Subject: [Capwap] I updated the comment to the issue: WTP Id Issue

From: Richard <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 09:45:54 +0800

Hi, Abhijit:

I just discussed the WTP Id issues with my coeditor Yong again by Skype.
I updated the comments to the issues, kindly let me know your opinion.

To Dan: Kindly also let me know your opinion, thanks.

1.  WTP Id issues
[Abhijit] WTP Profile.  While it's possible to use the
(VendorId+SerialNumber), I really suspect that a MAC address is more
appropriate and something most vendors will end up using. To your point
about the Base MAC Address not being a MUST, RFC 5415 seems ambiguous
about it.
Note that while the RFC specifically sates the other types MUST or MAY
be included, it doesn't say so for Base MAC Address.  It says the Base
Mac Address may be assigned but says nothing about whether it MUST or
MAY be included in the Board Data Type.
Another option is the Base BSSID. Again although the spec only says it's
recommended, I suspect most vendors will have it available.
Could we add text to the effect that one can use either the
(VendorId+SerialNumber) as you suggested or the Base MAC Address or Base
BSSID if it's available?

[Richard ] As we could not offer two options (BAC Mac or
(VendorId+SerialNumber))
to identify a WTP when we design the MIB, we have to choose one way  
between
these two.  For either of them,  it  has some problem.
Suppose we use (VendorId+SerialNumber)), the good thing is that they  
are must be
carried in the capwap message. The problem is that the Index to a WTP  
becomes two
(Used be one).  It is not good to the MIB design.
Suppose we use the base MAC, the good thing is that keep the index to  
a WTP simple.
The problem is that RFC5415 does not clearly say whether the field is  
MUST or MAY.

 From the MIB design perspective, it would be better to use "BASE Mac"  
and hope it
is feasible to add some text in the MIB draft and ask that "base MAC  
address" field is must
have.

BTW,  what's your opinion to other two issue?

Regards
Richard

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

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

---

From: "Abhijit Choudhury (achoudhu)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:56:49 -0700

Hi Richard,

1. WTP Id:
	I agree with your assertion below that the Base MAC Address is
the 
	the better choice.  If you can find a creative way to add text
to support
	this, that will be great.

2. Model Number issue:  
	I'm okay with using Model number for preconfiguration prior to
AP join. 
	However, I still assert that folks will use the WTP Descriptor
to figure
      out the number of active radios after the AP joins. So, it's not
clear to
      me how valuable this feature is. But I'm okay with leaving it as
is.

3.  Relationship to IF-MIB
     I still think MUST is too strong a requirement. But if the WG wants
to leave it
     That way, I would go along with it.  Can we find out what the WG
wants ?

Thanks,
Abhijit

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 2009-06-26 18:46
To: Abhijit Choudhury (achoudhu); Dan Romascanu; [email-masked]
Cc: Yong Zhang
Subject: I updated the comment to the issue: WTP Id Issue

Hi, Abhijit:

1.  WTP Id issues

Regards
Richard