[ANCP] A Question about draft-ietf-ancp-protocol-06
Fortune HUANG <fqhuang@huawei.com> Mon, 20 July 2009 02:36 UTC
Return-Path: <fqhuang@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: ancp@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ancp@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCB6E3A6CE6 for <ancp@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Jul 2009 19:36:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.804
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.804 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.185, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.884, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
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 hfeclRqZrNnY for <ancp@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Jul 2009 19:36:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.67]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 865A83A6CB8 for <ancp@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Jul 2009 19:36:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga04-in [172.24.2.12]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0KN20038X78LGN@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for ancp@ietf.org; Mon, 20 Jul 2009 10:36:21 +0800 (CST)
Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.1.24]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0KN200KG078LY5@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for ancp@ietf.org; Mon, 20 Jul 2009 10:36:21 +0800 (CST)
Received: from h36145c ([10.70.39.54]) by szxml04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0KN200JTV78K68@szxml04-in.huawei.com> for ancp@ietf.org; Mon, 20 Jul 2009 10:36:21 +0800 (CST)
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 10:36:20 +0800
From: Fortune HUANG <fqhuang@huawei.com>
To: ancp@ietf.org
Message-id: <002601ca08e2$ddd95780$3627460a@china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_bo/VkoKMd1r/WMNJil6VLg)"
Thread-index: Acm3OSz0fRJk81LAS/ytLoiulpiBygCsVGqQAHpyZPABolJpoAAHJt9gABs/BsARfZWC8A==
Subject: [ANCP] A Question about draft-ietf-ancp-protocol-06
X-BeenThere: ancp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Access Node Control Protocol working group mailing list <ancp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ancp>, <mailto:ancp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ancp>
List-Post: <mailto:ancp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ancp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ancp>, <mailto:ancp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 02:36:44 -0000
Dear all, Sanjay and I agree on the following points below in the email thread "Question about the Tech Type in draft-ietf-ancp-protocol-05" (attached below). "Given "Tech type" is not part of base GSMP RFC, and is an ANCP specific extension, it makes sense to define ANCP specific "Tech type" registry where 0x01-0x04 should be available for allocation (we can update the ANCP protocol draft). We don't need to change what has been allocated for DSL (0x05) though. We will need to allocate a value for PON." Given no negative response received, I almost assumed those points were acceptable. But I don't know why those points were not implemented in the -06 version. I would also like to know if there were any concerns about those points, please. Best regards, Fortune _____ From: ancp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ancp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fortune HUANG Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 9:11 AM To: 'Sanjay Wadhwa'; ancp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ANCP] Question about the Tech Type in draft-ietf-ancp-protocol-05 Hi Sanjay, Thank you very much for your answer. I agree with your opinion that we should keep 0x05 for DSL. Given 0x01~0x04 should be available for allocation, I propose to allocate 0x01 for PON. Is it acceptable, please? Best Regards, Fortune _____ From: Sanjay Wadhwa [mailto:swadhwa@juniper.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 8:25 PM To: Fortune HUANG; ancp@ietf.org Subject: RE: [ANCP] Question about the Tech Type in draft-ietf-ancp-protocol-05 Fortune Tech Type was originally specified in GSMPv3 drafts (post RFC). 0x01-0x04 was intended to be allocated for existing technologies that were trying to leverage GSMP at the time. Given "Tech type" is not part of base GSMP RFC, and is an ANCP specific extension, it makes sense to define ANCP specific "Tech type" registry where 0x01-0x04 should be available for allocation (we can update the ANCP protocol draft). We don't need to change what has been allocated for DSL (0x05) though. We will need to allocate a value for PON. Regards -Sanjay _____ From: ancp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ancp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fortune HUANG Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 5:20 AM To: ancp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ANCP] Question about the Tech Type in draft-ietf-ancp-protocol-05 Hi all, Given no further response on this thread, I assume almost none of the people in the ANCP mailing list knows what those technologies indicated by Tech Type values of 0x01~0x04 are. If Sanjay was right that the Tech Type would a new IANA registry, then according to the charter of ANCP WG, only the DSL and PON (newly added) technologies should be defined and