Re: [ANCP] Question about the TechType in draft-ietf-ancp-protocol-05

[<[e-mail]>]

Sanjay, Fortune,
 
given the fact that an access node became now a multi service access
node. 
Would it make sense if we specify new tech type values considering most
common existing AN-UNI interfaces as well?
The next step should be to identify which use case keeps valid for which
technology.
 
I'm thinking of - ATM/STM-1 tributary line card
                     - GE-UNI
 
Regards
 
Thomas
 

  _____  

Von: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] Im Auftrag von
Sanjay Wadhwa
Gesendet: Dienstag, 21. April 2009 14:25
An: Fortune HUANG; [e-mail]
Betreff: Re: [ANCP] Question about the TechType 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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
Fortune HUANG
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 5:20 AM
To: [e-mail]
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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
Fortune HUANG
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 9:17 AM
To: 'Sanjay Wadhwa'; [e-mail]
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:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 10:47 PM
To: Fortune HUANG; [e-mail]
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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
Fortune HUANG
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 12:28 AM
To: [e-mail]
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
.xhtml#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
.xhtml#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
.xhtml#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
.xhtml#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
.xhtml#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
.xhtml#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
.xhtml#Kuntal_Chowdhury> Kuntal_Chowdhury]

2008-08-21


13-255

Unassigned

 

 

 

 

Best Regards,

Fortune