From 16ng-bounces@ietf.org Sun Jan 4 11:34:24 2009 Return-Path: <16ng-bounces@ietf.org> X-Original-To: 16ng-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-16ng-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93C883A6934; Sun, 4 Jan 2009 11:34:24 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: 16ng@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: 16ng@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 443923A6934 for <16ng@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Jan 2009 11:34:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] 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 B4nn3nWWtbal for <16ng@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Jan 2009 11:34:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from demumfd002.nsn-inter.net (demumfd002.nsn-inter.net [217.115.75.234]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 039B93A689C for <16ng@ietf.org>; Sun, 4 Jan 2009 11:34:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.55]) by demumfd002.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n04JXJZr012075 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sun, 4 Jan 2009 20:33:19 +0100 Received: from demuexc025.nsn-intra.net (demuexc025.nsn-intra.net [10.159.32.12]) by demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n04JXJ7a007730; Sun, 4 Jan 2009 20:33:19 +0100 Received: from DEMUEXC014.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.128.25]) by demuexc025.nsn-intra.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sun, 4 Jan 2009 20:33:19 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 20:33:18 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <00aa01c95ae6$fb48cd00$420c7c0a@china.huawei.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [16NG] Request for review of draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16 from a DSL perspective Thread-Index: Acla5v++9/CU26kmQ221SYNDwBufSgTqC14Q References: <817000.84300.qm@web81901.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <00aa01c95ae6$fb48cd00$420c7c0a@china.huawei.com> From: "Riegel, Maximilian (NSN - DE/Munich)" To: "ext Frank Xia" , , "Mark Townsley" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Jan 2009 19:33:19.0088 (UTC) FILETIME=[4C04D700:01C96EA3] Cc: draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16@tools.ietf.org, 16ng@ietf.org Subject: Re: [16NG] Request for review of draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16 from a DSL perspective X-BeenThere: 16ng@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: 16ng working group discussion list <16ng.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: 16ng-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: 16ng-bounces@ietf.org Hi Frank, Thanks for your comments. We would appreciate to get some more information on your general comments to reach better understanding for making appropriate modifications in the document. 1) What would be the benefits of putting the public access recommendation part into a separate Informational RFC on 'IPoETHo802.16 access in Broadband Networks'? Common broadband access networks e.g. DSL accesss according to TR-101 can be configured either way, in public access configuration or for Transparent LAN Service. I have the feeling that the document would end up quite similar to the draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16 document. Is there anything, we should add in informational annexes to adapt the applicability better to broadband access networks? 2) We agree that distributed bridging functionality is hard to implement when a centralized database is needed. This led to the current approach to show the applicability of the distributed bridging architecture in the public access scenario, when forced forwarding allows to concentrate the data base in one particular location. It seems, more extensive considerations on the bridging architecture may be helpful for better understanding the issues. Would you agree that we should provide more text on the pros and cons of centralized vs distributed bridging architectures. Bye Max -----Original Message----- From: 16ng-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:16ng-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Frank Xia Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 17:47 To: g_e_montenegro@yahoo.com; Mark Townsley Cc: draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16@tools.ietf.org; 16ng@ietf.org Subject: Re: [16NG] Request for review of draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16 from a DSL perspective Hi Folks General comments include: 1)removing public access recommendation part. We can have an informational draft on "IPoEo802.16 access in Broadband Network". 2)re-considering distributed bridging funcionalities. It is hard to implement when a centralized database needed. Please check the detailed comments: 1) Section 8 "Therefore, the AR in the public access link model SHOULD assign common IPv6 prefixes to all SSs served by the AR" IP addresing is still under discussion in Broadband Forum. However, IMO, these is almost a consensus that each SS uses a unique IPv6 prefixe. 2)Section 7.3. When a network-side bridge receives an ARP request from a host behind subsriber-side bridge, the network side bridge should discard the request if the destination host is also behind the same subscriber-side switch. 3)Appendix B. I propose that the edge network-side switchs are responsible for host database maitenance, and responsing ARP request as a proxy. No centralized database is needed. 4)Section 7.2 It is better to remove TR101 stuff from this section. BR Frank ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Mark Townsley" ; "Frank Xia" Cc: "Jari Arkko" ; "Soohong Daniel Park" ; ; <16ng@ietf.org> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 6:01 PM Subject: Request for review of draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16 from a DSL perspective > Hi Mark and Frank, > > Your names have been offered as people who are familiar with DSL > network deployments. > > We would like to request your review of a 16ng draft that may have > some similarities with those deployments: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-d > ot-16-07 > > This draft is in AD review, and Jari asked the WG to close the loop on > this draft with DSL-savvy folks. The idea is not that they should > match, but that DSL deployments have some similarities, hence you > might have good insight and feedback on this draft. > > Please feel free to forward to other DSL experts you may be aware of. > If at all possible, we would like to get some feedback by December 12, 2008. > > Thanks in advance, > > Gabriel and Daniel, 16ng co-chairs > > _______________________________________________ 16NG mailing list 16NG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng _______________________________________________ 16NG mailing list 16NG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng From 16ng-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jan 5 08:02:55 2009 Return-Path: <16ng-bounces@ietf.org> X-Original-To: 16ng-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-16ng-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2FCB3A6A3A; Mon, 5 Jan 2009 08:02:55 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: 16ng@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: 16ng@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3983B3A6A3A for <16ng@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Jan 2009 08:02:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.547 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.547 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.051, BAYES_00=-2.599, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001] 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 ySlFO18y8idJ for <16ng@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Jan 2009 08:02:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from usaga04-in.huawei.com (usaga04-in.huawei.com [206.16.17.180]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 115893A67A5 for <16ng@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Jan 2009 08:02:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (usaga04-in [172.18.4.101]) by usaga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0KD000JTU9WG1I@usaga04-in.huawei.com> for 16ng@ietf.org; Mon, 05 Jan 2009 10:02:41 -0600 (CST) Received: from X24512z ([10.124.12.66]) by usaga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0KD000MIW9VPVA@usaga04-in.huawei.com> for 16ng@ietf.org; Mon, 05 Jan 2009 10:02:40 -0600 (CST) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 10:02:13 -0600 From: Frank Xia To: "Riegel, Maximilian (NSN - DE/Munich)" , g_e_montenegro@yahoo.com, Mark Townsley Message-id: <004c01c96f4f$00a0fda0$420c7c0a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <817000.84300.qm@web81901.