maybe we should withdraw the allocation of 0x01~0x04. But since PON is now in the charter, we should anyway allocate a Tech Type value for PON. Best Regards, Fortune _____ From: ancp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ancp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fortune HUANG Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 9:17 AM To: 'Sanjay Wadhwa'; ancp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ANCP] Question about the Tech Type in draft-ietf-ancp-protocol-05 Hi Sanjay, Thank you very much for your answer. But in the text in section 5.4.1.1 as follows, if the tech type is new registry, then what types of technologies are the 0x01 ~ 0x04 indicates respectively? I think they should be clearly specified, although I guess they might be 0x01 for 802.3, 0x02 for 802.11a/b/g, 0x03 for 802.163, 0x04 for 802.16m. Is it correct? "Tech Type An 8-bit field indicating the applicable technology type value. The Message Type plus the Tech Value uniquely define a single Extension Type and can be treated as a single 16 bit extension type. "Tech Type" value of 0x05 SHOULD be used by ANCP for DSL technology. 0x00 Extension block not in use. 0x01 - 0x04 Already in use by various technologies 0x05 DSL 0x06 - 0xFE Reserved 0xFF Base Specification Use " Best Regards, Fortune _____ From: Sanjay Wadhwa [mailto:swadhwa@juniper.net] Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 10:47 PM To: Fortune HUANG; ancp@ietf.org Subject: RE: [ANCP] Question about the Tech Type in draft-ietf-ancp-protocol-05 Hi Fortune The intent is to define an ANCP specific tech-type registry, and not take what MIP/PMIP uses as per your reference below. Regards -Sanjay _____ From: ancp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ancp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fortune HUANG Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 12:28 AM To: ancp@ietf.org Subject: [ANCP] Question about the Tech Type in draft-ietf-ancp-protocol-05 Hi all, I have a question about the Tech Type in ANCP protocol for clarification. It says "Tech Type" value of 0x05 SHOULD be used by ANCP for DSL technology in section 5.4.1.1 of draft-ietf-ancp-protocol-05. I can find two related technology type registries at the website http://www.iana.org/protocols/ as follows, but the 0x05 has been allocated in both registries. Is the first registry with the name Access Technology Types the right registry for the Tech Type in ANCP protocol, please? If it is, I propose we change the 0x05 for DSL in section 5.4.1.1 to be 0x09 or "to be allocated by IANA" in order to avoid incorrect implementation. Registry Name: Access Technology Types Reference: [RFC-leung-mip4-proxy-mode-10.txt] Registration Procedures: Expert Review Registry: Value Name Reference -------- ------------------------------------------------- --------- 0 Reserved [RFC-leung-mip4-proxy-mode-10.txt] 1 802.3 [RFC-leung-mip4-proxy-mode-10.txt] 2 802.11a/b/g [RFC-leung-mip4-proxy-mode-10.txt] 3 802.16e [RFC-leung-mip4-proxy-mode-10.txt] 4 802.16m [RFC-leung-mip4-proxy-mode-10.txt] 5 3GPP EUTRAN/LTE [RFC-leung-mip4-proxy-mode-10.txt] 6 3GPP UTRAN/GERAN [RFC-leung-mip4-proxy-mode-10.txt] 7 3GPP2 1xRTT/HRPD [RFC-leung-mip4-proxy-mode-10.txt] 8 3GPP2 UMB [RFC-leung-mip4-proxy-mode-10.txt] 9-255 Unassigned Access Technology Type Option type values Reference [ <http://www.iana.org/go/rfc5213> RFC5213] Registration Procedures Expert Review Value Description Reference Registration Date 0 Reserved [ <http://www.iana.org/go/rfc5213> RFC5213] 1 Virtual [ <http://www.iana.org/go/rfc5213> RFC5213] 2 PPP [ <http://www.iana.org/go/rfc5213> RFC5213] 3 IEEE 802.3 [ <http://www.iana.org/go/rfc5213> RFC5213] 4 IEEE 802.11a/b/g [ <http://www.iana.org/go/rfc5213> RFC5213] 5 IEEE 802.16e [ <http://www.iana.org/go/rfc5213> RFC5213] 6 3GPP GERAN [ <http://www.3gpp.org/specs/specs.htm> 3GPP TS 29.275][ <http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters/mobility-parameters.xht ml#Julien_Laganier> Julien_Laganier] 2008-07-30 7 3GPP UTRAN [ <http://www.3gpp.org/specs/specs.htm> 3GPP TS 29.275][ <http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters/mobility-parameters.xht ml#Julien_Laganier> Julien_Laganier] 2008-07-30 8 3GPP E-UTRAN [ <http://www.3gpp.org/specs/specs.htm> 3GPP TS 29.275][ <http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters/mobility-parameters.xht ml#Julien_Laganier> Julien_Laganier] 2008-07-30 9 3GPP2 eHRPD [ <http://www.3gpp2.org/public_html/specs/index.cfm> 3GPP2 X.P0057][ <http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters/mobility-parameters.xht ml#Kuntal_Chowdhury> Kuntal_Chowdhury] 2008-08-21 10 3GPP2 HRPD [ <http://www.3gpp2.org/public_html/specs/index.cfm> 3GPP2 X.P0061][ <http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters/mobility-parameters.xht ml#Kuntal_Chowdhury> Kuntal_Chowdhury] 2008-08-21 11 3GPP2 1xRTT [ <http://www.3gpp2.org/public_html/specs/index.cfm> 3GPP2 X.S0011][ <http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters/mobility-parameters.xht ml#Kuntal_Chowdhury> Kuntal_Chowdhury] 2008-08-21 12 3GPP2 UMB [ <http://www.3gpp2.org/public_html/specs/index.cfm> 3GPP2 X.S0054][ <http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters/mobility-parameters.xht ml#Kuntal_Chowdhury> Kuntal_Chowdhury] 2008-08-21 13-255 Unassigned Best Regards, Fortune
- [ANCP] A Question about draft-ietf-ancp-protocol-… Fortune HUANG