Subject: Re: [Capwap] This is not need.: Proposed resolution to Issue214-Prioritization of IEEE 802.1X frames

From: "Michael Montemurro" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 16:46:34 -0500

Based on this discussion. I will not make any change to the draft and
mark this issue resolved.

Cheers,

Mike

On 10/9/06, Cheng Hong <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> Hi Pat,
>
> You are right. So, it seems that 802.1X frame may not  even always have
> higher priority over wireless link.
>
> Another concern I have is about the CAPWAP QoS preservation. It seems that
> for the HCCA case, CAPWAP may not be able to guarantee the same QoS over the
> wired section for the STA.
>
> cheers
>
> Cheng Hong
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 1:42 AM
> To: Cheng Hong; Michael Montemurro
> Cc: capwap
> Subject: RE: [Capwap] This is not need.: Proposed resolution to
> Issue214-Prioritization of IEEE 802.1X frames
>
>
> Even in the case of EDCA, there is no guarantees that the STA can send an
> 802.1X frame with a high priority UP field. This is especially true if the
> WTP requires authorization prior to making use of the QoS class.
>
>
> Pat Calhoun
> CTO, Wireless Networking Business Unit
> Cisco Systems
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Cheng Hong [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 6:20 PM
> To: Michael Montemurro
> Cc: capwap
> Subject: Re: [Capwap] This is not need.: Proposed resolution to
> Issue214-Prioritization of IEEE 802.1X frames
>
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> In the HCCA case, the TID value is in the range of 8 to 15, and according to
> clause 6.1.1.1.1 point b:
>
> "b) QoS subtypes, in which case the QAP shall infer the UP value from the
> TID in the QoS Control field
> directly for TID values between 0 and 7. For TID values between 8 and 15,
> the QAP shall extract the
> UP value in the UP subfield of the TS Info field in the associated TSPEC or
> from the UP field in the
> associated TCLAS (traffic classification) element, as applicable."
>
> It seems that the WTP needs to do much more to obtain the actual UP value.
> In case the TSPEC or TCLAS elemets are located at the AC, how would the WTP
> get the UP value in the HCCA case?
>
> Or is there any place that prevents sending EAPOL frames using HCCA? If that
> is the case, it is not a problem. But, then again, all the data traffic sent
> using HCCA will have difficulty to obtain the correct priority in CAPWAP
> delivery.
>
> cheers
>
> Cheng Hong
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Michael Montemurro [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 2:23 AM
> To: Cheng Hong
> Cc: capwap
> Subject: Re: [Capwap] This is not need.: Proposed resolution to Issue
> 214-Prioritization of IEEE 802.1X frames
>
>
> Cheng,
>
> In the HCCA case, the TID case should work as well. I don't see why it
> wouldn't.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
>
>
> On 9/26/06, Cheng Hong <[email-masked]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi Mike,
> >
> > It seems OK to use TID in the EDCA case. If the HCCA is used, would the
> TID still be meaningful in mapping the priority? (Haven't check the 802.11
> standards in detail).
> >
> > cheers
> >
> > Cheng Hong
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> From: Michael Montemurro [mailto:[email-masked] ]
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 12:24 AM
> >
> > To: Cheng Hong
> > Cc: zhaoyujin 31390; capwap
> > Subject: Re: [Capwap] This is not need.: Proposed resolution to Issue 214
> -Prioritization of IEEE 802.1X frames
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Cheng,
> >
> > Thanks for you input.
> >
> > Also, that's a good question. In my opinion, the CAPWAP priority should be
> based on the TID(UP). Which means yes, the WTP would need to read into the
> QoS control field.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > On 9/25/06, Cheng Hong <[email-masked] > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Mike,
> > >
> > > In this case, I tend to agree with the other Michael on the first point.
> > >
> > > However, on the mapping 802.11e priority back to CAPWAP priority, I am
> not really sure how that is done. Is it based on 802.11e AC or TID (UP)? For
> later case, does it mean the WTP need to read into the QoS Control Field?
> > >
> > > cheers
> > >
> > > Cheng Hong
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> From: Michael Montemurro [mailto:[email-masked] ]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 1:17 AM
> > > To: Cheng Hong
> > > Cc: zhaoyujin 31390; capwap
> > >
> > > Subject: Re: [Capwap] This is not need.: Proposed resolution to Issue
> 214 -Prioritization of IEEE 802.1X frames
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Cheng Hong,
> > >
> > > In the CAPWAP draft, both wireless data and management frames are
> treated as CAPWAP data frames. Given that, all CAPWAP data traffic would
> need to go to the same logical instance of the AC.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 9/24/06, Cheng Hong <[email-masked] > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Michael & Michael,
> > > >
> > > > Sorry if the issue has already been discussed before. Just thinking if
> the WTP does not differentiate 802.1X frames from normal data frames, would
> it be possible that the 802.1X frames being forwarded to a different AC
> instance than the one processing the control/management frames? (in case
> different ACs are used to process the control and data channel) Is this
> acceptable?
> > > >
> > > > cheers
> > > >
> > > > Cheng Hong
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> From: Michael Montemurro [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > > Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 3:18 AM
> > > > To: zhaoyujin 31390
> > > > Cc: capwap
> > > > Subject: Re: [Capwap] This is not need.: Proposed resolution to Issue
> 214 -Prioritization of IEEE 802.1X frames
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Michael,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks. Is anybody else opinionated on this feature.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > >
> > > > Mike
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 9/23/06, zhaoyujin 31390 <[email-masked] > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Firstly, I have some doubt one this suggestion.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. If CAPWAP difines like this, AP device must decode the payload
> frames of 802.11 frames.
> > > > > 2. Another problem, the 802.1x priority should be implement by
> 802.11e. When station sends 802.11 data frames, it can set 802.11e priority.
> AP should transfer 802.11e to actual CAPWAP packet priority.
> > > > >
> > > > > So that I think CAPWAP does not need consider the priority of 802.11
> data frames payload.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > > Michael
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >Practically speaking, IEEE 802.1X frames should be transmitted at
> the same priority as >IEEE 802.11 Management frames.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >I will update Section 11.5, rename Quality of Service for IEEE
> 802.11 Control Messages >to "Quality
> > > > > >of Service for IEEE 802.11 control messages and IEEE 802.1X EAPoL
> frames" and add text to >indicate that IEEE 802.1X frames are sent at a
> higher priority.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Cheers,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Mike
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > This e-mail and attachments contain confidential information from
> HUAWEI, which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is
> listed above. Any use of the information contained herein in any way
> (including, but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction,
> or dissemination) by persons other than the intended recipient's) is
> prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by
> phone or email
> > > > > immediately and delete it!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Practically speaking, IEEE 802.1X frames should be transmitted at
> the same priority as IEEE 802.11 Management frames.
> > > > >
> > > > > I will update Section 11.5, rename Quality of Service for IEEE
> 802.11 Control Messages to "Quality
> > > > > of Service for IEEE 802.11 control messages and IEEE 802.1X EAPoL
> frames" and add text to indicate that IEEE 802.1X frames are sent at a
> higher priority.
> > > > >
> > > > > 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
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap

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