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <00aa01c95ae6$fb48cd00$420c7c0a@china.huawei.com> Cc: draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16@tools.ietf.org, 16ng@ietf.org Subject: Re: [16NG] Request for review of draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16 from a DSL perspective X-BeenThere: 16ng@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: 16ng working group discussion list <16ng.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: 16ng-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: 16ng-bounces@ietf.org Hi Max Happy new year! Please see my in-line reply... BR Frank ----- Original Message ----- From: "Riegel, Maximilian (NSN - DE/Munich)" To: "ext Frank Xia" ; ; "Mark Townsley" Cc: ; <16ng@ietf.org> Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 1:33 PM Subject: RE: [16NG] Request for review of draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16 from a DSL perspective Hi Frank, Thanks for your comments. We would appreciate to get some more information on your general comments to reach better understanding for making appropriate modifications in the document. 1) What would be the benefits of putting the public access recommendation part into a separate Informational RFC on 'IPoETHo802.16 access in Broadband Networks'? Common broadband access networks e.g. DSL accesss according to TR-101 can be configured either way, in public access configuration or for Transparent LAN Service. I have the feeling that the document would end up quite similar to the draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16 document. Is there anything, we should add in informational annexes to adapt the applicability better to broadband access networks? Frank=>You have constructive recommendation to Broadband Network, however, I don't see the consistence with on-going technical choice in Broadband network. Just I highlighted in my email, you recommends different users SHARE a IPv6 prefix, IMHO, it is not the case in Broadband Network. Even in IPoETHo802.16 access scenario, user isolation principle is also supposed to be observed. That is , different subscriber is supposed to have different VLAN (or other mechanims, such as MAC force forwarding..) . I am not clear how to implement these in BRAS/DSLAM/SWITCH after my reading this document. is BRAS needed to extend to support PKM authentication? is any GRE tunnel required for traffic between DSLAM and BRAS? is any extra interface needed such as R6 in WiMAX ? However, these clarificiations are not very related to this document, while they are helpful when applying IPoETHo802.16 to Broadband Network. 2) We agree that distributed bridging functionality is hard to implement when a centralized database is needed. This led to the current approach to show the applicability of the distributed bridging architecture in the public access scenario, when forced forwarding allows to concentrate the data base in one particular location. It seems, more extensive considerations on the bridging architecture may be helpful for better understanding the issues. Would you agree that we should provide more text on the pros and cons of centralized vs distributed bridging architectures. Frank=>I dont know if it is proper when we design a STANDARD while leaving some important issues for implementer. I prefer to having a choice based on the WG talents. Bye Max -----Original Message----- From: 16ng-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:16ng-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Frank Xia Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 17:47 To: g_e_montenegro@yahoo.com; Mark Townsley Cc: draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16@tools.ietf.org; 16ng@ietf.org Subject: Re: [16NG] Request for review of draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16 from a DSL perspective Hi Folks General comments include: 1)removing public access recommendation part. We can have an informational draft on "IPoEo802.16 access in Broadband Network". 2)re-considering distributed bridging funcionalities. It is hard to implement when a centralized database needed. Please check the detailed comments: 1) Section 8 "Therefore, the AR in the public access link model SHOULD assign common IPv6 prefixes to all SSs served by the AR" IP addresing is still under discussion in Broadband Forum. However, IMO, these is almost a consensus that each SS uses a unique IPv6 prefixe. 2)Section 7.3. When a network-side bridge receives an ARP request from a host behind subsriber-side bridge, the network side bridge should discard the request if the destination host is also behind the same subscriber-side switch. 3)Appendix B. I propose that the edge network-side switchs are responsible for host database maitenance, and responsing ARP request as a proxy. No centralized database is needed. 4)Section 7.2 It is better to remove TR101 stuff from this section. BR Frank ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Mark Townsley" ; "Frank Xia" Cc: "Jari Arkko" ; "Soohong Daniel Park" ; ; <16ng@ietf.org> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 6:01 PM Subject: Request for review of draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16 from a DSL perspective > Hi Mark and Frank, > > Your names have been offered as people who are familiar with DSL > network deployments. > > We would like to request your review of a 16ng draft that may have > some similarities with those deployments: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-d > ot-16-07 > > This draft is in AD review, and Jari asked the WG to close the loop on > this draft with DSL-savvy folks. The idea is not that they should > match, but that DSL deployments have some similarities, hence you > might have good insight and feedback on this draft. > > Please feel free to forward to other DSL experts you may be aware of. > If at all possible, we would like to get some feedback by December 12, 2008. > > Thanks in advance, > > Gabriel and Daniel, 16ng co-chairs > > _______________________________________________ 16NG mailing list 16NG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng _______________________________________________ 16NG mailing list 16NG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng From 16ng-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jan 7 07:50:02 2009 Return-Path: <16ng-bounces@ietf.org> X-Original-To: 16ng-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-16ng-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A2113A6A3C; Wed, 7 Jan 2009 07:50:02 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: 16ng@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: 16ng@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A1203A6A3C for <16ng@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Jan 2009 07:50:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.700, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_34=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] 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 RKkmxzmZDGAA for <16ng@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Jan 2009 07:50:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (demumfd001.nsn-inter.net [217.115.75.