Subject: RE: [Capwap] Split-MAC with local bridging at the WTP

From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 04:27:50 -0700

I agree with Partha that adding this mode simply complicates the
protocol. The Taxonomy Recommendation draft defines two modes of
operation:
1. Local MAC (locally bridged), and
2. Split MAC (tunneled)
 
I think we should stick to those two modes. If the group feels more
would be required, we should understand the application and use cases -
and why the above two groups cannot solve the problems.

Pat Calhoun
CTO, Wireless Networking Business Unit
Cisco Systems

________________________________

	From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of [email-masked]
	Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 12:17 AM
	To: [email-masked]
	Subject: [Capwap] Split-MAC with local bridging at the WTP

	During the CAPWAP session on Monday, one of the issues that
Darren and the eval team noted as missing in the current SLAPP draft is
a mode where the MAC is split between the WTP and the AC, but the data
traffic is bridged at the WTP (Darren's slide says "local MAC with local
bridging", but this was really a typo and should have read, according to
Darren, "split MAC with local bridging"). This mode is not defined in
the current SLAPP draft because we were not sure what this mode really
meant. It would be good if one of the eval team members presented a
clarification on why they concluded such a mode was required. It would
be even better if we could also get WG discussion/consensus on whether
such a mode is meaningful and is required to be supported in any CAPWAP
protocol. 

	Thanks

	partha

---

From: Michael Vakulenko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 13:38:23 +0300

At 02:27 PM 8/3/2005, Pat Calhoun \(pacalhou\) wrote:
>protocol. The Taxonomy Recommendation draft defines two modes of operation:

I don't recall that taxonomy draft define that split MAC must be 
limited to remote bridging. It in fact says that different vendors 
use different approaches.

-- Michael V.
         www.WaveCompass.com

>would be required, we should understand the application and use 
>cases - and why the above two groups cannot solve the problems.
>
>
>Pat Calhoun
>----------
>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>On Behalf Of [email-masked]
>During the CAPWAP session on Monday, one of the issues that Darren 
>and the eval team noted as missing in the current SLAPP draft is a 
>mode where the MAC is split between the WTP and the AC, but the data 
>traffic is bridged at the WTP (Darren's slide says "local MAC with 
>local bridging", but this was really a typo and should have read, 
>according to Darren, "split MAC with local bridging"). This mode is 
>not defined in the current SLAPP draft because we were not sure what 
>this mode really meant. It would be good if one of the eval team 
>members presented a clarification on why they concluded such a mode 
>was required. It would be even better if we could also get WG 
>discussion/consensus on whether such a mode is meaningful and is 
>required to be supported in any CAPWAP protocol.
>
>Thanks
>
>partha
>
>