RE: [16NG] Comments on IPv4CS subnet model and ARP
김상언[무선인터넷개발담당] <sekim@kt.co.kr> Wed, 18 July 2007 18:05 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 1IBDtb-0002V5-1e; Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:05:07 -0400
Received: from 16ng by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43)
id 1IB6TP-0002ja-E7
for 16ng-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jul 2007 06:09:35 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IB6TP-0002jD-0U
for 16ng@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jul 2007 06:09:35 -0400
Received: from smfilter1.kt.co.kr ([147.6.85.167])
by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IB6TA-0003Qj-5O
for 16ng@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jul 2007 06:09:34 -0400
Received: from external ([147.6.42.21]) by smfilter1 (1.0) id l6IA5O400AA7;
Wed, 18 Jul 2007 19:05:24 +0900
Received: from MAIL04CL.oasys.kt.co.kr ([147.6.42.223]) by
smtp01.oasys.kt.co.kr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713);
Wed, 18 Jul 2007 19:02:44 +0900
Received: from mail pickup service by MAIL04CL.oasys.kt.co.kr with Microsoft
SMTPSVC; Wed, 18 Jul 2007 19:02:44 +0900
Priority: normal
Bcc:
Subject: RE: [16NG] Comments on IPv4CS subnet model and ARP
Message-ID: <6a3301c7c922$c927ac80$df2a0693@oasys.kt.co.kr>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1896
X-Mailer: Microsoft CDO for Exchange 2000
Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
Importance: normal
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 19:02:44 +0900
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [16NG] Comments on IPv4CS subnet model and ARP
thread-index: AceuIdD5z4nKqmrcQg6vZMxWNt/eKAAv9LZw
From: =?ks_c_5601-1987?B?sei7877wW7mrvLHAzsXNs92ws7nftOO0510=?=
<sekim@kt.co.kr>
To: "Samita Chakrabarti" <Samita.Chakrabarti@azairenet.com>,
"Daniel Park" <soohongp@gmail.com>, <16ng@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Jun 2007 00:20:14.0949 (UTC)
FILETIME=[F2034150:01C7AEE2]
X-Spam-Score: 2.8 (++)
X-Scan-Signature: f66b12316365a3fe519e75911daf28a8
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:05:06 -0400
Cc:
X-BeenThere: 16ng@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: =?ks_c_5601-1987?B?sei7877wW7mrvLHAzsXNs92ws7nftOO0510=?=
<sekim@kt.co.kr>
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>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2002717532=="
Errors-To: 16ng-bounces@ietf.org
7. Address Resolution Protocol The IEEE 802.16 frame header does not contain the source and destination MAC addresses, instead it uses the Connection Identifier (CID) for the delivery of MAC frames. This makes classical Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) [3] trivial and unnecessary. > Also, IEEE 802.16 IPCS cannot classify the ARP packets as ARP runs directly over Ethernet and does not contain IP header. Thus ARP packets are not transmitted over IEEE 802.16 air interface when using IPCS. Proposed Changes: The IEEE 802.16 frame header does not contain the source and destination MAC addresses, instead it uses the Connection Identifier (CID) for the delivery of MAC frames. This makes classical Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) [3] trivial and unnecessary. Also, IEEE 802.16 IPCS cannot classify the ARP packets as ARP runs directly over Ethernet and does not contain IP header. Thus ARP packets are not transmitted over IEEE 802.16 air interface when using IPCS. However MS requires to proxy ARP function compatible with legacy IP host. [SC>] Let's discuss the last sentence. MS requires to proxy ARP function compatible with legacy IP host: What is the expected configuration of the scenario in this case? The legacy IP host will not be on the same Wimax IPCS link; thus our assumption was that they would be on different subnets. Please clarify. [sekim] For example, legacy IP host is a notebook PC with IEEE802.16 wireless interface on Window by Microsoft. IP hosts send a packet to the Base Station (BS) by unicast. Because IEEE 802.16 does not support broadcast among the nodes. The uplink, from node to BS, supports unicast. The downlink, from BS to node, supports multicast and broadcast. Therefore, [RFC1207] should be used to support ARP capabilities for point to multipoint mode in IEEE 802.16 networks. If not, legacy host should use broadcast like IEEE 802.3. This means multicast and broadcast scheme are required in IEEE802.16 networks.
_______________________________________________ 16NG mailing list 16NG@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng
- [16NG] Comments on IPv4CS subnet model and ARP Daniel Park
- RE: [16NG] Comments on IPv4CS subnet model and ARP Samita Chakrabarti
- [16NG] Comments on IPv4CS subnet model and ARP Behcet Sarikaya
- RE: [16NG] Comments on IPv4CS subnet model and ARP Samita Chakrabarti
- RE: [16NG] Comments on IPv4CS subnet model and ARP 김상언
- RE: [16NG] Comments on IPv4CS subnet model and ARP Samita Chakrabarti