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8FCC3A684D for <16ng@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Jan 2009 07:49:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.55]) by demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n07Fn5Nx005828 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 7 Jan 2009 16:49:05 +0100 Received: from demuexc024.nsn-intra.net (demuexc024.nsn-intra.net [10.159.32.11]) by demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n07Fn5MC010600; Wed, 7 Jan 2009 16:49:05 +0100 Received: from DEMUEXC014.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.128.25]) by demuexc024.nsn-intra.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 7 Jan 2009 16:49:05 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 16:49:04 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <004c01c96f4f$00a0fda0$420c7c0a@china.huawei.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [16NG] Request for review of draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16 from a DSL perspective Thread-Index: AclvTwqWPSJxqaoQRA+1lMaA3bEZtABgzfSQ References: <817000.84300.qm@web81901.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <00aa01c95ae6$fb48cd00$420c7c0a@china.huawei.com> <004c01c96f4f$00a0fda0$420c7c0a@china.huawei.com> From: "Riegel, Maximilian (NSN - DE/Munich)" To: "Frank Xia" , , "Mark Townsley" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Jan 2009 15:49:05.0119 (UTC) FILETIME=[781156F0:01C970DF] Cc: 16ng@ietf.org Subject: Re: [16NG] Request for review of draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16 from a DSL perspective X-BeenThere: 16ng@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: 16ng working group discussion list <16ng.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: 16ng-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: 16ng-bounces@ietf.org Hi Frank, I admit that it is not so obvious to see how the public access scenario maps to the DSL access network based on Ethernet aggregation. But we should keep in mind that the DSL access network does not only serve IPoETH but as well PPPoETH and Transparent LAN Service. Deployment of IEEE802.16 in DSL access network must support all three modes of operation, while the 16ng I-D only addresses the IPoETH aspects in a generic sense. A comprehensive specification for deployment of WiMAX in DSL access networks is currently created by a joint activity between the WiMAX Forum and the Broadband Forum. The resulting specification might provide you the DSL specific answers for implementation, you are looking for. The IETF may not be the most appropriate place to write a specification with recommendations tailored for DSL access networks. Nevertheless we should take care that the 16ng I-D is in line with the design decisions by the BBF for IPv6oETH in the public access. Unfortunately the IPv6 related specifications in the BBF are still work in progress, which means that the documents are not visible to the IETE 16ng. Frank, what would propose to get alignment of the design decisions for IPv6 in BBF and in 16ng. Is it only the IPv6 prefix issue, or do we have other discrepancies? Bye Max >-----Original Message----- >From: ext Frank Xia [mailto:xiayangsong@huawei.com] >Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 5:02 PM >To: Riegel, Maximilian (NSN - DE/Munich); g_e_montenegro@yahoo.com; Mark Townsley >Cc: draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16@tools.ietf.org; 16ng@ietf.org >Subject: Re: [16NG] Request for review of draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16 from a DSL perspective > > Hi Max > > Happy new year! > > Please see my in-line reply... > > BR > Frank >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: "Riegel, Maximilian (NSN - DE/Munich)" >>To: "ext Frank Xia" ; ; >>"Mark Townsley" >>Cc: ; >><16ng@ietf.org> >>Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 1:33 PM >>Subject: RE: [16NG] Request for review of >>draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16 from a DSL perspective >> >> >>Hi Frank, >> >>Thanks for your comments. We would appreciate to get some more >>information on your general comments to reach better understanding for >>making appropriate modifications in the document. >> >>1) What would be the benefits of putting the public access >>recommendation part into a separate Informational RFC on 'IPoETHo802.16 >>access in Broadband Networks'? Common broadband access networks e.g. DSL >>accesss according to TR-101 can be configured either way, in public >>access configuration or for Transparent LAN Service. I have the feeling >>that the document would end up quite similar to the >>draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16 document. >>Is there anything, we should add in informational annexes to adapt the >>applicability better to broadband access networks? > Frank=>You have constructive recommendation to Broadband Network, > however, I don't see the consistence with on-going technical choice > in Broadband network. Just I highlighted in my email, you recommends > different users SHARE a IPv6 prefix, IMHO, it is not the case in Broadband > Network. > > Even in IPoETHo802.16 access scenario, user isolation principle is > also supposed to be observed. That is , different subscriber > is supposed to have different VLAN (or other mechanims, such > as MAC force forwarding..) . > > I am not clear how to implement these in BRAS/DSLAM/SWITCH > after my reading this document. > is BRAS needed to extend to support PKM authentication? > is any GRE tunnel required for traffic between DSLAM and BRAS? > is any extra interface needed such as R6 in WiMAX ? > However, these clarificiations are not very related to this document, > while they are helpful when applying IPoETHo802.16 to Broadband Network. > >>2) We agree that distributed bridging functionality is hard to implement >>when a centralized database is needed. This led to the current approach >>to show the applicability of the distributed bridging architecture in >>the public access scenario, when forced forwarding allows to concentrate >>the data base in one particular location. It seems, more extensive >>considerations on the bridging architecture may be helpful for better >>understanding the issues. Would you agree that we should provide more >>text on the pros and cons of centralized vs distributed bridging >>architectures. > Frank=>I dont know if it is proper when we design a STANDARD > while leaving some important issues for implementer. > I prefer to having a choice based on the WG talents. > >>Bye >>Max >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: 16ng-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:16ng-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >>ext Frank Xia >>Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 17:47 >>To: g_e_montenegro@yahoo.com; Mark Townsley >>Cc: draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16@tools.ietf.org; >>16ng@ietf.org >>Subject: Re: [16NG] Request for review of >>draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16 from a DSL perspective >> >>Hi Folks >> >>General comments include: >>1)removing public access recommendation part. >> We can have an informational draft on >> "IPoEo802.16 access in Broadband Network". >>2)re-considering distributed bridging funcionalities. >> It is hard to implement when a centralized database needed. >> >>Please check the detailed comments: >>1) Section 8 >> "Therefore, the AR in the public access link model >> SHOULD assign common IPv6 prefixes to all SSs >> served by the AR" >> IP addresing is still under discussion in Broadband Forum. >> However, IMO, these is almost a consensus that each >> SS uses a unique IPv6 prefixe. >> >>2)Section 7.3. >> When a network-side bridge receives an ARP request >> from a host behind subsriber-side bridge, the network >> side bridge should discard the request if the destination >> host is also behind the same subscriber-side switch. >> >>3)Appendix B. >> I propose that the edge network-side switchs >> are responsible for host database maitenance, and >> responsing ARP request as a proxy. >> No centralized database is needed. >> >>4)Section 7.2 >> It is better to remove TR101 stuff from this section. >> >>BR >>Frank >> >> >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: >>To: "Mark Townsley" ; "Frank Xia" >> >>Cc: "Jari Arkko" ; "Soohong Daniel Park" >>; >>; >><16ng@ietf.org> >>Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 6:01 PM >>Subject: Request for review of >>draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16 from a DSL perspective >> >> >>> Hi Mark and Frank, >>> >>> Your names have been offered as people who are familiar with DSL >>> network deployments. >>> >>> We would like to request your review of a 16ng draft that may have >>> some similarities with those deployments: >>> >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-d >>> ot-16-07 >>> >>> This draft is in AD review, and Jari asked the WG to close the loop on >> >>> this draft with DSL-savvy folks. The idea is not that they should >>> match, but that DSL deployments have some similarities, hence you >>> might have good insight and feedback on this draft. >>> >>> Please feel free to forward to other DSL experts you may be aware of. >>> If at all possible, we would like to get some feedback by December 12, >>2008. >>> >>> Thanks in advance, >>> >>> Gabriel and Daniel, 16ng co-chairs >>> >>> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>16NG mailing list >>16NG@ietf.org >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng >> _______________________________________________ 16NG mailing list 16NG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng From 16ng-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jan 7 09:17:52 2009 Return-Path: <16ng-bounces@ietf.org> X-Original-To: 16ng-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-16ng-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 835F13A6901; Wed, 7 Jan 2009 09:17:52 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: 16ng@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: 16ng@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 608A33A6901 for <16ng@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Jan 2009 09:17:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.51 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.489, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_34=0.6, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001] 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 CLN-QdxFK7Wg for <16ng@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Jan 2009 09:17:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from usaga04-in.huawei.com (usaga04-in.huawei.com [206.16.17.180]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29B713A6874 for <16ng@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Jan 2009 09:17:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (usaga04-in [172.18.4.101]) by usaga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0KD400FIN2PCNO@usaga04-in.huawei.com> for 16ng@ietf.org; Wed, 07 Jan 2009 11:17:36 -0600 (CST) Received: from X24512z ([10.124.12.66]) by usaga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0KD400HTA2P4GJ@usaga04-in.huawei.com> for 16ng@ietf.org; Wed, 07 Jan 2009 11:17:36 -0600 (CST) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 11:17:28 -0600 From: Frank Xia To: "Riegel, Maximilian (NSN - DE/Munich)" , g_e_montenegro@yahoo.com, Mark Townsley Message-id: <000601c970eb$d36e5aa0$420c7c0a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <817000.84300.qm@web81901.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <00aa01c95ae6$fb48cd00$420c7c0a@china.huawei.com> <004c01c96f4f$00a0fda0$420c7c0a@china.huawei.com> Cc: 16ng@ietf.org Subject: Re: [16NG] Request for review of draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16 from a DSL perspective X-BeenThere: 16ng@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: 16ng working group discussion list <16ng.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: 16ng-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: 16ng-bounces@ietf.org Hi Max Thank for you detailed explanation. Please check my response.. BR Frank ----- Original Message ----- From: "Riegel, Maximilian (NSN - DE/Munich)" To: "Frank Xia" ; ; "Mark Townsley" Cc: <16ng@ietf.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 9:49 AM Subject: RE: [16NG] Request for review of draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16 from a DSL perspective Hi Frank, I admit that it is not so obvious to see how the public access scenario maps to the DSL access network based on Ethernet aggregation. But we should keep in mind that the DSL access network does not only serve IPoETH but as well PPPoETH and Transparent LAN Service. Deployment of IEEE802.16 in DSL access network must support all three modes of operation, while the 16ng I-D only addresses the IPoETH aspects in a generic sense. Frank=> IPoETH should be the MAIN deployment in the future. PPPoX is fading out. Transparent LAN is mainly for enterprise users. A comprehensive specification for deployment of WiMAX in DSL access networks is currently created by a joint activity between the WiMAX Forum and the Broadband Forum. The resulting specification might provide you the DSL specific answers for implementation, you are looking for. The IETF may not be the most appropriate place to write a specification with recommendations tailored for DSL access networks. Frank=>I have been keeping an eye on the joint activities. In fact, I also agree that IETF is not the most appropriate place to specify this. However, I don't it is necessary to bother readers with SDO specific knowledge, unless you can make it clear enough :-) Nevertheless we should take care that the 16ng I-D is in line with the design decisions by the BBF for IPv6oETH in the public access. Unfortunately the IPv6 related specifications in the BBF are still work in progress, which means that the documents are not visible to the IETE 16ng. Frank=>This is also my concern on this document. IPv6 work is ongoing in BBF, while you give some recommendation which is probably not in line with it. It seems improper. Frank, what would propose to get alignment of the design decisions for IPv6 in BBF and in 16ng. Is it only the IPv6 prefix issue, or do we have other discrepancies? Frank=>Only IPv6 prefix issue. If I were you, I would like to prioritize my choice as following 1)removing this part, and leaving it to WiMAX/BBF joint work. 2)Keeping this part, and waiting for IPv6 progress in BBF for alignment Bye Max >-----Original Message----- >From: ext Frank Xia [mailto:xiayangsong@huawei.com] >Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 5:02 PM >To: Riegel, Maximilian (NSN - DE/Munich); g_e_montenegro@yahoo.com; Mark Townsley >Cc: draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16@tools.ietf.org; 16ng@ietf.org >Subject: Re: [16NG] Request for review of draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16 from a DSL perspective > > Hi Max > > Happy new year! > > Please see my in-line reply... > > BR > Frank >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: "Riegel, Maximilian (NSN - DE/Munich)" >>To: "ext Frank Xia" ; ; >>"Mark Townsley" >>Cc: ; >><16ng@ietf.org> >>Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 1:33 PM >>Subject: RE: [16NG] Request for review of >>draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16 from a DSL perspective >> >> >>Hi Frank, >> >>Thanks for your comments. We would appreciate to get some more >>information on your general comments to reach better understanding for >>making appropriate modifications in the document. >> >>1) What would be the benefits of putting the public access >>recommendation part into a separate Informational RFC on 'IPoETHo802.16 >>access in Broadband Networks'? Common broadband access networks e.g. DSL >>accesss according to TR-101 can be configured either way, in public >>access configuration or for Transparent LAN Service. I have the feeling >>that the document would end up quite similar to the >>draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16 document. >>Is there anything, we should add in informational annexes to adapt the >>applicability better to broadband access networks? > Frank=>You have constructive recommendation