Hi Ming,
Thank you for your comments.
>>
In my mind, both Limitation and independent cases have almost the same performance on the network, and satisfy the network configuration.
There is a difference. Independent operation would mean multiple BSSID set on each link are independently configured and operate independent of conditions on another link. This is what the SP is proposing. In the limiting case, the membership
on a link is influenced by the configuration on other link(s).Adjusting the membership of the set on one link based on configuration of other link(s) will have far reaching implications as I pointed out in my previous email. Plus any change to the configuration
on one link will have a cascading effect on other links. As a framework, we should avoid this.
>>
It is similar to the restriction that AP MLD is STR.
It is not an apples to apples comparison. Multiple BSSID set is a per-link (legacy) feature independent of the setup on another link. The configuration of the multiple BSSID set for a given link is based on the requirements for that link.
STR/n-STR, on the other hand, are MLO specific capabilities of a device.
>>
it is just to decrease a few unnecessary configuration cases due to limited benefit
Could you please elaborate or provide examples for this?
>>
A question to Abhi, could the figure in slide 11 advertise the info of all the APs shown in slide 3 or just partial of them? Do you consider the coexistence when transmitting Multiple BSSID element? Just double check if we are in the same page.
The MLA element in the core frame carries the MLO information for the AP corresponding to the TxBSSID. While the MLA element contained in the nonTxBSSID profile carries MLO information for the AP corresponding to that nonTxBSSID.
Regards,
Abhi
From: Ganming (Ming) <ming.gan@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2020 6:01 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] 答复: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] SP#4 of doc 358
CAUTION:
This email originated from outside of the organization.
Hello Abhi and Pooya
Thanks for this discussion. I thought about the independent case, similar to the example raised by Abhi. But meanwhile we still need
think about its benefit. In my mind, both Limitation and independent cases have almost the same performance on the network, and satisfy the network configuration. It is similar to the restriction that AP MLD is STR. Limitation is not to mandate the creation
of a BSSID (my previous response may be not exact), it is just to decrease a few unnecessary configuration cases due to limited benefit. I just went though 11-20/357, I observed that it brings MLA element to Multiple BSSID element and it requires both an independent
MLA element and Multiple BSSID element which also contains MLA element (it is not a clear advertisement). And I am not sure whether it can perform the complete function. A question to Abhi, could the figure in slide 11 advertise the info of all the APs shown
in slide 3 or just partial of them? Do you consider the coexistence when transmitting Multiple BSSID element? Just double check if we are in the same page.
By the way, Pooy, my answer to your question in chat window is not exact. No any further optimization is needed if it has a limitation
like what I mentioned below, otherwise it may bring some complexity.
Best wishes,
Ming Gan
发件人:
Pooya Monajemi [mailto:00000ef0b9e0aff7-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
发送时间: 2020年5月10日 5:27
收件人: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
主题: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] SP#4 of doc 358
Hi all,
Just to weigh in, I think I agree with Abhi here, mandating the creation of a BSSID just to support the signaling sounds complex and restrictive. There are use cases
for not wanting all MLDs on all links.
Regards
Pooya
On Friday, May 8, 2020, 08:03:02 AM PDT, Abhishek Patil <appatil@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Hi Ming,
Thank you for your response.
Multiple BSSID is a per-link concept and we should not artificially add constraints to this feature for possible signaling
benefits for multi-link operation. Let’s view this from a functionality point of view. Multi-link is a new feature which should work without requiring us to introduce limitations to an existing (legacy) feature.
You mentioned that we could artificially configure MBSSID set. It is not that simple. What you are suggesting is to add a
BSSID within the multiple BSSID set to take on the role of TxBSSID (in my example below). However that has repercussions – such as, advertisement of the profile, managing the STAs that associate with that BSSID, ACK sessions, security etc. In addition, when
the configuration on one link were to change, it will have a ripple effect to the configuration on the membership of MBSSID sets operating on other links. Please consider these factors when you weigh in the perceived benefits of adding artificial constraints.
We have some thoughts on the signaling. It is not very complicated as you may thing. We have discussed it in another contribution
(11-20/357).
Regards,
Abhi
From:
Ganming (Ming) <ming.gan@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, May 8, 2020 6:01 AM
To: Abhishek Patil <appatil@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: 答复: SP#4 of doc 358
CAUTION:
This email originated from outside of the organization.
Hello Abhi
Thanks for initiating this follow up discussion. You raised a good example. I am also thinking about its
benefit. You know, Multiple BSSID set could be artificially configured. In your example, another virtual AP could be created on link 2 for MLD 1. This limitation (the AP MLD has the same type of BSSID APs, either TX BSSID or non-TX BSSID) will not harm the
clients, and also could satisfy their different requirements, such as SSID or security. On the other hand, it will simplify the advertisement: one AP MLD element which contains all the AP Info, and a Multiple BSSID element for a AP in AP MLD which is in Multiple
BSSID set. The structure is quite clear. If AP MLD contains different types of BSSID APs, then it is a little bit difficult to carry Multiple BSSID element or interpret the meaning of Multiple BSSID element if it is sent without the info of TX BSSID. All
of these two options are described in Liwen’s contribution 396/r0. What do you think about this?
By the way, why is not there a time slot for the presentation 396/r0?
Best wishes
Ming Gan
发件人:
Abhishek Patil [mailto:appatil@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
发送时间:
2020年5月8日
16:02
收件人:
STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
主题:
[STDS-802-11-TGBE] SP#4 of doc 358
Hi Ming,
Following up on our discussion during today’s call.
Per SP#4 in doc 358, an AP of an MLD could correspond to TxBSSID or nonTxBSSID independent of another AP of the MLD being
TxBSSID or nonTxBSSID.
If we were to follow your suggestion and put a requirement that all APs of an AP MLD to be either TxBSSID or nonTxBSSID, which
BSSIDs should be TxBSSIDs in the following example?
Multiple BSSID set or Co-hosted BSSID set are per-link features and should be kept that way.
Regards,
Abhi
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBE list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBE&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBE list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBE&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBE list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBE&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBE list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBE&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBE list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBE&A=1