Re: [16NG] Request for review of draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16 from a DSL perspective
Frank Xia <xiayangsong@huawei.com> Mon, 05 January 2009 16:02 UTC
Return-Path: <16ng-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: 16ng-archive@optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-16ng-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2FCB3A6A3A; Mon, 5 Jan 2009 08:02:55 -0800 (PST)
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 3983B3A6A3A for <16ng@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Jan 2009 08:02:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.547
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.547 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.051, BAYES_00=-2.599, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001]
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 ySlFO18y8idJ for <16ng@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Jan 2009 08:02:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from usaga04-in.huawei.com (usaga04-in.huawei.com [206.16.17.180]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 115893A67A5 for <16ng@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Jan 2009 08:02:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (usaga04-in [172.18.4.101]) by usaga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0KD000JTU9WG1I@usaga04-in.huawei.com> for 16ng@ietf.org; Mon, 05 Jan 2009 10:02:41 -0600 (CST)
Received: from X24512z ([10.124.12.66]) by usaga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0KD000MIW9VPVA@usaga04-in.huawei.com> for 16ng@ietf.org; Mon, 05 Jan 2009 10:02:40 -0600 (CST)
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 10:02:13 -0600
From: Frank Xia <xiayangsong@huawei.com>
To: "Riegel, Maximilian (NSN - DE/Munich)" <maximilian.riegel@nsn.com>, g_e_montenegro@yahoo.com, Mark Townsley <townsley@cisco.com>
Message-id: <004c01c96f4f$00a0fda0$420c7c0a@china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-priority: Normal
References: <817000.84300.qm@web81901.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <00aa01c95ae6$fb48cd00$420c7c0a@china.huawei.com> <BC27158B99D3064A955ADE084783900C0192B467@DEMUEXC014.nsn-intra.net>
Cc: draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16@tools.ietf.org, 16ng@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [16NG] Request for review of draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16 from a DSL perspective
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/pipermail/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>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: 16ng-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: 16ng-bounces@ietf.org
Hi Max Happy new year! Please see my in-line reply... BR Frank ----- Original Message ----- From: "Riegel, Maximilian (NSN - DE/Munich)" <maximilian.riegel@nsn.com> To: "ext Frank Xia" <xiayangsong@huawei.com>; <g_e_montenegro@yahoo.com>; "Mark Townsley" <townsley@cisco.com> Cc: <draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16@tools.ietf.org>; <16ng@ietf.org> Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 1:33 PM Subject: RE: [16NG] Request for review of draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16 from a DSL perspective Hi Frank, Thanks for your comments. We would appreciate to get some more information on your general comments to reach better understanding for making appropriate modifications in the document. 1) What would be the benefits of putting the public access recommendation part into a separate Informational RFC on 'IPoETHo802.16 access in Broadband Networks'? Common broadband access networks e.g. DSL accesss according to TR-101 can be configured either way, in public access configuration or for Transparent LAN Service. I have the feeling that the document would end up quite similar to the draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16 document. Is there anything, we should add in informational annexes to adapt the applicability better to broadband access networks? Frank=>You have constructive recommendation to Broadband Network, however, I don't see the consistence with on-going technical choice in Broadband network. Just I highlighted in my email, you recommends different users SHARE a IPv6 prefix, IMHO, it is not the case in Broadband Network. Even in IPoETHo802.16 access scenario, user isolation principle is also supposed to be observed. That is , different subscriber is supposed to have different VLAN (or other mechanims, such as MAC force forwarding..) . I am not clear how to implement these in BRAS/DSLAM/SWITCH after my reading this document. is BRAS needed to extend to support PKM authentication? is any GRE tunnel required for traffic between DSLAM and BRAS? is any extra interface needed such as R6 in WiMAX ? However, these clarificiations are not very related to this document, while they are helpful when applying IPoETHo802.16 to Broadband Network. 2) We agree that distributed bridging functionality is hard to implement when a centralized database is needed. This led to the current approach to show the applicability of the distributed bridging architecture in the public access scenario, when forced forwarding allows to concentrate the data base in one particular location. It seems, more extensive considerations on the bridging architecture may be helpful for better understanding the issues. Would you agree that we should provide more text on the pros and cons of centralized vs distributed bridging architectures. Frank=>I dont know if it is proper when we design a STANDARD while leaving some important issues for implementer. I prefer to having a choice based on the WG talents. Bye Max -----Original Message----- From: 16ng-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:16ng-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Frank Xia Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 17:47 To: g_e_montenegro@yahoo.com; Mark Townsley Cc: draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16@tools.ietf.org; 16ng@ietf.org Subject: Re: [16NG] Request for review of draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16 from a DSL perspective Hi Folks General comments include: 1)removing public access recommendation part. We can have an informational draft on "IPoEo802.16 access in Broadband Network". 2)re-considering distributed bridging funcionalities. It is hard to implement when a centralized database needed. Please check the detailed comments: 1) Section 8 "Therefore, the AR in the public access link model SHOULD assign common IPv6 prefixes to all SSs served by the AR" IP addresing is still under discussion in Broadband Forum. However, IMO, these is almost a consensus that each SS uses a unique IPv6 prefixe. 2)Section 7.3. When a network-side bridge receives an ARP request from a host behind subsriber-side bridge, the network side bridge should discard the request if the destination host is also behind the same subscriber-side switch. 3)Appendix B. I propose that the edge network-side switchs are responsible for host database maitenance, and responsing ARP request as a proxy. No centralized database is needed. 4)Section 7.2 It is better to remove TR101 stuff from this section. BR Frank ----- Original Message ----- From: <g_e_montenegro@yahoo.com> To: "Mark Townsley" <townsley@cisco.com>; "Frank Xia" <xiayangsong@huawei.com> Cc: "Jari Arkko" <jari.arkko@piuha.net>; "Soohong Daniel Park" <soohongp@gmail.com>; <draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16@tools.ietf.org>; <16ng@ietf.org> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 6:01 PM Subject: Request for review of draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16 from a DSL perspective > Hi Mark and Frank, > > Your names have been offered as people who are familiar with DSL > network deployments. > > We would like to request your review of a 16ng draft that may have > some similarities with those deployments: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-d > ot-16-07 > > This draft is in AD review, and Jari asked the WG to close the loop on > this draft with DSL-savvy folks. The idea is not that they should > match, but that DSL deployments have some similarities, hence you > might have good insight and feedback on this draft. > > Please feel free to forward to other DSL experts you may be aware of. > If at all possible, we would like to get some feedback by December 12, 2008. > > Thanks in advance, > > Gabriel and Daniel, 16ng co-chairs > > _______________________________________________ 16NG mailing list 16NG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng _______________________________________________ 16NG mailing list 16NG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng
- [16NG] Request for review of draft-ietf-16ng-ip-o… g_e_montenegro
- Re: [16NG] Request for review of draft-ietf-16ng-… Frank Xia
- Re: [16NG] Request for review of draft-ietf-16ng-… gabriel montenegro
- Re: [16NG] Request for review of draft-ietf-16ng-… Riegel, Maximilian (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [16NG] Request for review of draft-ietf-16ng-… Frank Xia
- Re: [16NG] Request for review of draft-ietf-16ng-… Riegel, Maximilian (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [16NG] Request for review of draft-ietf-16ng-… Frank Xia
- Re: [16NG] Request for review of draft-ietf-16ng-… Riegel, Maximilian (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [16NG] Request for review of draft-ietf-16ng-… Frank Xia
- Re: [16NG] Request for review of draft-ietf-16ng-… Riegel, Maximilian (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [16NG] Request for review of draft-ietf-16ng-… Frank Xia