Subject: [ANCP] Question about the Tech Type in draft-ietf-ancp-protocol-05

From: Fortune HUANG <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 12:27:35 +0800

Hi all,
 
I have a question about the Tech Type in ANCP protocol for clarification.
 
It says "Tech Type" value of 0x05 SHOULD be used by ANCP for DSL technology
in section 5.4.1.1 of draft-ietf-ancp-protocol-05.
 
I can find two related technology type registries at the website
http://www.iana.org/protocols/ as follows, but the 0x05 has been allocated
in both registries. Is the first registry with the name Access Technology
Types the right registry for the Tech Type in ANCP protocol, please? If it
is, I propose we change the 0x05 for DSL in section 5.4.1.1 to be 0x09 or
"to be allocated by IANA"  in order to avoid incorrect implementation.
 
Registry Name: Access Technology Types
Reference: [RFC-leung-mip4-proxy-mode-10.txt]
Registration Procedures: Expert Review

Registry:
Value     Name                                               Reference
--------  -------------------------------------------------  ---------
0         Reserved
[RFC-leung-mip4-proxy-mode-10.txt]
1         802.3
[RFC-leung-mip4-proxy-mode-10.txt]
2         802.11a/b/g
[RFC-leung-mip4-proxy-mode-10.txt]
3         802.16e
[RFC-leung-mip4-proxy-mode-10.txt]
4         802.16m
[RFC-leung-mip4-proxy-mode-10.txt]
5         3GPP EUTRAN/LTE
[RFC-leung-mip4-proxy-mode-10.txt]
6         3GPP UTRAN/GERAN
[RFC-leung-mip4-proxy-mode-10.txt]
7         3GPP2 1xRTT/HRPD
[RFC-leung-mip4-proxy-mode-10.txt]
8         3GPP2 UMB
[RFC-leung-mip4-proxy-mode-10.txt]
9-255     Unassigned

Access Technology Type Option type values 

Reference 

[ <http://www.iana.org/go/rfc5213> RFC5213] 

Registration Procedures 

Expert Review 

Value	 Description	 Reference	 Registration Date	
0	 Reserved	 [ <http://www.iana.org/go/rfc5213> RFC5213]

1	 Virtual	 [ <http://www.iana.org/go/rfc5213> RFC5213]

2	 PPP	 [ <http://www.iana.org/go/rfc5213> RFC5213]	 	
3	 IEEE 802.3	 [ <http://www.iana.org/go/rfc5213> RFC5213]

4	 IEEE 802.11a/b/g	 [ <http://www.iana.org/go/rfc5213> RFC5213]

5	 IEEE 802.16e	 [ <http://www.iana.org/go/rfc5213> RFC5213]

6	 3GPP GERAN	 [ <http://www.3gpp.org/specs/specs.htm> 3GPP TS
29.275][
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters/mobility-parameters.xht
ml#Julien_Laganier> Julien_Laganier]	 2008-07-30	
7	 3GPP UTRAN	 [ <http://www.3gpp.org/specs/specs.htm> 3GPP TS
29.275][
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters/mobility-parameters.xht
ml#Julien_Laganier> Julien_Laganier]	 2008-07-30	
8	 3GPP E-UTRAN	 [ <http://www.3gpp.org/specs/specs.htm> 3GPP TS
29.275][
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters/mobility-parameters.xht
ml#Julien_Laganier> Julien_Laganier]	 2008-07-30	
9	 3GPP2 eHRPD	 [
<http://www.3gpp2.org/public_html/specs/index.cfm> 3GPP2 X.P0057][
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters/mobility-parameters.xht
ml#Kuntal_Chowdhury> Kuntal_Chowdhury]	 2008-08-21	
10	 3GPP2 HRPD	 [
<http://www.3gpp2.org/public_html/specs/index.cfm> 3GPP2 X.P0061][
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters/mobility-parameters.xht
ml#Kuntal_Chowdhury> Kuntal_Chowdhury]	 2008-08-21	
11	 3GPP2 1xRTT	 [
<http://www.3gpp2.org/public_html/specs/index.cfm> 3GPP2 X.S0011][
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters/mobility-parameters.xht
ml#Kuntal_Chowdhury> Kuntal_Chowdhury]	 2008-08-21	
12	 3GPP2 UMB	 [
<http://www.3gpp2.org/public_html/specs/index.cfm> 3GPP2 X.S0054][
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters/mobility-parameters.xht
ml#Kuntal_Chowdhury> Kuntal_Chowdhury]	 2008-08-21	
13-255	 Unassigned	 		

Best Regards,
Fortune

---

From: Sanjay Wadhwa <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 10:47:00 -0400

Hi Fortune

The intent is to define an ANCP specific tech-type registry, and not
take what MIP/PMIP uses as per your reference below.

