Subject: [Capwap] Closing on 9.2.3

From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 08:29:33 -0800

In order to make sure that we can close on the request in section 9.2.3
of the recommendations document:

Summary: Either use L2TP or GRE for encapsulation

WG Update: Although I raised the issue, no discussion on this topic on
the list

Pat's Recommendation: While I understand the overall recommendation, I
believe that there are 
misunderstandings of what this really means (see 
http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap/msg01864.html
<http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap/msg01864.html> ). My
recommendation is 
that do not implement this change.

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: Darren <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 13:38:35 -0700

I agree that this issue should not be implemented and can be closed.

While the intent to reuse code and go with an existing standard of
some kind for data encapsulation is the right idea, Pat and Puneet
convinced me that that using GRE or L2TP will not actually help LWAPP.
 Upon closer examination, both would need some modification or
addition to carry the RSSI/SNR for data frames.

Regarding firewall/NAT traversal, since L2TP and LWAPP are based on
regular UDP they are effectively equivalent.  GRE is not often NAT'd
automatically by firewalls because it is not based on UDP or TCP.  In
addition, supporting more than one GRE tunnel is not possible without
an application layer (GRE layer) gateway in the firewall.  This is a
significant disadvantage compared to using the existing LWAPP header
for tunneling.

-Darren Loher