Re: [802.21] 802.16 Requirements Teleconference
Ronny and all,
Thanks for the clarification. I understand.
Please note that I used precise langauge: '802.16 identified Management and
Control traffic'. There is going to be a difference between anything we
implement in 802.16 for what we identify as Managemen and Control traffic
versus what we identify as data plane bearer traffic. Generally speaking, if
it carried on a transport CID, it is data bearer traffic, if it carried on
the Basic, Primary, or Broadcast CID it is 802.16 Management and Control
traffic.
It is not much different than DHCP on transport CIDs. The 802.16 CS and
Management Plane do not interrogate every MAC PDU on transport CIDs (though
it is technically possible to do so in implementation) to see if they
contain DHCP traffic to route the packets to C_SAP instead of CS_SAP. The
MAC PDUs containing the DHCP messages are prosecuted using the MAC CS
classifiers and goes out the CS_SAP, just like any other data packets. I am
not sure many people would be happy if 802.16 started trapping MAC PDUs on
transport CIDs and searching for certain messaging (DHCP, ARP, etc..???).
Thanks,
Phillip Barber
Chief Scientist
Broadband Wireless Solutions
Huawei Technologies Co., LTD.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ronny Kim" <ronnykim@lge.com>
To: "'Phillip Barber'" <pbarber@BROADBANDMOBILETECH.COM>;
<STDS-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 4:13 AM
Subject: RE: [802.21] 802.16 Requirements Teleconference
> Phil and all,
>
> Just like GPCS in 80216g-05_008r1, MIH CS is one of many CS options.
> MIH messages going over CS is actually not management and control traffic
> from 802.16's point of view. It is just data to be delivered to MIH
> function
> which is sitting above CS.
> In 802.21 draft, there are two mechanisms defined to deliver MIH related
> messages over the air interface one is over data plane (over CS) and the
> other is over management plane (C-SAP or M-SAP). CS extension is just to
> satisfy one of two options.
> Transmitting MIH messages (new MIH ethertype) will not, I believe, impose
> much complexity to CS. It is for right service flow setup and
> classification.
>
> Best Regards,
> Ronny
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phillip Barber [mailto:pbarber@BROADBANDMOBILETECH.COM]
> Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 10:50 AM
> To: STDS-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [802.21] 802.16 Requirements Teleconference
>
> 16g was created to bring management plane into scope and absorb and apply
> recommendations of 802.21 (one of 16g tasks).
>
> 802.16 identified Management and Control traffic don't go over the CS_SAP,
> ever. Management and Control traffic go over their respective SAPs in the
> Management Plane (M_SAP & C_SAP). This does not add new complexity. This
> has
>
> always been intended.
>
> Thanks,
> Phillip Barber
> Huawei
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Junghoon Jee" <jhjee@ETRI.RE.KR>
> To: <STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org>
> Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 9:43 PM
> Subject: RE: [802.21] 802.16 Requirements Teleconference
>
>
>> So sorry for the previous mistaken message.
>> Here is what I intended to express.
>>
>> --------------------------------
>> Hello,
>>
>> Question:
>> Why are we specifying a new CS extension? in 3.6?
>> In 802.21 draft we are defining two methods to transfer MIH messages. One
>> is
>> using data plane (new Ethertype) and the other is using control plane. CS
>> extension in 3.6 is to cover one of two options. Even though we have new
>> ethertype we should have CS extension for right service flow setup.
>>
>> Why not use secondary management connection that does not cross the
>> Convergence Sublayer.
>> [Ronny] You are right. We can, of course, use not only secondary
>> management
>> connection but also primary management connection or basic connection in
>> order not to cross Convergence Sublayer. It is more likely to transport
>> MIH
>> messages through Primary or Basic connection than Secondary management
>> connection. In 802.16 requirement and amendments document, we have a way
>> to
>> transfer MIH messages through primary and secondary management
>> connection.
>>
>> [Junghoon] During the previous conference call for 802.16 requirement
>> works,
>> it is known that amending the CS SAP is fallback case when amending the
>> C_SAP/M_SAP does not be done immediately and successfully. Thus, I
>> believe
>> that we do not need to make explicit statement of requiring amendment of
>> both the C_SAP/M_SAP and the CS SAP.
>> Requiring amending both SAPs might result in burden for IEEE 802.16g
>> folks
>> to take the 21 requirements.
>> Is there any opinion who thinks that we need to still require amending CS
>> SAP when amending C_SAP/M_SAP is done successful ? Please let me know
>> what
>
>> I
>> am missing.
>>
>>
>> I am saying it because I know the dynamics in .16 and particularly in
>> WiMAX
>> profiles which will drive the product certification. Currently the forum
>> can't even agree on having more than one CS type. Just one CS type for
>> now,
>> imagine? CS is a very sensitive area and we should avoid it if we can.
>>
>> [Junghoon] I agree with Peretz's concern here.
>>
>> Regards,
>> -Junghoon
>>
>> [Ronny] I understand your point. However, we can not think of WiMAX
>> profile
>> yet because simply 802.21 technology is not ready to discuss WiMAX
>> profile.
>> Maybe in WiMAX profile stage 2 or in later stage we may be able to start
>> discussion about 802.21 technology. Just like we have different CS types
>> in
>> 802.16 specification, we need to define MIH CS type in 802.16 spec and we
>> have to see what we can do in WiMAX.
>>
>> Besides, CS will be used for packet classification. Do we need to
>> classify
>> MIH and assign it a unique CID? why not stick to SMC?
>> Peretz Feder
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> -Junghoon
>>
>
>
>
>
>