RE: [16NG] Re: traffic classification
"Riegel, Maximilian" <maximilian.riegel@siemens.com> Sun, 04 February 2007 20:57 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1HDoQc-0004W9-KV; Sun, 04 Feb 2007 15:57:38 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HDoQb-0004Vz-Ds
for 16ng@ietf.org; Sun, 04 Feb 2007 15:57:37 -0500
Received: from lizzard.sbs.de ([194.138.37.39])
by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HDoQH-0004dc-IV
for 16ng@ietf.org; Sun, 04 Feb 2007 15:57:37 -0500
Received: from mail1.sbs.de (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by lizzard.sbs.de (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l14KvG3l028899;
Sun, 4 Feb 2007 21:57:16 +0100
Received: from fthw9xoa.ww002.siemens.net (fthw9xoa.ww002.siemens.net
[157.163.133.201])
by mail1.sbs.de (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l14KvGuX014594;
Sun, 4 Feb 2007 21:57:16 +0100
Received: from MCHP7I6A.ww002.siemens.net ([139.25.131.137]) by
fthw9xoa.ww002.siemens.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830);
Sun, 4 Feb 2007 21:57:16 +0100
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Subject: RE: [16NG] Re: traffic classification
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 21:57:15 +0100
Message-ID: <4BB931F00625F54DA8B8563E5A5CA25A01347220@MCHP7I6A.ww002.siemens.net>
In-Reply-To: <45C6370C.9090603@piuha.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [16NG] Re: traffic classification
Thread-Index: AcdIlNoiWbkOwr3gSi+Kz6glz1tU7gACERZA
From: "Riegel, Maximilian" <maximilian.riegel@siemens.com>
To: "Jari Arkko" <jari.arkko@piuha.net>,
"Alexandru Petrescu" <alexandru.petrescu@motorola.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Feb 2007 20:57:16.0317 (UTC)
FILETIME=[0D47FCD0:01C7489F]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7aafa0432175920a4b3e118e16c5cb64
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
The host is not aware of the CIDs. CIDs belong to the MAC layer, and it is the task of the convergence sublayer as upper part of the MAC layer to feed packets into CIDs according to filter rules. IEEE802.16 provides its own syntax for setting up filter rules. This syntax treats all header field the same way. IEEE802.16 is done, but it may be worth to consider in the IETF the definition of a generic way to specify filter rules for IP packets. The WiMAX Forum NWG has adopted the filter rule syntax of DIAMETER. So far it looks pretty sufficient. Bye Max -----Original Message----- From: Jari Arkko [mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net] Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 8:42 PM To: Alexandru Petrescu Cc: 16ng@ietf.org Subject: Re: [16NG] Re: traffic classification There are a couple of issues. The main technical question is whether host and base station need to be synchronized with respect to the CID etc that they use. For instance, if the host puts something in CID = X and the base station drops it because it felt that it should have travelled in CID = Y. If they need to be synchronized, then we can talk about whether that's something that should be left to policy or mandated in the standards. I think it is pretty obvious that we're not mandating what port numbers or address ranges should be treated in what way; that's a standard policy/qos filtering function. If you agree, then its not clear to me why DSCP is any different. The non-technical issue is whether the topic belongs to the IEEE or IETF standard. My thinking is that it should be an IETF function if and only if IP needs to do something for which there is no corresponding link layer functionality. For instance, we map multicast IP addresses to multicast L2 addresses because there is no L2 multicast address resolution function. In our 16ng case there appears to be a link layer function for mapping IP packets to CIDs. I don't know if that function is perfect or not, but it does seem to be an IEEE issue. Jari _______________________________________________ 16NG mailing list 16NG@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng _______________________________________________ 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