Subject: [Capwap] Comments on CAPWAP protocol - based on LWAPP v03

From: Michael Montemurro <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 11:18:08 -0500

There are a couple of issues that I would like bring up for discussion based
on my review of LWAPP v03. 

Page 29, Section 4.2.1.1. Would it make sense to label a range of message
types as "reserved" and/or "vendor specific"?
Vendor Specific would require some additional mechanism, such as the OID. I
think we need to address vendor specific message type. The question is how?

Page 99, Section 11.7.1.1. Is there any way to provision TSPEC's for the
STA? Or would they be done on the AC?
The LWAPP protocol specification implies that Local MAC would be done at the
WTP and  Split MAC would be done at the AC. In the split MAC case, the TSpec
info could be sent to the WTP  in order to allow it to remark northbound
packets based on the TSpec, but this would add complexity, and is not there
today. Does this make sense to do?

Page 102, Section 11.7.2.1. The statistics element does not include counts
of management messages: Assoc, Auth, Dissassociate, Deauth, etc. We assume
that these message counts would be tracked by the AC. Is that correct? How
would this work in a local MAC case? What about traffic count information in
a local MAC case? For that matter, we need to decide what statistics are
tracked and how they are tracked for both split MAC and local MAC
implementations.

Cheers,

	Mike
_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap

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