|
Tony,
Please
read the 802.20 "5 Criteria" that was approved with our PAR. In the
section on Compatibility it states:
+ The proposed standard will conform with the
appropriate IEEE 802 functional requirements.
+ Compatibility will be addressed during
development of the standard and any variance that may be
required
will be clearly identified and
justified.
+ The standard will include the definition of
compliant MIB in support of the PHY and MAC layer
capabilities.
Both
the PAR and 5 Criteria were approved up through the IEEE Standards Board and as
such, it is up to the 802.20 WG to determine what, if any, requirements it will
have for L2 switching and/or variances we have
regarding
compatibility with other 802
standards.
Best
regards,
Joanne
Just a thought, but the
"5 criteria" in the 802 P&P include the requirement to be compatible with
802.1 Bridging standards (which includes 802.1Q). So any discussion of whether
support for 802.1Q/802.1D is in or out is moot - it is a requirement that you
all signed up for when you got the 802.20
PAR.
Regards,
Tony
At 14:43 20/02/2004, Mcginniss, Dave S
[NTK] wrote:
I have no issue with modifying the text to include requirements of
these other standards based technologies as well. Because others are
above l2 I dont think it can be more than a statement of recommendation and
should be treated separately for those above l2. MPLS is an
interesting one it can be used for l2 or l3 and its requirement would be a
great addition to the standard.
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: Thursday,
February 19, 2004 7:16 PM
To: Park Vincent; Mcginniss, Dave S
[NTK]
Cc: stds-802-mobility@ieee.org
Subject: RE:
stds-802-mobility: RE: stds-80220-requirements: 802.1q/p
Hi Vince,
We agree that the first choice is to not include the
requirement. However, if for whatever reason the requirement should be
included, it should either be generic without naming switching technologies
or should name at least the technologies listed.
Branislav
- -----Original Message-----
- From: Park Vincent [mailto:Park@flarion.com]
- Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 2:36 PM
- To: Branislav Meandzija; Mcginniss, Dave S [NTK]
- Cc: stds-802-mobility@ieee.org
- Subject: RE: stds-802-mobility: RE: stds-80220-requirements:
802.1q/p
- Hi all,
- Sorry for the delayed
response...just getting caught up on some backlogged emails.
- I actually think this
requirement should NOT be included (primarily, because it restricts the
architecture as the editor's note suggests).
- There are presently many
alternative solutions to support wholesale/retail separation in IP
networks and alternative solutions will continue to emerge. Several
approaches do not require any L2 switching support. Additionally, most
approaches can be viewed as being accomplished solely with higher layer
mechanisms (i.e., using signaling and header fields of packets that are
effectively opaquely carried as link layer payload). In my opinion,
including a requirement for L2 switching and/or tagging (especially with a
specific list of approaches) is overly restrictive. I also think that this
type of requirement is inappropriate, given that the backhaul technology
is essentially out of scope. Depending on the choice of backhaul
technology "L2 switching" may make zero sense.
- -Vince
- Vincent D. Park
- park@flarion.com
- Flarion Technologies Inc.
- Bedminster One
- 135 Route 202/206 South
- Bedminster NJ 07921
- -----Original Message-----
- From: owner-stds-802-mobility@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-mobility@majordomo.ieee.org] On
Behalf Of Branislav Meandzija
- Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 11:51 AM
- To: Mcginniss, Dave S [NTK]
- Cc: stds-802-mobility@ieee.org
- Subject: stds-802-mobility: RE: stds-80220-requirements:
802.1q/p
- I think we need to capture what
you are saying in the requirement itself as otherwise it will be too easy
to misinterpret. I am appending what I believe is you are saying. That is
acceptable to us.
- Branislav
- -----------------------------------
- PROPOSED NEW TEXT
- 4.5.2 Layer 2
Switching
- 802.1q tagging, PPP, or MPLS
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).
- -----------------------------------
- -----Original Message-----
- From: Mcginniss, Dave S [NTK] [mailto:david.s.mcginniss@mail.sprint.com]
- Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 6:30 AM
- To: Branislav Meandzija
- Cc: stds-802-mobility@ieee.org
- Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: 802.1q/p
- I dont 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:
- ----------
- 4.5.2 802.1Q tagging
- 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
Regards,
Tony
|