Subject: [Capwap] suggestion for Issue # 204, "More general wireless support"

From: young <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 18:05:01 +0530

Hi Pat and all,

I used to raise issue #204, and here intend to give solution.

1)      Redefine 11.9.1 "IEEE 802.11 add WLAN" as "Add wireless service",
and put it in the section 4.4

The glossary "wireless service" will be more abstract than "WLAN".

Refer to current "IEEE 802.11 add WLAN" format, we could keep 

Radio ID, service ID (rename "WLAN ID" to it), MAC Mode, tunnel mode

these kinds common element (more element maybe put here). 

While for any specific wireless binding could follow the Wireless binding
identifier.

The Wireless binding identifier will identify what kinds binding are using

(Probably eventually managed by IANA)

        0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1

       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

       |    Radio ID   |    WLAN ID    |        MAC Mode    | Tunnel Mode
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

       |             Wireless binding identifier                     |

       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

       |         Type                  |             Length            |

       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

       |                          Value...

       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

It is similar for "IEEE 802.11 deletes WLAN" and "IEEE 802.11 Update WLAN".

2) Rename "11.9.22.  IEEE 802.11 WTP Quality of Service" as  "WTP Quality of
Service"

Same idea, we could keep the radio ID, Tag Packets, Queue Depth in the "WTP
Quality of Service".

For any binding, we use Wireless binding identifier to suggest them.

For Tag Packets, if IANA already have some kind assignment, it will be
great.

3)      Add "WTP RF Radio configuration" in the section 4.4 

The Tx power, radio type, channel assignment and so on these kind parameter
are common for any kind wireless binding.

I suggest CAPWAP define it in the base protocol part.

Although the protocol already has "WTP Radio Information", while Tx power
these kind Info should not be sent 

during discovery and join phase. So the separated "WTP RF Radio
configuration" is better.

If keep them in one, which element will be mandatory in what kind message
should be suggested by protocol.

The TLV of "WTP RF Radio configuration" will include radio ID, radio type,
Tx power, Channel, country code and so on. 

For any binding, we use Wireless binding identifier to suggest them.

The "WTP RF Radio configuration" could be sent by bi-direction, by this way,
AC could configure WTP's RF parameter

and know current configuration on the WTP radio.

If this way, current "11.9.18.  IEEE 802.11 Tx Power", "11.9.12.  IEEE
802.11 OFDM Control "and "11.9.5.  

IEEE 802.11 Direct Sequence Control" and so on will merely keep the IEEE
802.11 related element.

4)      Redefine "IEEE 802.11 Statistics" as  "WTP Statistics" in the
section 4.4 

Most case, the wireless binding will be link layer protocol, I think most
the element in the "IEEE 802.11 Statistics" 

could be put on the section 4.4, except the element like "RTS Success Count"
and so on.

For any binding, we use Wireless binding identifier to suggest them.

Any way, I thought many TLV will change their location as new CAPWAP will be
divided into two parts.

Cheers

Richard  (Shiyang)

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

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