Re: [16NG] [nwg-chair] NWG feedback on 16ng's IPv4 CS draft
Gabriel Montenegro <Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com> Fri, 15 May 2009 18:19 UTC
Return-Path: <Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com>
X-Original-To: 16ng@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 16ng@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12C9E3A6860 for <16ng@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 May 2009 11:19:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.325
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.325 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.273, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9K0sMtp+zOs3 for <16ng@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 May 2009 11:19:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.microsoft.com (mailc.microsoft.com [131.107.115.214]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D6DC28C182 for <16ng@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 May 2009 11:19:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from TK5EX14MLTC103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.79.174) by TK5-EXGWY-E803.partners.extranet.microsoft.com (10.251.56.169) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.99.4; Fri, 15 May 2009 11:20:36 -0700
Received: from TK5EX14MLTW651.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com (157.54.71.39) by TK5EX14MLTC103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.79.174) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.0.532.14; Fri, 15 May 2009 11:20:34 -0700
Received: from tk5-exmlt-w602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com (157.54.18.33) by TK5EX14MLTW651.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com (157.54.71.39) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.0.582.7; Fri, 15 May 2009 11:20:34 -0700
Received: from NA-EXMSG-W601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([fe80::8de9:51a2:cd62:f122]) by tk5-exmlt-w602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([157.54.18.33]) with mapi; Fri, 15 May 2009 11:20:34 -0700
From: Gabriel Montenegro <Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com>
To: Samita Chakrabarti <samitac@ipinfusion.com>, 'Wesley George' <wgeorge@sprint.net>, "'Riegel, Maximilian (NSN - DE/Munich)'" <maximilian.riegel@nsn.com>
Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 11:20:34 -0700
Thread-Topic: [16NG] [nwg-chair] NWG feedback on 16ng's IPv4 CS draft
Thread-Index: AcnVfX4ZPlgpeWXuS86WIBFxB2f1wgAC1otAAAAum6IAABDlTQ==
Message-ID: <BAA9BC6C-6B59-4BA6-B63D-E09C26E0194B@mimectl>
References: <2828BDE8DC61004E8104C78E82A0B39710B25385F2@NA-EXMSG-W601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <BC27158B99D3064A955ADE084783900C01B5CBC8@DEMUEXC014.nsn-intra.net> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0905151247200.12703@tin>, <046201c9d589$267cf8d0$7376ea70$@com>
In-Reply-To: <046201c9d589$267cf8d0$7376ea70$@com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
x-mimectl: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V8.2.140.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BAA9BC6C6B594BA6B63DE09C26E0194Bmimectl_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 15 May 2009 13:47:11 -0700
Cc: 'ext Alper Yegin' <alper.yegin@yegin.org>, "16ng@ietf.org" <16ng@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [16NG] [nwg-chair] NWG feedback on 16ng's IPv4 CS draft
X-BeenThere: 16ng@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: 16ng working group discussion list <16ng.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng>, <mailto:16ng-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/16ng>
List-Post: <mailto:16ng@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:16ng-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng>, <mailto:16ng-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 18:19:04 -0000
yes, I've been delinquently holding to the pen. Lets shoot for end of the month at the latest. ________________________________ From: Samita Chakrabarti [samitac@ipinfusion.com] Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 11:15 AM To: 'Wesley George'; 'Riegel, Maximilian (NSN - DE/Munich)' Cc: 'ext Alper Yegin'; Gabriel Montenegro; 16ng@ietf.org Subject: RE: [16NG] [nwg-chair] NWG feedback on 16ng's IPv4 CS draft Hi Wes, Yes, there will be an updated draft before Stockholm. Gabriel was working on the updates. I am expecting that we will soon have a revision to review. Thanks, -Samita > -----Original Message----- > From: 16ng-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:16ng-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Wesley George > Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 9:54 AM > To: Riegel, Maximilian (NSN - DE/Munich) > Cc: ext Alper Yegin; ext Gabriel Montenegro; 16ng@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [16NG] [nwg-chair] NWG feedback on 16ng's IPv4 CS draft > > Is someone working on an updated version of this draft to be reviewed in > Stockholm since we did not meet in SFO? I believe that one of the first > times that I submitted objections to the MTU language, I provided a proposed > text that would cover some of the concerns raised below, not all of which > was included in subsequent drafts. > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/16ng/current/msg00824.html > > Thanks, > Wes > > _________________________________________ > Wesley George > Sprint IP Engineering > 703-689-7505 (O) 703-864-4902 (PCS) > http://www.sprint.net<http://www.sprint.net/> > _________________________________________ > > > On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, Riegel, Maximilian (NSN - DE/Munich) wrote: > > > Gabriel, > > > > The WiMAX Forum NWG reviewed section 4-3 and Appendix C of > > draft-ietf-16ng-ipv4-over-802-dot-16-ipcs-04.txt and would like to > > make a couple of remarks on the MTU issue: > > > > - The I-D is not very clear about the MTU issues appearing in an IPv4 > > over IEEE 802.16 transmission system. The ambiguities mainly result > > out of the vague definition of the IEEE 802.16 link comprising both > > the radio part of the link as well as the part of the link between BS > > and AR, when the functions are located