Re: [16NG] Re: traffic classification
"JinHyeock Choi" <jinchoe@gmail.com> Wed, 31 January 2007 15:37 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1HCHWc-0001td-DG; Wed, 31 Jan 2007 10:37:30 -0500
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HCHWb-0001sf-7a
for 16ng@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Jan 2007 10:37:29 -0500
Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.189])
by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HCHWW-0007kx-OX
for 16ng@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Jan 2007 10:37:29 -0500
Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id l36so582788nfa
for <16ng@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Jan 2007 07:37:23 -0800 (PST)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta;
h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
b=Vn/1/jsvw9srh8UlokDblcoxpJw9cI2WvdhuCqDfmO4CG8KDp1J3ZfWDYnUhW+jaYB6RDTlCDkJfL+U7VQqZMtuejoSOp/K0EcW91BKsstmvDitZ+i5tToJJl3kCJpvgiDc5gZfH0w+aYU2pGHMeNDw7obEANcx+PW8PLzvJOOg=
Received: by 10.49.29.3 with SMTP id g3mr2684450nfj.1170257842208;
Wed, 31 Jan 2007 07:37:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.48.217.6 with HTTP; Wed, 31 Jan 2007 07:37:21 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <92e919fb0701310737m45cbb6f8ud1dab68aa75f380d@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 00:37:21 +0900
From: "JinHyeock Choi" <jinchoe@gmail.com>
To: "Jari Arkko" <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
Subject: Re: [16NG] Re: traffic classification
In-Reply-To: <45C0A4D1.9010602@piuha.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <45BDFD58.8060202@piuha.net> <45C099CD.8010506@piuha.net>
<45C0A227.1040303@motorola.com> <45C0A4D1.9010602@piuha.net>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 9ed51c9d1356100bce94f1ae4ec616a9
Cc: 16ng@ietf.org, Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
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
> > I think it _may_ be relevant here. IPv6 has a Traffic Class field with > > defined values (see rfc2474 for 6bit DSCP, and rfc2597 for AF Assured > > Forwarding values). 802.16 has Service Class service flow encodings > > (11.13.4 in 802.16-1004). The mapping between the two should be > > specified here I believe. > > > > Basically one would need to define mappings between DSCPs and 802.16 > > Service Flow encodings. Remark the mapping is not straightforward > > because DSCP uses 6bit while service field is on 4bit. But not all > > values from 6bit need to be encoded either. > > > > I think 802.16 spec doesn't define these mappings. Although they do > > define filter in the CS that interprets the IPv6 Traffic Class field. > > Anyone who understands in detail what 802.16 classification > does, feel free to jump in here... DJ? > > My assumption was that 802.16 defines a classification mechanism > that can look at certain fields from IP packets and determine what > service flow should be used, including all parameters used in the > service flow. If this is not the case then you are right. Classification is the process by which a MAC SDU (IPv6 packet in our case) is mapped onto a particular transport connection for transmission between MAC peers (BS and MS in our case). The mapping process associates an IPv6 packet with a transport connection and its CID (Connection Identifier). Classifiers are matching criteria applied to each packet and consist of some protocol-specific packet matching criteria such as destination IP address. If a packet matches the specified packet matching criteria (i.e. classifier(s)), it is then delivered to the SAP for delivery on the connection defined by the CID (Connection Identifier). You may find more detail in 5.2.2 of 802.16. I also put a figure in http://www.diffeo.com/16ng/fig.gif Thanks for your kind consideration. Best Regards JinHyeock _______________________________________________ 16NG mailing list 16NG@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng
- [16NG] FW: Review of the ipv6-over-ipv6cs draft Jari Arkko
- Re: [16NG] FW: Review of the ipv6-over-ipv6cs dra… Jari Arkko
- Re: traffic classification (was: [16NG] FW: Revie… Alexandru Petrescu
- [16NG] Re: traffic classification Jari Arkko
- Re: [16NG] Re: traffic classification JinHyeock Choi
- Re: [16NG] Re: traffic classification Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [16NG] Re: traffic classification yw_chen
- Re: [16NG] Re: traffic classification Alexandru Petrescu
- [16NG] Re: Review of the ipv6-over-ipv6cs draft Basavaraj Patil
- [16NG] Re: Review of the ipv6-over-ipv6cs draft Pekka Savola
- Re: [16NG] Re: traffic classification JinHyeock Choi
- [16NG] Re: Review of the ipv6-over-ipv6cs draft Basavaraj Patil
- [16NG] Re: Review of the ipv6-over-ipv6cs draft Pekka Savola
- Re: [16NG] Re: traffic classification Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [16NG] Re: Review of the ipv6-over-ipv6cs dra… JinHyeock Choi
- DNA and using 3*MaxRtrAdvInterval [Re: [16NG] Re:… Pekka Savola
- [16NG] Re: Review of the ipv6-over-ipv6cs draft Basavaraj Patil
- Re: [16NG] Re: traffic classification JinHyeock Choi
- Re: DNA and using 3*MaxRtrAdvInterval [Re: [16NG]… JinHyeock Choi
- Re: [16NG] Re: traffic classification Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [16NG] Re: traffic classification Jari Arkko
- RE: [16NG] Re: traffic classification Riegel, Maximilian
- Re: [16NG] Re: traffic classification Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [16NG] Re: traffic classification Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [16NG] Re: traffic classification Basavaraj Patil
- Re: [16NG] Re: traffic classification Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [16NG] Re: traffic classification Jari Arkko
- Re: [16NG] Re: traffic classification Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [16NG] Re: traffic classification Basavaraj Patil
- Re: [16NG] Re: traffic classification Basavaraj Patil