Subject: Comments to draft-ietf-v6ops-802-16-deployment-scenarios-00

From: "Soininen Jonne (Nokia-NET/Espoo)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 03:00:18 +0300

Hi,

I just remembered that I was supposed to review the document in
questions. I had many questions and comments, so I took here only the
ones that I thought were the most critical.

1) I'm not sure what network this document is describing. At least, I
couldn't recognize Wimax from this document. Is this WiBro or is this a
general 802.16(e) network as described in the IEEE 802.16(e) specs
without a system specification?

2) How is this connected to the 16ng WG work?

3) I'm not sure if the document is describing really IPv6 deployment
scenarios, 802.16 network architecture options, 802.16 deployment
scenarios, or provides more of a tutorial to 802.16. There are many
things explained and discussed that seem to be more of a study of 802.16
itself. Or maybe I'm just confused myself (good probability).

4) Title, "ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in Wireless Broadband Access
Networks", might be a bit misleading. The document discusses actually
about 802.16(e) wireless networks and other wireless broadband access
networks are not considered. Maybe "IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in 802.16
(e) networks" would be a better title.

5) Section 2.2: A Cellular-like Deployment Model "All original IPv6
functionalities will not survive and some of them might be compromised
to efficiently serve IPv6 to this 'Cellular-like' use case." 
I couldn't quite understand this. Maybe rephrasing would be in order.

6) Section 2.2: A Cellular-like Deployment Model "In particular, IEEE
802.16e working group standardized such mobility features and the
specification of IEEE 802.16e provides some competition to the existing
cellular systems."
I wonder how useful the information that the author believes that
802.16e is competing with existing cellular systems. This document
should be about deploying IPv6 over IEEE 802.16, in my opinion - not a
business outlook...

7) Section 2.2: " Under the use case, however, IEEE 802.16 standards are
still IP-centric, providing packet-switched approach, while cellular
standards like GSM have a more circuit-switched approach." 
I wonder if this comparison should be here. Especially, as GPRS provides
a packet based service over GSM and WCDMA radios. Anyways, I think this
info does not help to understand the IPv6 issues in 802.16e networks.

Cheers,

Jonne.
-- 
Jonne Soininen
Nokia

Tel: +358 40 527 46 34
E-mail: [email-masked]

---

From: Myung-Ki Shin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 10:28:25 +0900

Hi Jonne, many thanks for this.

> ones that I thought were the most critical.

Actullay, authors are now updating the draft(-01), so we will send the 
revised one to you (and Jordi, Alain) first to review it again before it 
is published.

> without a system specification?

The goal of this draft is to describe IPv6 deployment scenarios in IEEE
802.16(e), not specific to WiMAX or WiBro only.  We consider all the
possible deployment scenarios over IEEE 802.16(e).

At this phase, we are going to rephrasing the scenarios according to
comments from WiMAX, WiBro experts, etc.; mobile access deployment, 
fixed/nomadic deployment and 3GPP-like deployment scenarios.  We don't
need to describe detail system specifications.

As you know, 16ng WG is also discussing about subnet models over IEEE 
802.16(e) and scope of 16ng WG (e.g., more than that of WiMAX). We are
following the discussion up too.

> 2) How is this connected to the 16ng WG work?

V6ops is in collaboration with 16ng WG with respect to this draft.
This darft is also refered to initial discussion of the subnet DT of
16ng.

http://daniel.vsix.net/16ng/v6subnetdt.html

> itself. Or maybe I'm just confused myself (good probability).

We will try more to come into focus on IPv6 deployment scenarios, but
follow the structure of [I-D.ietf-v6ops-bb-deployment-scenarios].

> (e) networks" would be a better title.

It seems to be fine with me.

> I couldn't quite understand this. Maybe rephrasing would be in order. 

Okay.

> should be about deploying IPv6 over IEEE 802.16, in my opinion - not a

We will remove this.

> info does not help to understand the IPv6 issues in 802.16e networks.

Fine with me.

Thanks,
Myung-Ki,

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 11:32:10 +0200

I would suggest also looking carefully at
draft-iab-link-encaps-02.txt. It's directly relevant
to the operational complexity problems of IP over 802.16
caused by the existence of multiple convergence
sublayers. I think the scenarios need to be more specific
about the CS choices and about how roaming will work when
forced to move from one CS to another.

     Brian

Myung-Ki Shin wrote:
>> to efficiently serve IPv6 to this 'Cellular-like' use case." I 
>> couldn't quite understand this. Maybe rephrasing would be in order. 
> 
> 
> Okay.
> 
>> standards like GSM have a more circuit-switched approach." I wonder if 
>> this comparison should be here. Especially, as GPRS provides