Re: [Capwap] comments to Pasi's opinion (draft-ietf-capwap-base-mib)
"Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com> Mon, 25 January 2010 16:37 UTC
Return-Path: <capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 332A53A6888 for <ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Jan 2010 08:37:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.885
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.885 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.714, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-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 6SFaRXwn8D5g for <ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Jan 2010 08:37:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists.tigertech.net (lists.tigertech.net [64.62.209.34]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 245773A685E for <capwap-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Jan 2010 08:37:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zoidberg.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zoidberg.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 183D5E18038 for <capwap-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Jan 2010 08:37:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by lists.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3457CE240E1 for <capwap@lists.tigertech.net>; Mon, 25 Jan 2010 08:37:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 116E3361000B for <capwap@frascone.com>; Mon, 25 Jan 2010 08:37:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net
Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6C0B3610001 for <capwap@frascone.com>; Mon, 25 Jan 2010 08:37:15 -0800 (PST)
X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean
X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (High) (P0); Whitelisted TTSSA (dromasca@avaya.com whitelisted)
Received: from p-us1-iereast-outbound-tmp.us1.avaya.com (p-us1-iereast-outbound-tmp.us1.avaya.com [135.11.29.16]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for <capwap@frascone.com>; Mon, 25 Jan 2010 08:37:15 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.49,340,1262581200"; d="scan'208";a="1629235"
Received: from unknown (HELO p-us1-erheast.us1.avaya.com) ([135.11.50.53]) by p-us1-iereast-outbound-tmp.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 25 Jan 2010 11:37:11 -0500
Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.11]) by p-us1-erheast-out.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 25 Jan 2010 11:36:29 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 17:36:28 +0100
Message-ID: <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A0401E95602@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com>
In-Reply-To: <808FD6E27AD4884E94820BC333B2DB775841142BDF@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: comments to Pasi's opinion (draft-ietf-capwap-base-mib)
Thread-Index: AcqagYGkBxau1Y7xRjSIZDf19kcuFQAsKdGAAA5riBAAm5eN4A==
References: <20100121100705.10C2E3A6A4F@core3.amsl.com> <000001ca9b3f$6bbb6a90$7a449a0a@h3c.huawei3com.com> <808FD6E27AD4884E94820BC333B2DB775841142BDF@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com>
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
To: Pasi.Eronen@nokia.com, young@h3c.com, capwap@frascone.com
Cc: capwap-chairs@tools.ietf.org, yozhang@gmail.com, draft-ietf-capwap-base-mib@tools.ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Capwap] comments to Pasi's opinion (draft-ietf-capwap-base-mib)
X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions <capwap.frascone.com>
List-Post: <mailto:capwap@frascone.com>
X-Tigertech-Mailman-Hint: 636170776170
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap>, <mailto:capwap-request@frascone.com?subject=subscribe>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap>, <mailto:capwap-request@frascone.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap>
List-Help: <mailto:capwap-request@frascone.com?subject=help>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com
Comments on two of the points. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pasi.Eronen@nokia.com [mailto:Pasi.Eronen@nokia.com] > >> - A question: Did the WG consider including NAT-related > information > >> CapwapBaseWtpStateEntry? For example, whether NAT was > detected, and > >> what the other address (depending on the question above) was? > >> [Richard] > > > > Yes, CAPWAP has NAT Considerations. But other tunnel > protocol (suppose > > GRE or any other example) may also have such function. I > think there > > should have a generic MIB interface (no matter it exists or > not) Which > > would offer NAT-related information, while such function is > not A part > > of CAPWAP MIB (or other similar tunnel protocol). > > I disagree. The NAT traversal functionality here is a > functionality of the CAPWAP protocol, and probably cannot be > managed by any generic MIB. > > However, the question I asked was whether this was discussed > in the WG. Chairs, you do recall? I do not remember this having been discussed. As now written the CapwapBaseWtpStateEntry presents the WTP information whatever the topology is NAT-ed or not. This seems to me OK as a starting point. What Pasi asks if I read correctly is to add columnar object that describes whether the connection is NAT-ed and what is the IP address visible from the AC. > > > >- capwapBaseMacAclId: this seems to limit the number of > ACL entries > > >to > > >255 -- why? (although RFC 5415 doesn't support sending > more than 255 > > >ACL entries in a single "Add MAC ACL Entry" message > element, the AC > > >could send more than one of those) > > > > [Richard] You are correct, it is not required to give a > scope limit to > > the capwapBaseMacAclId. The editors misunderstood the value 255 > > mentioned in the RFC5415. > > OK. > > >> - capwapBaseWtpProfileWtpStaticIpType: How would the > "ipv4z" type be > >> used by the CAPWAP protocol? (it doesn't seem to use the > zone index > >> in any way) > > > > [Richard] In fact, I am not sure. Dan, Could you confirm whether > > CAPWAP support it? > > OK; looking forward to hearing the answer... I do not think it's supported, but I would suggest that the protocol experts confirm this. > > Best regards, > Pasi > > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap
- [Capwap] comments to Pasi's opinion young
- Re: [Capwap] comments to Pasi's opinion (draft-ie… Pasi.Eronen
- Re: [Capwap] comments to Pasi's opinion (draft-ie… Romascanu, Dan (Dan)