[OPSAWG] Comments on draft-shao-opsawg-capwap-hybridmac-00

"Rajesh Pazhyannur (rpazhyan)" <rpazhyan@cisco.com> Tue, 30 July 2013 11:09 UTC

Return-Path: <rpazhyan@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 585C811E810F for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 04:09:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.448
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U4CvcVRTPo+R for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 04:09:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B748411E81D5 for <opsawg@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 04:09:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3828; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1375182545; x=1376392145; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=X0cF/XZ1Sdp6QXnawoMDBdVJJnhbzzbVxUB67x3Wq6M=; b=lyHdxJq6FhZEQLgPjwhbZ8kCx9RgUftIKvZvo/ZWlzjNzbF4oNI1pHqr /i4E+KHwIamzDO2qIP59CRyGmlga3jcZ3SwmGk+Uh3L78KaTBNTuGeAe6 B2/VjvIpMXZotAv1pO7k2RZAurLqLUfugPxf2B0+1FxtdsFmCmwNi9xSK k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgIFAOad91GtJXHB/2dsb2JhbABbgkJEgQW+D4EdFnSCJgEELV4BDA4QVhcPAQQbiAiYIqBuj02DUG8DqSuDFIIq
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.89,777,1367971200"; d="scan'208,217"; a="241224041"
Received: from rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com ([173.37.113.193]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Jul 2013 11:09:05 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x13.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x13.cisco.com [173.37.183.87]) by rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r6UB95Rs020281 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <opsawg@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 11:09:05 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.4.8]) by xhc-rcd-x13.cisco.com ([173.37.183.87]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 06:09:04 -0500
From: "Rajesh Pazhyannur (rpazhyan)" <rpazhyan@cisco.com>
To: "opsawg@ietf.org" <opsawg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Comments on draft-shao-opsawg-capwap-hybridmac-00
Thread-Index: Ac6NFRtlA8dxsJmGROmI2oOeOEJ8/g==
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 11:09:04 +0000
Message-ID: <4ED2E36A22261145861BAB2C24088B431DC100FC@xmb-aln-x09.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.21.91.91]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4ED2E36A22261145861BAB2C24088B431DC100FCxmbalnx09ciscoc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [OPSAWG] Comments on draft-shao-opsawg-capwap-hybridmac-00
X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List <opsawg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsawg>
List-Post: <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 11:09:22 -0000

Hello

First comment/question:
It appears that you are proposing a new MAC mode which is very similar to Split MAC mode  except that it requires
1)      Scheduling to *only* at the WTP (instead of allowing it additionally at AC)
2)      Encryption to *only* at the WTP (instead of allowing it additionally at AC)

If so, does this require defining a new MAC mode in addition to existing Split MAC and Local MAC

Second comment/question:

The Hybrid MAC mode seems to require fragmentation to be done only at the AC. This choice is a little unclear.
Wouldn't the upstream traffic continue to be fragmented by the WTP while downstream traffic be fragmented at the AC.


Third comment/question
Are you considering variants of the Split MAC mode where the MAC is split (for example association responses come from the AC)  while the traffic is locally bridged.
For example this appears to be precluded by text in 5416:
In a Split MAC Architecture, the Distribution and Integration services reside on the AC, and therefore all user data is tunneled between the WTP and the AC.  As noted above, all real-time IEEE 802.11 services, including the Beacon and Probe Response frames, are handled on the WTP.


Regards

Rajesh