Regards

-Sanjay

________________________________

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Fortune HUANG
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 12:28 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ANCP] Question about the Tech Type in
draft-ietf-ancp-protocol-05

Hi all,

I have a question about the Tech Type in ANCP protocol for
clarification.

It says "Tech Type" value of 0x05 SHOULD be used by ANCP for DSL
technology in section 5.4.1.1 of draft-ietf-ancp-protocol-05.

I can find two related technology type registries at the website
http://www.iana.org/protocols/ as follows, but the 0x05 has been
allocated in both registries. Is the first registry with the name Access
Technology Types the right registry for the Tech Type in ANCP protocol,
please? If it is, I propose we change the 0x05 for DSL in section
5.4.1.1 to be 0x09 or "to be allocated by IANA"  in order to avoid
incorrect implementation.

Registry:
Value     Name                                               Reference

Reference 

[RFC5213 <http://www.iana.org/go/rfc5213> ] 

Registration Procedures 

Expert Review 

Value

Description

Reference

Registration Date

0

Reserved

[RFC5213 <http://www.iana.org/go/rfc5213> ]

1

Virtual

[RFC5213 <http://www.iana.org/go/rfc5213> ]

2

PPP

[RFC5213 <http://www.iana.org/go/rfc5213> ]

3

IEEE 802.3

[RFC5213 <http://www.iana.org/go/rfc5213> ]

4

IEEE 802.11a/b/g

[RFC5213 <http://www.iana.org/go/rfc5213> ]

5

IEEE 802.16e

[RFC5213 <http://www.iana.org/go/rfc5213> ]

6

3GPP GERAN

[3GPP TS 29.275 <http://www.3gpp.org/specs/specs.htm> ][Julien_Laganier
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters/mobility-parameters
.xhtml#Julien_Laganier> ]

2008-07-30

7

3GPP UTRAN

[3GPP TS 29.275 <http://www.3gpp.org/specs/specs.htm> ][Julien_Laganier
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters/mobility-parameters
.xhtml#Julien_Laganier> ]

2008-07-30

8

3GPP E-UTRAN

[3GPP TS 29.275 <http://www.3gpp.org/specs/specs.htm> ][Julien_Laganier
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters/mobility-parameters
.xhtml#Julien_Laganier> ]

2008-07-30

9

3GPP2 eHRPD

[3GPP2 X.P0057 <http://www.3gpp2.org/public_html/specs/index.cfm>
][Kuntal_Chowdhury
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters/mobility-parameters
.xhtml#Kuntal_Chowdhury> ]

2008-08-21

10

3GPP2 HRPD

[3GPP2 X.P0061 <http://www.3gpp2.org/public_html/specs/index.cfm>
][Kuntal_Chowdhury
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters/mobility-parameters
.xhtml#Kuntal_Chowdhury> ]

2008-08-21

11

3GPP2 1xRTT

[3GPP2 X.S0011 <http://www.3gpp2.org/public_html/specs/index.cfm>
][Kuntal_Chowdhury
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters/mobility-parameters
.xhtml#Kuntal_Chowdhury> ]

2008-08-21

12

3GPP2 UMB

[3GPP2 X.S0054 <http://www.3gpp2.org/public_html/specs/index.cfm>
][Kuntal_Chowdhury
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters/mobility-parameters
.xhtml#Kuntal_Chowdhury> ]

2008-08-21

13-255

Unassigned

 

Best Regards,

Fortune

---

From: Fortune HUANG <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 09:17:10 +0800

Hi Sanjay,
 
Thank you very much for your answer.
 
But in the text in section 5.4.1.1 as follows, if the tech type is new
registry, then what types of technologies are the 0x01 ~ 0x04 indicates
respectively? I think they should be clearly specified, although I guess
they might be 0x01 for 802.3, 0x02 for 802.11a/b/g, 0x03 for 802.163, 0x04
for 802.16m. Is it correct?
 