to Broadband Network, > however, I don't see the consistence with on-going technical choice > in Broadband network. Just I highlighted in my email, you recommends > different users SHARE a IPv6 prefix, IMHO, it is not the case in Broadband > Network. > > Even in IPoETHo802.16 access scenario, user isolation principle is > also supposed to be observed. That is , different subscriber > is supposed to have different VLAN (or other mechanims, such > as MAC force forwarding..) . > > I am not clear how to implement these in BRAS/DSLAM/SWITCH > after my reading this document. > is BRAS needed to extend to support PKM authentication? > is any GRE tunnel required for traffic between DSLAM and BRAS? > is any extra interface needed such as R6 in WiMAX ? > However, these clarificiations are not very related to this document, > while they are helpful when applying IPoETHo802.16 to Broadband Network. > >>2) We agree that distributed bridging functionality is hard to implement >>when a centralized database is needed. This led to the current approach >>to show the applicability of the distributed bridging architecture in >>the public access scenario, when forced forwarding allows to concentrate >>the data base in one particular location. It seems, more extensive >>considerations on the bridging architecture may be helpful for better >>understanding the issues. Would you agree that we should provide more >>text on the pros and cons of centralized vs distributed bridging >>architectures. > Frank=>I dont know if it is proper when we design a STANDARD > while leaving some important issues for implementer. > I prefer to having a choice based on the WG talents. > >>Bye >>Max >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: 16ng-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:16ng-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >>ext Frank Xia >>Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 17:47 >>To: g_e_montenegro@yahoo.com; Mark Townsley >>Cc: draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16@tools.ietf.org; >>16ng@ietf.org >>Subject: Re: [16NG] Request for review of >>draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16 from a DSL perspective >> >>Hi Folks >> >>General comments include: >>1)removing public access recommendation part. >> We can have an informational draft on >> "IPoEo802.16 access in Broadband Network". >>2)re-considering distributed bridging funcionalities. >> It is hard to implement when a centralized database needed. >> >>Please check the detailed comments: >>1) Section 8 >> "Therefore, the AR in the public access link model >> SHOULD assign common IPv6 prefixes to all SSs >> served by the AR" >> IP addresing is still under discussion in Broadband Forum. >> However, IMO, these is almost a consensus that each >> SS uses a unique IPv6 prefixe. >> >>2)Section 7.3. >> When a network-side bridge receives an ARP request >> from a host behind subsriber-side bridge, the network >> side bridge should discard the request if the destination >> host is also behind the same subscriber-side switch. >> >>3)Appendix B. >> I propose that the edge network-side switchs >> are responsible for host database maitenance, and >> responsing ARP request as a proxy. >> No centralized database is needed. >> >>4)Section 7.2 >> It is better to remove TR101 stuff from this section. >> >>BR >>Frank >> >> >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: >>To: "Mark Townsley" ; "Frank Xia" >> >>Cc: "Jari Arkko" ; "Soohong Daniel Park" >>; >>; >><16ng@ietf.org> >>Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 6:01 PM >>Subject: Request for review of >>draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16 from a DSL perspective >> >> >>> Hi Mark and Frank, >>> >>> Your names have been offered as people who are familiar with DSL >>> network deployments. >>> >>> We would like to request your review of a 16ng draft that may have >>> some similarities with those deployments: >>> >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-d >>> ot-16-07 >>> >>> This draft is in AD review, and Jari asked the WG to close the loop on >> >>> this draft with DSL-savvy folks. The idea is not that they should >>> match, but that DSL deployments have some similarities, hence you >>> might have good insight and feedback on this draft. >>> >>> Please feel free to forward to other DSL experts you may be aware of. >>> If at all possible, we would like to get some feedback by December 12, >>2008. >>> >>> Thanks in advance, >>> >>> Gabriel and Daniel, 16ng co-chairs >>> >>> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>16NG mailing list >>16NG@ietf.org >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng >> _______________________________________________ 16NG mailing list 16NG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng From 16ng-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jan 8 02:19:56 2009 Return-Path: <16ng-bounces@ietf.org> X-Original-To: 16ng-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-16ng-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 876FB3A6827; Thu, 8 Jan 2009 02:19:56 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: 16ng@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: 16ng@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFDC53A6827 for <16ng@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Jan 2009 02:19:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.149 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_34=0.6] 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 ztG2Ny2B8528 for <16ng@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Jan 2009 02:19:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from demumfd002.nsn-inter.net (demumfd002.nsn-inter.net [217.115.75.234]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF6A73A680B for <16ng@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Jan 2009 02:19:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.55]) by demumfd002.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n08AJTmm019979 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 8 Jan 2009 11:19:29 +0100 Received: from demuexc022.nsn-intra.net (webmail.nsn-intra.net [10.150.128.35]) by demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n08AJTWA015725; Thu, 8 Jan 2009 11:19:29 +0100 Received: from DEMUEXC014.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.128.25]) by demuexc022.nsn-intra.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 8 Jan 2009 11:19:16 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 11:19:16 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <000601c970eb$d36e5aa0$420c7c0a@china.huawei.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [16NG] Request for review of draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16 from a DSL perspective Thread-Index: Aclw69dhPHKrmbXmRUubJ1jT2aujJAAfRiUA References: <817000.84300.qm@web81901.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <00aa01c95ae6$fb48cd00$420c7c0a@china.huawei.com> <004c01c96f4f$00a0fda0$420c7c0a@china.huawei.com> <000601c970eb$d36e5aa0$420c7c0a@china.huawei.com> From: "Riegel, Maximilian (NSN - DE/Munich)" To: "ext Frank Xia" , , "Mark Townsley" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Jan 2009 10:19:16.0978 (UTC) FILETIME=[8FD46520:01C9717A] Cc: 16ng@ietf.org Subject: Re: [16NG] Request for review of draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16 from a DSL perspective X-BeenThere: 16ng@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: 16ng working group discussion list <16ng.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: 16ng-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: 16ng-bounces@ietf.org Thanks Frank for the conclusion. We will remove the IPv6 prefix recommendation in the public access section to prevent collisions with the upcoming BBF specification. Instead we will provide 802.16 specific guidance for either prefix configuration to help network architects to deploy 802.16 in their IPv6 enabled public access networks. Thanks for the clarification of the IPv6 prefix issue. All your comments will be addressed in the next revision of the I-D. Bye Max -----Original Message----- From: ext Frank Xia [mailto:xiayangsong@huawei.