in different entities. > > > > - Section 4.3 in particular misses the discussion of the dependencies > > between MTU size and the tunneling protocol deployed between BS and AR. > > > > - Section 4.3 also misses, that there is no packet loss when the MTU > > size limitation is caused by the encapsulation overhead on the link > > between BS and AR. E.g. when GRE is used for the tunnel between BS and > > AR, the transport IP layer can fragment the GRE packets to fit the > > transport MTU on the link between BS and AR. Reassembly in the tunnel > > endpoint at the AR will re-establish the original user IP packet. > > > > - Please note that the reason of the WiMAX NWG to limit the MTU going > > over IPv4-CS to 1400 Bytes was to avoid fragmentation on the link > > between BS and ASN-GW as well as on the link between ASN-GW and CSN > > (MIP tunnel). Fragmentation and re-assembly require considerable > > processing power in the network elements. > > > > - Appendix C makes statements which would require more detailed review > > of the I-D by WiMAX NWG. In particular 'The addressing and operation > > of IPv4-CS described in this document are applicable to the WiMAX > > networks as well' has not been verified yet. > > Furthermore 'Thus, WiMAX MS nodes should use this default (1400) MTU > > value per the current specification [WMF]. However, due to reasons > > specified in section 4.3 above, it is strongly recommended that future > > WiMAX MS nodes support a default MTU of 1500 bytes, and that they > > implement MTU negotiation capabilities as mentioned in this document.' > > makes recommendations to WiMAX without understanding the real reasons > > for the limitation of the MTU size in Mobile WiMAX. > > > > We would recommend to 16ng to revise the sections on MTU size to > > better explain the underlying issues leading to restrictions in the MTU > size. > > In particular the influence of tunneling inside the network should be > > carefully discussed. > > In addition we would kindly ask to either remove whole Appendix C on > > the WiMAX MTU size or revise the text explaining the real issues in > > the WiMAX architecture. In particular the statements on the > > applicability of the I-D on the WiMAX architecture and the > > recommendation on future modifications in the WiMAX architecture seem > > not to be very appropriate to us. > > > > > > Bye > > Max > > Vize Chair NWG > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > From: ext Gabriel Montenegro [mailto:Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com] > > Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 11:59 AM > > To: nwg-chair@list.wimaxforum.org > > Cc: 'Daniel Soohong Park' > > Subject: [nwg-chair] NWG feedback on 16ng's IPv4 CS draft > > > > > > > > Prakash, Max and Yong Chang, > > > > > > The IETF 16ng WG has published a revision of this draft: > > > > "Transmission of IPv4 packets over IEEE 802.16's IP Convergence > > Sublayer" > > > > Per this announcement: > > > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/16ng/current/msg00863.html > > <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/16ng/current/msg00863.html> > > > > We understand that this specification currently is not normative to > > NWG (as opposed to RFC5121 on IPv6 CS). Nevertheless, given its > > relevance, and with the hope it may become normative to NWG in some > > future revision, the 16ng WG would like to solicit feedback from NWG > > on this draft. > > > > In particular, please note that this draft specifies a default MTU of > > 1500, which is different from the WiMAX-specified MTU of 1400 (per > > the recently approved R1_V1.3.0-Stage-3 NWG specifications). For MTU > > discussion, please refer to these sections: > > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-16ng-ipv4-over-802-dot-16-ipcs-0 > > 4# > > section-4.3 > > <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-16ng-ipv4-over-802-dot-16-ipcs- > > 04 > > #section-4.3> > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-16ng-ipv4-over-802-dot-16-ipcs-0 > > 4# > > appendix-C > > <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-16ng-ipv4-over-802-dot-16-ipcs- > > 04 > > #appendix-C> > > > > The 16ng WG will next meet on Nov 18 during the IETF in Minneapolis > > (https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/73/agenda.html). If at all > > possible, it would be best if comments were received before that date > > in order for the WG to discuss them during the meeting. > > > > Please send your comments to the 16ng@ietf.org <mailto:16ng@ietf.org> > > mailing list. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Gabriel and Daniel > > 16ng co-chairs > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 16NG mailing list > 16NG@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng
- Re: [16NG] [nwg-chair] NWG feedback on 16ng's IPv… Riegel, Maximilian (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [16NG] [nwg-chair] NWG feedback on 16ng's IPv… Wesley George
- Re: [16NG] [nwg-chair] NWG feedback on 16ng's IPv… Samita Chakrabarti
- Re: [16NG] [nwg-chair] NWG feedback on 16ng's IPv… Gabriel Montenegro
- Re: [16NG] [nwg-chair] NWG feedback on 16ng's IPv… Riegel, Maximilian (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [16NG] [nwg-chair] NWG feedback on 16ng's IPv… Wesley George
- Re: [16NG] [nwg-chair] NWG feedback on 16ng's IPv… Samita Chakrabarti
- Re: [16NG] [nwg-chair] NWG feedback on 16ng's IPv… gabriel montenegro
- Re: [16NG] [nwg-chair] NWG feedback on 16ng's IPv… Riegel, Maximilian (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [16NG] [nwg-chair] NWG feedback on 16ng's IPv… Samita Chakrabarti
- Re: [16NG] [nwg-chair] NWG feedback on 16ng's IPv… Riegel, Maximilian (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [16NG] [nwg-chair] NWG feedback on 16ng's IPv… gabriel montenegro
- Re: [16NG] [nwg-chair] NWG feedback on 16ng's IPv… gabriel montenegro
- Re: [16NG] [nwg-chair] NWG feedback on 16ng's IPv… Wesley George
- Re: [16NG] [nwg-chair] NWG feedback on 16ng's IPv… gabriel montenegro
- Re: [16NG] [nwg-chair] NWG feedback on 16ng's IPv… Pekka Savola
- Re: [16NG] [nwg-chair] NWG feedback on 16ng's IPv… Wesley George
- Re: [16NG] [nwg-chair] NWG feedback on 16ng's IPv… gabriel montenegro