Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

stds-802-mobility: RE: stds-80220-requirements: 802.1q/p



I don’t understand your argument.  Support of these 802 standards do exactly what you want offer the flexibility to support an architecture other than PPP or MPLS.  I am not saying that it will be the only mechanism to do so.  In fact MPLS would in fact be preferred in current designs I have been evaluating.  If there is no support for these standards it precludes the use for purpose I have offered as reasons for their usage.  I just feel support for these 802 standards should not be overlooked by 802.20.

 

David S. McGinniss

Distinguished Member of Technical Staff

Sprint Broadband Wireless Technology Development Group

(630) 926-3184 david.s.mcginniss@mail.sprint.com

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Branislav Meandzija [mailto:bran@arraycomm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 8:10 PM
To: Mcginniss, Dave S [NTK]
Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: 802.1q/p

 

Hi Dave,

 

The current requirements document text reads:

----------

802.1Q tagging must be supported by the system (such that network egress traffic can be switched by a L2 device to the appropriate L2 termination device for managing backbone traffic or distinguishing traffic for wholesale partners in a wholesale environment).

-----------

Which is even way more in conflict with the "agnostic network architecture" argument than even your proposal which I am appending below. I am sure you understand our argument that using something like PPP (as we are) or MPLS would do the job just as well. How can we put this one to rest without mandating a network architecture solution? I understand Sprint really has decided on 802.1q tagging, but that is something you guys can specify in an RFI fro a particular deployment. Others prefer PPP based solutions. So, it would really be unfair and unreasonable for the standard to eliminate those.

 

Branislav

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Mcginniss, Dave S [GMG]
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 8:08 AM
To: stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org
Subject: stds-80220-requirements: 802.1q/p

4.5.2       802.1Q/P tagging (open)

Editors Note: This section is proposed for deletion because this is tied a specific network architecture.

Current text

[802.1Q tagging must be supported by the system (such that network egress traffic can be switched by a L2 device to the appropriate L2 termination device for managing backbone traffic or distinguishing traffic for wholesale partners in a wholesale environment).]

 

Proposed Text

802.1q tagging should be supported by the 802.20 system or some other mechanism (i.e. policy routing). Tagging will support the L2 switching such that network egress traffic can be switched by a L2 device to the appropriate L2 termination device for managing backbone traffic or distinguishing traffic for wholesale partners in a wholesale environment. Tagging can also be used to facilitate a retail captive portal service model.  By tagging traffic from a mobile terminal that is unknown (i.e. mobile terminal is un-provisioned) it can be switched at L2 to a system enabling a self provisioning system model.  By tagging control and management traffic it to can be switched and separated as close to the base station as possible. All of these can be accomplished at a higher layer but are simpler to implement if 802.1Q tagging is supported. 

802.1p

The 802.1Q standard specifies that tags be appended to a MAC frame. The VLAN tag carries VLAN information. The VLAN tag has two parts: The VLAN ID (12-bit) and Prioritization (3-bit). The 802.1P implementation defines the prioritization field. 802.1p defines a 32-bit tag header that is inserted after a frame's normal destination and source address header info. Switches, routers, servers, desktop systems, mobile terminals, or base stations can set these priority bits.  Switches and routers can prioritize traffic based on these tags.

Rational

By driving these functions to layer 2 a provider can build a flatter network supporting simple IP handoff over a larger 802.20 coverage area.  These functions can be supported in other ways at a higher layer but are most efficiently handled at layer 2.  The evaluation criteria group should report support for tagging so that the 802.20 group can factor support in the selection process.

 

 

David S. McGinniss

Sprint Broadband Wireless Group

Principal Engineer II

(630) 926-3184
david.s.mcginniss@mail.sprint.com