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 6:17 PM To: Riegel, Maximilian (NSN - DE/Munich); g_e_montenegro@yahoo.com; Mark Townsley Cc: 16ng@ietf.org Subject: Re: [16NG] Request for review of draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16 from a DSL perspective Hi Max Thank for you detailed explanation. Please check my response.. BR Frank ----- Original Message ----- From: "Riegel, Maximilian (NSN - DE/Munich)" To: "Frank Xia" ; ; "Mark Townsley" Cc: <16ng@ietf.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 9:49 AM Subject: RE: [16NG] Request for review of draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16 from a DSL perspective Hi Frank, I admit that it is not so obvious to see how the public access scenario maps to the DSL access network based on Ethernet aggregation. But we should keep in mind that the DSL access network does not only serve IPoETH but as well PPPoETH and Transparent LAN Service. Deployment of IEEE802.16 in DSL access network must support all three modes of operation, while the 16ng I-D only addresses the IPoETH aspects in a generic sense. Frank=> IPoETH should be the MAIN deployment in the future. PPPoX is fading out. Transparent LAN is mainly for enterprise users. A comprehensive specification for deployment of WiMAX in DSL access networks is currently created by a joint activity between the WiMAX Forum and the Broadband Forum. The resulting specification might provide you the DSL specific answers for implementation, you are looking for. The IETF may not be the most appropriate place to write a specification with recommendations tailored for DSL access networks. Frank=>I have been keeping an eye on the joint activities. In fact, I also agree that IETF is not the most appropriate place to specify this. However, I don't it is necessary to bother readers with SDO specific knowledge, unless you can make it clear enough :-) Nevertheless we should take care that the 16ng I-D is in line with the design decisions by the BBF for IPv6oETH in the public access. Unfortunately the IPv6 related specifications in the BBF are still work in progress, which means that the documents are not visible to the IETE 16ng. Frank=>This is also my concern on this document. IPv6 work is ongoing in BBF, while you give some recommendation which is probably not in line with it. It seems improper. Frank, what would propose to get alignment of the design decisions for IPv6 in BBF and in 16ng. Is it only the IPv6 prefix issue, or do we have other discrepancies? Frank=>Only IPv6 prefix issue. If I were you, I would like to prioritize my choice as following 1)removing this part, and leaving it to WiMAX/BBF joint work. 2)Keeping this part, and waiting for IPv6 progress in BBF for alignment Bye Max >-----Original Message----- >From: ext Frank Xia [mailto:xiayangsong@huawei.com] >Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 5:02 PM >To: Riegel, Maximilian (NSN - DE/Munich); g_e_montenegro@yahoo.com; Mark Townsley >Cc: draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16@tools.ietf.org; 16ng@ietf.org >Subject: Re: [16NG] Request for review of draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16 from a DSL perspective > > Hi Max > > Happy new year! > > Please see my in-line reply... > > BR > Frank >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: "Riegel, Maximilian (NSN - DE/Munich)" >>To: "ext Frank Xia" ; ; >>"Mark Townsley" >>Cc: ; >><16ng@ietf.org> >>Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 1:33 PM >>Subject: RE: [16NG] Request for review of >>draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16 from a DSL perspective >> >> >>Hi Frank, >> >>Thanks for your comments. We would appreciate to get some more >>information on your general comments to reach better understanding for >>making appropriate modifications in the document. >> >>1) What would be the benefits of putting the public access >>recommendation part into a separate Informational RFC on 'IPoETHo802.16 >>access in Broadband Networks'? Common broadband access networks e.g. DSL >>accesss according to TR-101 can be configured either way, in public >>access configuration or for Transparent LAN Service. I have the feeling >>that the document would end up quite similar to the >>draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16 document. >>Is there anything, we should add in informational annexes to adapt the >>applicability better to broadband access networks? > Frank=>You have constructive recommendation to Broadband Network, > however, I don't see the consistence with on-going technical choice > in Broadband network. Just I highlighted in my email, you recommends > different users SHARE a IPv6 prefix, IMHO, it is not the case in Broadband > Network. > > Even in IPoETHo802.16 access scenario, user isolation principle is > also supposed to be observed. That is , different subscriber > is supposed to have different VLAN (or other mechanims, such > as MAC force forwarding..) . > > I am not clear how to implement these in BRAS/DSLAM/SWITCH > after my reading this document. > is BRAS needed to extend to support PKM authentication? > is any GRE tunnel required for traffic between DSLAM and BRAS? > is any extra interface needed such as R6 in WiMAX ? > However, these clarificiations are not very related to this document, > while they are helpful when applying IPoETHo802.16 to Broadband Network. > >>2) We agree that distributed bridging functionality is hard to implement >>when a centralized database is needed. This led to the current approach >>to show the applicability of the distributed bridging architecture in >>the public access scenario, when forced forwarding allows to concentrate >>the data base in one particular location. It seems, more extensive >>considerations on the bridging architecture may be helpful for better >>understanding the issues. Would you agree that we should provide more >>text on the pros and cons of centralized vs distributed bridging >>architectures. > Frank=>I dont know if it is proper when we design a STANDARD > while leaving some important issues for implementer. > I prefer to having a choice based on the WG talents. > >>Bye >>Max >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: 16ng-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:16ng-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >>ext Frank Xia >>Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 17:47 >>To: g_e_montenegro@yahoo.com; Mark Townsley >>Cc: draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16@tools.ietf.org; >>16ng@ietf.org >>Subject: Re: [16NG] Request for review of >>draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16 from a DSL perspective >> >>Hi Folks >> >>General comments include: >>1)removing public access recommendation part. >> We can have an informational draft on >> "IPoEo802.16 access in Broadband Network". >>2)re-considering distributed bridging funcionalities. >> It is hard to implement when a centralized database needed. >> >>Please check the detailed comments: >>1) Section 8 >> "Therefore, the AR in the public access link model >> SHOULD assign common IPv6 prefixes to all SSs >> served by the AR" >> IP addresing is still under discussion in Broadband Forum. >> However, IMO, these is almost a consensus that each >> SS uses a unique IPv6 prefixe. >> >>2)Section 7.3. >> When a network-side bridge receives an ARP request >> from a host behind subsriber-side bridge, the network >> side bridge should discard the request if the destination >> host is also behind the same subscriber-side switch. >> >>3)Appendix B. >> I propose that the edge network-side switchs >> are responsible for host database maitenance, and >> responsing ARP request as a proxy. >> No centralized database is needed. >> >>4)Section 7.2 >> It is better to remove TR101 stuff from this section. >> >>BR >>Frank >> >> >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: >>To: "Mark Townsley" ; "Frank Xia" >> >>Cc: "Jari Arkko" ; "Soohong Daniel