RE: [16NG] What is your opinions regarding to IEEE802.16?
qinxia <alice.Q@huawei.com> Mon, 16 April 2007 05:50 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 1HdK6Y-0003pA-00; Mon, 16 Apr 2007 01:50:22 -0400
Received: from 16ng by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43)
id 1HdK6X-0003p4-Gn
for 16ng-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Apr 2007 01:50:21 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HdK6X-0003ot-4y
for 16ng@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Apr 2007 01:50:21 -0400
Received: from szxga02-in.huawei.com ([61.144.161.54])
by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HdK6V-0004ip-J5
for 16ng@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Apr 2007 01:50:21 -0400
Received: from huawei.com (szxga02-in [172.24.2.6])
by szxga02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.25
(built Mar
3 2004)) with ESMTP id <0JGK001JOTIFNG@szxga02-in.huawei.com> for
16ng@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:49:28 +0800 (CST)
Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.1.18])
by szxga02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14
(built Aug
8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0JGK005EATIF5H@szxga02-in.huawei.com> for
16ng@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:49:27 +0800 (CST)
Received: from q52443 ([10.164.5.117])
by szxml03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.25
(built Mar
3 2004)) with ESMTPA id <0JGK00KFMTIAN1@szxml03-in.huawei.com> for
16ng@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:49:27 +0800 (CST)
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:49:26 +0800
From: qinxia <alice.Q@huawei.com>
Subject: RE: [16NG] What is your opinions regarding to IEEE802.16?
In-reply-to: <7d5d1f6f0704151906q51bb1435r62dede409b2258b5@mail.gmail.com>
To: '???' <kim.sangeon@gmail.com>, bernarda@microsoft.com,
elwynd@dial.pipex.com, dthaler@microsoft.com
Message-id: <005501c77fea$fe7c9200$7505a40a@china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Thread-index: Acd/y+8bC+YlyWsvRDGopTMOFC7MVwADaMmw
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: d0bdc596f8dd1c226c458f0b4df27a88
Cc: 16ng@ietf.org
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>
Errors-To: 16ng-bounces@ietf.org
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. > 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