"Tech Type
 
         An 8-bit field indicating the applicable technology type value.
         The Message Type plus the Tech Value uniquely define a single
         Extension Type and can be treated as a single 16 bit extension
         type.  "Tech Type" value of 0x05 SHOULD be used by ANCP for DSL
         technology.
 
            0x00 Extension block not in use.
 
            0x01 - 0x04 Already in use by various technologies
 
            0x05 DSL
 
            0x06 - 0xFE Reserved
 
            0xFF Base Specification Use
"
 
Best Regards,
Fortune

  _____  

From: Sanjay Wadhwa [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 10:47 PM
To: Fortune HUANG; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ANCP] Question about the Tech Type in
draft-ietf-ancp-protocol-05

Hi Fortune

The intent is to define an ANCP specific tech-type registry, and not take
what MIP/PMIP uses as per your reference below.

Regards

-Sanjay

  _____  

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Fortune HUANG
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 12:28 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ANCP] Question about the Tech Type in draft-ietf-ancp-protocol-05

Hi all,

Registry:
Value     Name                                               Reference

Reference 

Registration Procedures 

Expert Review 

Value

Description

Reference

Registration Date

0

Reserved

1

Virtual

2

PPP

3

IEEE 802.3

4

IEEE 802.11a/b/g

5

IEEE 802.16e

6

3GPP GERAN

[ <http://www.3gpp.org/specs/specs.htm> 3GPP TS 29.275][
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters/mobility-parameters.xht
ml#Julien_Laganier> Julien_Laganier]

2008-07-30

7

3GPP UTRAN

[ <http://www.3gpp.org/specs/specs.htm> 3GPP TS 29.275][
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters/mobility-parameters.xht
ml#Julien_Laganier> Julien_Laganier]

2008-07-30

8

3GPP E-UTRAN

[ <http://www.3gpp.org/specs/specs.htm> 3GPP TS 29.275][
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters/mobility-parameters.xht
ml#Julien_Laganier> Julien_Laganier]

2008-07-30

9

3GPP2 eHRPD

[ <http://www.3gpp2.org/public_html/specs/index.cfm> 3GPP2 X.P0057][
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters/mobility-parameters.xht
ml#Kuntal_Chowdhury> Kuntal_Chowdhury]

2008-08-21

10

3GPP2 HRPD

[ <http://www.3gpp2.org/public_html/specs/index.cfm> 3GPP2 X.P0061][
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters/mobility-parameters.xht
ml#Kuntal_Chowdhury> Kuntal_Chowdhury]

2008-08-21

11

3GPP2 1xRTT

[ <http://www.3gpp2.org/public_html/specs/index.cfm> 3GPP2 X.S0011][
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters/mobility-parameters.xht
ml#Kuntal_Chowdhury> Kuntal_Chowdhury]

2008-08-21

12

3GPP2 UMB

[ <http://www.3gpp2.org/public_html/specs/index.cfm> 3GPP2 X.S0054][
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters/mobility-parameters.xht
ml#Kuntal_Chowdhury> Kuntal_Chowdhury]

2008-08-21

13-255

Unassigned

 

Best Regards,

Fortune

---

From: Fortune HUANG <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:19:57 +0800

Hi all,
 
Given no further response on this thread, I assume almost none of the people
in the ANCP mailing list knows what those technologies indicated by Tech
Type values of 0x01~0x04 are. 
 
If Sanjay was right that the Tech Type would a new IANA registry, then
according to the charter of ANCP WG, only the DSL and PON (newly added)
technologies should be defined and maybe we should withdraw the allocation
of 0x01~0x04. 
 
But since PON is now in the charter, we should anyway allocate a Tech Type
value for PON. 

Best Regards,
Fortune

  _____  

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Fortune HUANG
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 9:17 AM
To: 'Sanjay Wadhwa'; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ANCP] Question about the Tech Type in
draft-ietf-ancp-protocol-05

Hi Sanjay,

 
"Tech Type

 
 
            0x05 DSL
 
            0x06 - 0xFE Reserved

Best Regards,
Fortune

  _____  

Hi Fortune

Regards

-Sanjay

  _____  

Hi all,

Registry:
Value     Name                                               Reference

Reference 

Registration Procedures 

Expert Review 

Value

Description

Reference

Registration Date

0

Reserved

1

Virtual

2

PPP

3

IEEE 802.3

4

IEEE 802.11a/b/g

5

IEEE 802.16e

6

3GPP GERAN

2008-07-30

7

3GPP UTRAN

2008-07-30

8

3GPP E-UTRAN

2008-07-30

9

3GPP2 eHRPD

2008-08-21

10

3GPP2 HRPD

2008-08-21

11

3GPP2 1xRTT

2008-08-21

12

3GPP2 UMB

2008-08-21

13-255

Unassigned

 

