Subject: [Capwap] lwapp-dtls: section 2.1.1

From: Scott G Kelly <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 07:03:16 -0800

> 
> 2.1.1.  Separate Control/Data Channel Ports
> 
>    The simplest solution entails using separate ports for LWAPP control
>    and data traffic, with DTLS securing only the control channel.  The
>    control traffic could continue to utilize the current well-known
>    LWAPP port.  For the data channel, a new port could be assigned by
>    IANA, or it could instead be specified by the AC after the DTLS
>    session is established, providing some additional flexibility.  Note
>    that this solution will not work for layer 2 LWAPP encapsulation.
>    However, if L2 support is to be removed from LWAPP, this point is
>    moot.
> [NCW] I do not understand how this proposed scheme would work as the
 > entire lwap construction is encrypted?

Not sure what the question is here. One port is control, the other is 
data, the traffic on the control port is either the handshake or the 
subsequent encrypted control traffic. Am I missing something here?

Scott

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

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