Re: [OPSAWG] Fwd: Alternate Tunnel Encapsulation for Data Frames in CAPWAP

+1, support adoption.

Sheng

From: OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Liu Dapeng
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 10:28 AM
To: Melinda Shore
Cc: opsawg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Fwd: Alternate Tunnel Encapsulation for Data Frames in CAPWAP

Hello all,

The control/data channel separation of CAPWAP is a very useful deployment use case for operators.
In that sense, I support the adoption of this draft and I do not see there is overlap/conflict with the already adopted CAPWAP extension drafts.

Cheers,
Dapeng Liu
2014-02-19 9:00 GMT+08:00 Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com<mailto:melinda.shore@gmail.com>>:
Please note that Rajesh is planning to ask for working
group adoption of this document.  Please give it a read
and provide feedback on this mailing list.  Particularly
interested in the question of how well it meshes with
CAPWAP documents we've already adopted.

Melinda

-------- Original Message --------
Subject:        [OPSAWG] Alternate Tunnel Encapsulation for Data Frames in CAPWAP
Date:   Tue, 18 Feb 2014 22:10:10 +0000
From:   Rajesh Pazhyannur (rpazhyan) <rpazhyan@cisco.com<mailto:rpazhyan@cisco.com>>
To:     opsawg@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg@ietf.org> <opsawg@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>>

Hello

We have a submitted a new version of Alternate Tunnel Encapsulation for
Data Frames in
CAPWAP,_http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zhang-opsawg-capwap-cds/_.

Abstract

   In centralized IEEE 802.11 Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN)
   architecture, the Access Controller (AC) isn't intelligent enough
   actually to aggregate all the wireless frames, even the bandwidth
   requirement in the access point is increasing.  Thus it is a general
   case in the existing operator's network that WTPs forward the
   wireless frames directly to Access Router (AR) to avoid overload on
   the AC.  In this scenario, CAPWAP Control Channel and CAPWAP Data
   Channel are separated from each other.  This document extends CAPWAP
   for applicability of CAPWAP Control and Data Channel separation.

We received some questions and suggestions from Dan Romascanu and John
Kaippallimalil on the mailing list on the previous draft. We have
attempted to address them in this draft. Specifically,
 1. How does this draft address signaling, discovery mechanisms related
    to setting up alternate tunnel. (ans. Tunneling protocols like
    L2TPv3, IP/GRE (PMIPv6) already have a signaling mechanism. This
    draft focuses on specifying the tunnel type and provides a container
    to hold message elements)
 2. Need for alternate tunnel encapsulation (given the existence of
    defined mode with local bridging)

We would like to get it adopted as a working group item and would like
feedback on whether we are on track.

thanks

Regards

Rajesh

_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org<mailto:OPSAWG@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

--

------
Best Regards,
Dapeng Liu