Best Regards,

Fortune

---

From: Sanjay Wadhwa <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 08:24:59 -0400

Fortune
  Tech Type was originally specified in GSMPv3 drafts (post RFC). 0x01-0x04 was intended to be allocated for existing technologies that were trying to leverage GSMP at the time. Given "Tech type" is not part of base GSMP RFC, and is an ANCP specific extension, it makes sense to define ANCP specific "Tech type" registry where 0x01-0x04 should be available for allocation (we can update the ANCP protocol draft). We don't need to change what has been allocated for DSL (0x05) though. We will need to allocate a value for PON.

Regards
-Sanjay
________________________________
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Fortune HUANG
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 5:20 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ANCP] Question about the Tech Type in draft-ietf-ancp-protocol-05

Hi all,

Given no further response on this thread, I assume almost none of the people in the ANCP mailing list knows what those technologies indicated by Tech Type values of 0x01~0x04 are.

If Sanjay was right that the Tech Type would a new IANA registry, then according to the charter of ANCP WG, only the DSL and PON (newly added) technologies should be defined and maybe we should withdraw the allocation of 0x01~0x04.

But since PON is now in the charter, we should anyway allocate a Tech Type value for PON.

Best Regards,
Fortune

________________________________
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Fortune HUANG
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 9:17 AM
To: 'Sanjay Wadhwa'; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ANCP] Question about the Tech Type in draft-ietf-ancp-protocol-05
Hi Sanjay,

But in the text in section 5.4.1.1 as follows, if the tech type is new registry, then what types of technologies are the 0x01 ~ 0x04 indicates respectively? I think they should be clearly specified, although I guess they might be 0x01 for 802.3, 0x02 for 802.11a/b/g, 0x03 for 802.163, 0x04 for 802.16m. Is it correct?

"Tech Type

            0x05 DSL

            0x06 - 0xFE Reserved

Best Regards,
Fortune
________________________________
From: Sanjay Wadhwa [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 10:47 PM
To: Fortune HUANG; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ANCP] Question about the Tech Type in draft-ietf-ancp-protocol-05
Hi Fortune
The intent is to define an ANCP specific tech-type registry, and not take what MIP/PMIP uses as per your reference below.

Regards
-Sanjay

________________________________
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Fortune HUANG
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 12:28 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ANCP] Question about the Tech Type in draft-ietf-ancp-protocol-05

Hi all,

It says "Tech Type" value of 0x05 SHOULD be used by ANCP for DSL technology in section 5.4.1.1 of draft-ietf-ancp-protocol-05.

I can find two related technology type registries at the website http://www.iana.org/protocols/ as follows, but the 0x05 has been allocated in both registries. Is the first registry with the name Access Technology Types the right registry for the Tech Type in ANCP protocol, please? If it is, I propose we change the 0x05 for DSL in section 5.4.1.1 to be 0x09 or "to be allocated by IANA"  in order to avoid incorrect implementation.

Registry:
Value     Name                                               Reference
--------  -------------------------------------------------  ---------
0         Reserved                                           [RFC-leung-mip4-proxy-mode-10.txt]
1         802.3                                              [RFC-leung-mip4-proxy-mode-10.txt]
2         802.11a/b/g                                        [RFC-leung-mip4-proxy-mode-10.txt]
3         802.16e                                            [RFC-leung-mip4-proxy-mode-10.txt]
4         802.16m                                            [RFC-leung-mip4-proxy-mode-10.txt]
5         3GPP EUTRAN/LTE                                    [RFC-leung-mip4-proxy-mode-10.txt]
6         3GPP UTRAN/GERAN                                   [RFC-leung-mip4-proxy-mode-10.txt]
7         3GPP2 1xRTT/HRPD                                   [RFC-leung-mip4-proxy-mode-10.txt]
8         3GPP2 UMB                                          [RFC-leung-mip4-proxy-mode-10.txt]
9-255     Unassigned
Access Technology Type Option type values
Reference
[RFC5213<http://www.iana.org/go/rfc5213>]
Registration Procedures
Expert Review
Value

