:draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802.16-01.txt
>
>Burcak,
>
>First, even when there are examples out how to provide IP multicast and
>broadcast on link layers providing uplink unicast and downlink
>multicast, the IEEE802.16 specification does not provide the details how
>to accomplish this over an 802.16 transport connection (... as stated in
>the I-D).
>
>Second, I agree with you that there is not enough normative language in
>this revision. More normative language is due for the next version when
>we have established the right framework for it. When reviewing all the
>comments on -00.txt we found that most of the comments were addressing
>just clarifications on how the pieces are fitting together.
>
>Bye
>Max
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Burcak Beser [mailto:Burcak.Beser@telsima.com]
>Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 1:08 AM
>To: 16ng@ietf.org
>Subject: RE:
>[16NG]I-DACTION:draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802.16-01.txt
>
>I have two basic issues before going into a detailed readout fo the
>draft.
>
>First, the draft states that (from section 5.2.) "Current IEEE 802.16
>[IEEE802.16][IEEE802.16e] does not define any transport connection for
>IP broadcast and multicast data."
>
>Even though it is true that the IEEE 802.16 MAC does not natively
>support bi-directional broadcast domains, it is my understanding that
>IEEE 802.16 has both broadcast and multicast downlink CID's defined,
>which is being used effectively to transport IP broadcast and multicast
>data on downlink direction for various deployments today.
>
>If the aim of the draft is "(from the abstract) transmission of IPv4 as
>well as IPv6 over Ethernet in a network deploying the IEEE 802.16
>cellular radio transmission technology", the subject is well researched
>and there are many simpler schemes alrady deployed for this purpose on
>systems where uplink is unicast and broadcast downlink exists. If there
>are other implied requirements I would like to see them on a problem
>statement section since these are beyond the published scope of this
>draft.
>
>Second, the use of minimal normative language with only one "SHOULD"
>statement along with a single non-normative "shall" statement alludes to
>the fact that it is possible and highly probable that various
>implentations will not behave the same manner. One example is whether a
>Proxy ARP (section 6.2.) is required or not; further where should it
>reside?
>
>It can further be said that the draft does not even meet its own purpose
>of emulating broadcast domains for the purpose of IPv4 and IPv6
>transmissions. The draft will be improved greately by the careful
>addition of normative statements which would also make sure that all
>implentations based on this draft will behave in a predictable manner.
>
>Regards,
>-burcak
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>16NG mailing list
>16NG@ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.13/726 - Release Date:
>3/18/2007 3:34 PM
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>16NG mailing list
>16NG@ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng
>
>
>End of 16NG Digest, Vol 4, Issue 40
>***********************************


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