Subject: RE: [Capwap] Proposed Text for Issue 53

From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 09:55:48 -0700

> Do you prefer wasteful? The current proposal is 4 bytes.
> Why burden everyone with 4 bytes per packet just to support 
> this sub-optimal, LWAPP backward compatibility requirement?

This has nothing to do with LWAPP backward compatibility, in fact you
will note that this is actually changing the format of the header. So
clearly one cannot exactly claim that backward compability is main
Motivation here. That said, perhaps it would be useful if you were to 
provide ideas on how you plan to provide real-time monitoring of
signal strength, etc? Or are you claiming that this is not required
and wireless technologies really don't need any different treatment 
over a normal wired connection?

Pat Calhoun
CTO, Wireless Networking Business Unit
Cisco Systems
_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap

Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap

---

From: Jim Murphy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 11:48:27 -0700

Pat,

> over a normal wired connection?

I am not saying that this feature should be removed, it should
just be optional to implement. Please see my original email on this
thread for an explanation of why this phy information is incomplete.

Real time monitoring can occur on the WTP with a trigger sent to the
AC when some condition is met. This is probably very similar to what is
going on in the forward path on your device. An event must be generated
to the control processor when something interesting happens. There is
no reason that this event can't come from the WTP. The set of triggers
can be much richer when run from the WTP since the WTP has much more
information available.

Thanks,

Jim