Description

Reference

Registration Date

0

Reserved

[RFC5213<http://www.iana.org/go/rfc5213>]

1

Virtual

[RFC5213<http://www.iana.org/go/rfc5213>]

2

PPP

[RFC5213<http://www.iana.org/go/rfc5213>]

3

IEEE 802.3

[RFC5213<http://www.iana.org/go/rfc5213>]

4

IEEE 802.11a/b/g

[RFC5213<http://www.iana.org/go/rfc5213>]

5

IEEE 802.16e

[RFC5213<http://www.iana.org/go/rfc5213>]

6

3GPP GERAN

[3GPP TS 29.275<http://www.3gpp.org/specs/specs.htm>][Julien_Laganier<http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters/mobility-parameters.xhtml#Julien_Laganier>]

2008-07-30

7

3GPP UTRAN

[3GPP TS 29.275<http://www.3gpp.org/specs/specs.htm>][Julien_Laganier<http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters/mobility-parameters.xhtml#Julien_Laganier>]

2008-07-30

8

3GPP E-UTRAN

[3GPP TS 29.275<http://www.3gpp.org/specs/specs.htm>][Julien_Laganier<http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters/mobility-parameters.xhtml#Julien_Laganier>]

2008-07-30

9

3GPP2 eHRPD

[3GPP2 X.P0057<http://www.3gpp2.org/public_html/specs/index.cfm>][Kuntal_Chowdhury<http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters/mobility-parameters.xhtml#Kuntal_Chowdhury>]

2008-08-21

10

3GPP2 HRPD

[3GPP2 X.P0061<http://www.3gpp2.org/public_html/specs/index.cfm>][Kuntal_Chowdhury<http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters/mobility-parameters.xhtml#Kuntal_Chowdhury>]

2008-08-21

11

3GPP2 1xRTT

[3GPP2 X.S0011<http://www.3gpp2.org/public_html/specs/index.cfm>][Kuntal_Chowdhury<http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters/mobility-parameters.xhtml#Kuntal_Chowdhury>]

2008-08-21

12

3GPP2 UMB

[3GPP2 X.S0054<http://www.3gpp2.org/public_html/specs/index.cfm>][Kuntal_Chowdhury<http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters/mobility-parameters.xhtml#Kuntal_Chowdhury>]

2008-08-21

13-255

Unassigned

Best Regards,
Fortune

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 14:54:25 +0200

Sanjay, Fortune,
 
given the fact that an access node became now a multi service access
node. 
Would it make sense if we specify new tech type values considering most
common existing AN-UNI interfaces as well?
The next step should be to identify which use case keeps valid for which
technology.
 
I'm thinking of - ATM/STM-1 tributary line card
                     - GE-UNI
 
Regards
 
Thomas

  _____  

Von: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] Im Auftrag von
Sanjay Wadhwa
Gesendet: Dienstag, 21. April 2009 14:25
An: Fortune HUANG; [email-masked]
Betreff: Re: [ANCP] Question about the TechType in
draft-ietf-ancp-protocol-05

Fortune

  Tech Type was originally specified in GSMPv3 drafts (post RFC).
0x01-0x04 was intended to be allocated for existing technologies that
were trying to leverage GSMP at the time. Given "Tech type" is not part
of base GSMP RFC, and is an ANCP specific extension, it makes sense to
define ANCP specific "Tech type" registry where 0x01-0x04 should be
available for allocation (we can update the ANCP protocol draft). We
don't need to change what has been allocated for DSL (0x05) though. We
will need to allocate a value for PON.

Regards

-Sanjay

  _____  

Hi all,

Given no further response on this thread, I assume almost none of the
people in the ANCP mailing list knows what those technologies indicated
by Tech Type values of 0x01~0x04 are. 

If Sanjay was right that the Tech Type would a new IANA registry, then
according to the charter of ANCP WG, only the DSL and PON (newly added)
technologies should be defined and maybe we should withdraw the
allocation of 0x01~0x04. 

But since PON is now in the charter, we should anyway allocate a Tech
Type value for PON. 

Best Regards,

Fortune

  _____  

Hi Sanjay,

But in the text in section 5.4.1.1 as follows, if the tech type is new
registry, then what types of technologies are the 0x01 ~ 0x04 indicates
respectively? I think they should be clearly specified, although I guess
they might be 0x01 for 802.3, 0x02 for 802.11a/b/g, 0x03 for 802.163,
0x04 for 802.16m. Is it correct?

