Re: [16NG]I-DACTION:draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802.16-01.txt

["Junghoon Jee" <[e-mail]>]

Hello Max/Burcak,

That's right. Previously, there's no way to realize the Ethernet behavior
which provides bidirectional multicast and broadcast. That's why a sort of
bridging facility is required when using Ethernet CS between MS and AR in
802.16 links.

Junghoon

2007/4/5, Riegel, Maximilian <[e-mail]>om>:
>
> Burcak,
>
> I am still missing the explanation how multicast and broadcast may work
> in IEEE802.16? You mentioned multicast and broadcast CIDs, but they are
> only available in downlink, and how to realize Ethernet behavior on top
> of IEEE802.16? In the best case I can imagine some fragments, but no
> complete picture.
>
> Bye
> Max
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Burcak Beser [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 8:16 PM
> To: Riegel, Maximilian
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: RE:
> [16NG]I-DACTION:draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802.16-01.txt
>
> Max,
>
> Since you agree with my first point now, let's look at the second point
> before jumping into any conclusions:
>
> What is the objective of the draft? Is this simply "(from the abstract)
> transmission of IPv4 as well as IPv6 over Ethernet in a network
> deploying the IEEE 802.16 cellular radio transmission technology" or
> something more?
>
> Regards,
> -burcak
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Riegel, Maximilian [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 12:02 PM
> To: Burcak Beser
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: RE:
> [16NG]I-DACTION:draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802.16-01.txt
>
> Burcak,
>
> Downlink multicast and broadcast is not the issue, but how does this
> work in the uplink direction?
> Can you point me to the sections in the IEEE802.16 specification, where
> I can find the details?
>
> Bye
> Max
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Burcak Beser [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 3:01 AM
> To: Riegel, Maximilian
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: RE:
> [16NG]I-DACTION:draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802.16-01.txt
>
> 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:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 11:28 AM
> To: Burcak Beser
> Cc: [e-mail]
> 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:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 1:08 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> 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
> [e-mail]
> 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
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng
>

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