Park" >>; >>; >><16ng@ietf.org> >>Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 6:01 PM >>Subject: Request for review of >>draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16 from a DSL perspective >> >> >>> Hi Mark and Frank, >>> >>> Your names have been offered as people who are familiar with DSL >>> network deployments. >>> >>> We would like to request your review of a 16ng draft that may have >>> some similarities with those deployments: >>> >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-d >>> ot-16-07 >>> >>> This draft is in AD review, and Jari asked the WG to close the loop on >> >>> this draft with DSL-savvy folks. The idea is not that they should >>> match, but that DSL deployments have some similarities, hence you >>> might have good insight and feedback on this draft. >>> >>> Please feel free to forward to other DSL experts you may be aware of. >>> If at all possible, we would like to get some feedback by December 12, >>2008. >>> >>> Thanks in advance, >>> >>> Gabriel and Daniel, 16ng co-chairs >>> >>> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>16NG mailing list >>16NG@ietf.org >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng >> _______________________________________________ 16NG mailing list 16NG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng From 16ng-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jan 8 06:37:18 2009 Return-Path: <16ng-bounces@ietf.org> X-Original-To: 16ng-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-16ng-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 065943A68D6; Thu, 8 Jan 2009 06:37:18 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: 16ng@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: 16ng@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50D373A68D6 for <16ng@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Jan 2009 06:37:16 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.301, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_34=0.6, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001] 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 ij7psIK5j3mZ for <16ng@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Jan 2009 06:37:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from nlpi087.prodigy.net (nlpi087.prodigy.net [207.115.36.103]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFCAA3A68BD for <16ng@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Jan 2009 06:37:14 -0800 (PST) X-ORBL: [70.244.161.148] Received: from X24512z (ppp-70-244-161-148.dsl.rcsntx.swbell.net [70.244.161.148]) by nlpi087.prodigy.net (8.13.8 out.ldap.dk.spool/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n08Eao6p031072; Thu, 8 Jan 2009 08:36:54 -0600 Message-ID: <005c01c9719e$8c3bf1c0$0201a8c0@china.huawei.com> From: "Frank Xia" To: "Riegel, Maximilian \(NSN - DE/Munich\)" , , "Mark Townsley" References: <817000.84300.qm@web81901.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <00aa01c95ae6$fb48cd00$420c7c0a@china.huawei.com> <004c01c96f4f$00a0fda0$420c7c0a@china.huawei.com> <000601c970eb$d36e5aa0$420c7c0a@china.huawei.com> Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 08:26:27 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350 Cc: 16ng@ietf.org Subject: Re: [16NG] Request for review of draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16 from a DSL perspective X-BeenThere: 16ng@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: 16ng working group discussion list <16ng.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: 16ng-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: 16ng-bounces@ietf.org Hi Max Thank you! See the published RFC soon! BR Frank ----- Original Message ----- From: "Riegel, Maximilian (NSN - DE/Munich)" To: "ext Frank Xia" ; ; "Mark Townsley" Cc: <16ng@ietf.org> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 4:19 AM Subject: RE: [16NG] Request for review of draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16 from a DSL perspective Thanks Frank for the conclusion. We will remove the IPv6 prefix recommendation in the public access section to prevent collisions with the upcoming BBF specification. Instead we will provide 802.16 specific guidance for either prefix configuration to help network architects to deploy 802.16 in their IPv6 enabled public access networks. Thanks for the clarification of the IPv6 prefix issue. All your comments will be addressed in the next revision of the I-D. Bye Max -----Original Message----- From: ext Frank Xia [mailto:xiayangsong@huawei.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 6:17 PM To: Riegel, Maximilian (NSN - DE/Munich); g_e_montenegro@yahoo.com; Mark Townsley Cc: 16ng@ietf.org Subject: Re: [16NG] Request for review of draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16 from a DSL perspective Hi Max Thank for you detailed explanation. Please check my response.. BR Frank ----- Original Message ----- From: "Riegel, Maximilian (NSN - DE/Munich)" To: "Frank Xia" ; ; "Mark Townsley" Cc: <16ng@ietf.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 9:49 AM Subject: RE: [16NG] Request for review of draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16 from a DSL perspective Hi Frank, I admit that it is not so obvious to see how the public access scenario maps to the DSL access network based on Ethernet aggregation. But we should keep in mind that the DSL access network does not only serve IPoETH but as well PPPoETH and Transparent LAN Service. Deployment of IEEE802.16 in DSL access network must support all three modes of operation, while the 16ng I-D only addresses the IPoETH aspects in a generic sense. Frank=> IPoETH should be the MAIN deployment in the future. PPPoX is fading out. Transparent LAN is mainly for enterprise users. A comprehensive specification for deployment of WiMAX in DSL access networks is currently created by a joint activity between the WiMAX Forum and the Broadband Forum. The resulting specification might provide you the DSL specific answers for implementation, you are looking for. The IETF may not be the most appropriate place to write a specification with recommendations tailored for DSL access networks. Frank=>I have been keeping an eye on the joint activities. In fact, I also agree that IETF is not the most appropriate place to specify this. However, I don't it is necessary to bother readers with SDO specific knowledge, unless you can make it clear enough :-) Nevertheless we should take care that the 16ng I-D is in line with the design decisions by the BBF for IPv6oETH in the public access. Unfortunately the IPv6 related specifications in the BBF are still work in progress, which means that the documents are not visible to the IETE 16ng. Frank=>This is also my concern on this document. IPv6 work is ongoing in BBF, while you give some recommendation which is probably not in line with it. It seems improper. Frank, what would propose to get alignment of the design decisions for IPv6 in BBF and in 16ng. Is it only the IPv6 prefix issue, or do we have other discrepancies? Frank=>Only IPv6 prefix issue. If I were you, I would like to prioritize my choice as following 1)removing this part, and leaving it to WiMAX/BBF joint work. 2)Keeping this part, and waiting for IPv6 progress in BBF for alignment Bye Max >-----Original Message----- >From: ext Frank Xia [mailto:xiayangsong@huawei.com] >Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 5:02 PM >To: Riegel, Maximilian (NSN - DE/Munich); g_e_montenegro@yahoo.com; Mark Townsley >Cc: draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16@tools.ietf.org; 16ng@ietf.org >Subject: Re: [16NG] Request for review of draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16 from a DSL perspective > > Hi Max > > Happy new year! > > Please see my in-line reply... > > BR > Frank >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: "Riegel, Maximilian (NSN - DE/Munich)" >>To: "ext Frank Xia" ; ; >>"Mark Townsley" >>Cc: ; >><16ng@ietf.org> >>Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 1:33 PM >>Subject: RE: [16NG] Request for review of >>draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16 from