"Tech Type

            0x05 DSL

            0x06 - 0xFE Reserved

"

Best Regards,

Fortune

  _____  

Hi Fortune

Regards

-Sanjay

  _____  

Hi all,

Registry:
Value     Name                                               Reference

Reference 

Registration Procedures 

Expert Review 

Value

Description

Reference

Registration Date

0

Reserved

1

Virtual

2

PPP

3

IEEE 802.3

4

IEEE 802.11a/b/g

5

IEEE 802.16e

6

3GPP GERAN

[ <http://www.3gpp.org/specs/specs.htm> 3GPP TS 29.275][
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters/mobility-parameters
.xhtml#Julien_Laganier> Julien_Laganier]

2008-07-30

7

3GPP UTRAN

[ <http://www.3gpp.org/specs/specs.htm> 3GPP TS 29.275][
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters/mobility-parameters
.xhtml#Julien_Laganier> Julien_Laganier]

2008-07-30

8

3GPP E-UTRAN

[ <http://www.3gpp.org/specs/specs.htm> 3GPP TS 29.275][
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters/mobility-parameters
.xhtml#Julien_Laganier> Julien_Laganier]

2008-07-30

9

3GPP2 eHRPD

[ <http://www.3gpp2.org/public_html/specs/index.cfm> 3GPP2 X.P0057][
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters/mobility-parameters
.xhtml#Kuntal_Chowdhury> Kuntal_Chowdhury]

2008-08-21

10

3GPP2 HRPD

[ <http://www.3gpp2.org/public_html/specs/index.cfm> 3GPP2 X.P0061][
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters/mobility-parameters
.xhtml#Kuntal_Chowdhury> Kuntal_Chowdhury]

2008-08-21

11

3GPP2 1xRTT

[ <http://www.3gpp2.org/public_html/specs/index.cfm> 3GPP2 X.S0011][
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters/mobility-parameters
.xhtml#Kuntal_Chowdhury> Kuntal_Chowdhury]

2008-08-21

12

3GPP2 UMB

[ <http://www.3gpp2.org/public_html/specs/index.cfm> 3GPP2 X.S0054][
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters/mobility-parameters
.xhtml#Kuntal_Chowdhury> Kuntal_Chowdhury]

2008-08-21

13-255

Unassigned

 

Best Regards,

Fortune

---

From: Fortune HUANG <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 09:11:18 +0800

Hi Sanjay,

I agree with your opinion that we should keep 0x05 for DSL.
 
Given 0x01~0x04 should be available for allocation, I propose to allocate
0x01 for PON. Is it acceptable, please?

Best Regards,
Fortune

  _____  

Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 8:25 PM

Fortune

  Tech Type was originally specified in GSMPv3 drafts (post RFC). 0x01-0x04
was intended to be allocated for existing technologies that were trying to
leverage GSMP at the time. Given "Tech type" is not part of base GSMP RFC,
and is an ANCP specific extension, it makes sense to define ANCP specific
"Tech type" registry where 0x01-0x04 should be available for allocation (we
can update the ANCP protocol draft). We don't need to change what has been
allocated for DSL (0x05) though. We will need to allocate a value for PON.

Regards

-Sanjay

  _____  

Hi all,

 

Best Regards,

Fortune

  _____  

Hi Sanjay,

"Tech Type

            0x05 DSL

            0x06 - 0xFE Reserved

"

Best Regards,

Fortune

  _____  

Hi Fortune

Regards

-Sanjay

  _____  

Hi all,

Registry:
Value     Name                                               Reference

Reference 

Registration Procedures 

Expert Review 

Value

Description

Reference

Registration Date

0

Reserved

1

Virtual

2

PPP

3

IEEE 802.3

4

IEEE 802.11a/b/g

5

IEEE 802.16e

6

3GPP GERAN

2008-07-30

7

3GPP UTRAN

2008-07-30

8

3GPP E-UTRAN

2008-07-30

9

3GPP2 eHRPD

2008-08-21

10

3GPP2 HRPD

2008-08-21

11

3GPP2 1xRTT

2008-08-21

12

3GPP2 UMB

2008-08-21

13-255

Unassigned

 

Best Regards,

Fortune