a DSL perspective >> >> >>Hi Frank, >> >>Thanks for your comments. We would appreciate to get some more >>information on your general comments to reach better understanding for >>making appropriate modifications in the document. >> >>1) What would be the benefits of putting the public access >>recommendation part into a separate Informational RFC on 'IPoETHo802.16 >>access in Broadband Networks'? Common broadband access networks e.g. DSL >>accesss according to TR-101 can be configured either way, in public >>access configuration or for Transparent LAN Service. I have the feeling >>that the document would end up quite similar to the >>draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16 document. >>Is there anything, we should add in informational annexes to adapt the >>applicability better to broadband access networks? > Frank=>You have constructive recommendation to Broadband Network, > however, I don't see the consistence with on-going technical choice > in Broadband network. Just I highlighted in my email, you recommends > different users SHARE a IPv6 prefix, IMHO, it is not the case in Broadband > Network. > > Even in IPoETHo802.16 access scenario, user isolation principle is > also supposed to be observed. That is , different subscriber > is supposed to have different VLAN (or other mechanims, such > as MAC force forwarding..) . > > I am not clear how to implement these in BRAS/DSLAM/SWITCH > after my reading this document. > is BRAS needed to extend to support PKM authentication? > is any GRE tunnel required for traffic between DSLAM and BRAS? > is any extra interface needed such as R6 in WiMAX ? > However, these clarificiations are not very related to this document, > while they are helpful when applying IPoETHo802.16 to Broadband Network. > >>2) We agree that distributed bridging functionality is hard to implement >>when a centralized database is needed. This led to the current approach >>to show the applicability of the distributed bridging architecture in >>the public access scenario, when forced forwarding allows to concentrate >>the data base in one particular location. It seems, more extensive >>considerations on the bridging architecture may be helpful for better >>understanding the issues. Would you agree that we should provide more >>text on the pros and cons of centralized vs distributed bridging >>architectures. > Frank=>I dont know if it is proper when we design a STANDARD > while leaving some important issues for implementer. > I prefer to having a choice based on the WG talents. > >>Bye >>Max >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: 16ng-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:16ng-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >>ext Frank Xia >>Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 17:47 >>To: g_e_montenegro@yahoo.com; Mark Townsley >>Cc: draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16@tools.ietf.org; >>16ng@ietf.org >>Subject: Re: [16NG] Request for review of >>draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16 from a DSL perspective >> >>Hi Folks >> >>General comments include: >>1)removing public access recommendation part. >> We can have an informational draft on >> "IPoEo802.16 access in Broadband Network". >>2)re-considering distributed bridging funcionalities. >> It is hard to implement when a centralized database needed. >> >>Please check the detailed comments: >>1) Section 8 >> "Therefore, the AR in the public access link model >> SHOULD assign common IPv6 prefixes to all SSs >> served by the AR" >> IP addresing is still under discussion in Broadband Forum. >> However, IMO, these is almost a consensus that each >> SS uses a unique IPv6 prefixe. >> >>2)Section 7.3. >> When a network-side bridge receives an ARP request >> from a host behind subsriber-side bridge, the network >> side bridge should discard the request if the destination >> host is also behind the same subscriber-side switch. >> >>3)Appendix B. >> I propose that the edge network-side switchs >> are responsible for host database maitenance, and >> responsing ARP request as a proxy. >> No centralized database is needed. >> >>4)Section 7.2 >> It is better to remove TR101 stuff from this section. >> >>BR >>Frank >> >> >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: >>To: "Mark Townsley" ; "Frank Xia" >> >>Cc: "Jari Arkko" ; "Soohong Daniel Park" >>; >>; >><16ng@ietf.org> >>Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 6:01 PM >>Subject: Request for review of >>draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16 from a DSL perspective >> >> >>> Hi Mark and Frank, >>> >>> Your names have been offered as people who are familiar with DSL >>> network deployments. >>> >>> We would like to request your review of a 16ng draft that may have >>> some similarities with those deployments: >>> >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-d >>> ot-16-07 >>> >>> This draft is in AD review, and Jari asked the WG to close the loop on >> >>> this draft with DSL-savvy folks. The idea is not that they should >>> match, but that DSL deployments have some similarities, hence you >>> might have good insight and feedback on this draft. >>> >>> Please feel free to forward to other DSL experts you may be aware of. >>> If at all possible, we would like to get some feedback by December 12, >>2008. >>> >>> Thanks in advance, >>> >>> Gabriel and Daniel, 16ng co-chairs >>> >>> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>16NG mailing list >>16NG@ietf.org >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng >> _______________________________________________ 16NG mailing list 16NG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng From 16ng-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jan 30 11:15:04 2009 Return-Path: <16ng-bounces@ietf.org> X-Original-To: 16ng-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-16ng-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D668A28C2ED; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:15:04 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: 16ng@ietf.org Delivered-To: 16ng@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id 0168F28C19D; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:15:01 -0800 (PST) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20090130191502.0168F28C19D@core3.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:15:02 -0800 (PST) Cc: 16ng@ietf.org Subject: [16NG] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16-08.txt X-BeenThere: 16ng@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: 16ng working group discussion list <16ng.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: 16ng-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: 16ng-bounces@ietf.org --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IP over IEEE 802.16 Networks Working Group of the IETF. Title : Transmission of IP over Ethernet over IEEE 802.16 Networks Author(s) : M. Riegel, S. Jeong, H. Jeon Filename : draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16-08.txt Pages : 19 Date : 2009-1-30 This document describes the transmission of IPv4 over Ethernet as well as IPv6 over Ethernet in an access network deploying the IEEE 802.16 cellular radio transmission technology. The Ethernet on top of IEEE 802.16 is realized by bridging connections which the IEEE 802.16 provides between a base station and its associated subscriber stations. Due to the resource constraints of radio transmission systems and the limitations of the IEEE 802.16 MAC functionality for the realization of an Ethernet, the transmission of IP over Ethernet over IEEE 802.16 may considerably benefit by adding IP specific support functions in the Ethernet over IEEE 802.16 while maintaining full compatibility with standard IP over Ethernet behavior. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16-08.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16-08.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2009-1-30110600.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ 16NG mailing list 16NG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng --NextPart--