Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBH] 46 or 44 bit IRMs

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

On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 11:51 AM G Smith <gsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Mike,

Not my words.

This is a copy of the 11aq text that got into 11md (12.2.10) and maybe modified in 11me? See D5.0 P2974L34. Does this mandate SLAP, I didn’t think it did? I am getting confused.

Graham

From: M Montemurro <montemurro.michael@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2024 11:42 AM
To: G Smith <gsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: STDS-802-11-TGBH@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBH] 46 or 44 bit IRMs

Hi Graham,

I’m not sure why you want to restrict deployment options for IRM. Effectively you are requiring SLAP with IRM.

Cheers

Mike

On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 11:05 AM G Smith <gsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Mike,

I understand. However, do you have any proposal as to the resolution of CID 3085? Do you think we need to add any other words to this effect, to the present proposal? which is:

Maybe add a Note?

Revised

at 38.24 make following change

“An IRM is a random MAC address that is constructed from the locally administered address space. A non-AP STA ~~should~~ shall construct randomized IRMs according to IEEE Std 802-2014 and IEEE Std 802c-2017.”

Note to commentor:

This change follows the current baseline in Rev me, subclause 12.2.10. and should follow any changes made in TGme.

And at 17.13 change IRM definition as follows:

“A random local MAC address that can be used by a non-access point (non-AP) station (STA) to identify itself to a network”

Thanks

Graham

Mark,

I can’t 100% recall but did we accept this “Revised” resolution? (I have it marked in green in my copy).

From: M Montemurro <montemurro.michael@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2024 10:49 AM
To: G Smith <gsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: STDS-802-11-TGBH@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBH] 46 or 44 bit IRMs

Hi Graham,

SLAP is optional in IEEE 802. In addition, there is an ANQP advertisement to indicated that a network is using SLAP. Therefore, restriction of IRM to 44 bits should only occur if SLAP is provisioned on the nextwork.

Otherwise MAC addressses can use 46 bits of randomization.

Cheers,

Mike

On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 10:22 AM G Smith <gsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi TGbh’s,

At the Interim last week we discussed CID 3085 which proposed to define IRM as follows :

" A MAC address selected randomly from among the Administratively Assigned local identifiers specified in IEEE Std 802 and used by a non-access point (non-AP) station (STA) to identify itself to a network."

Using the AA designation means that the IRM would comprise 44 random bits as against 46 bits if we kept to the present “constructed from the locally administered address space”.

I had previously uploaded, but never presented, 23/2148r0 which looked at the theoretical probabilities of IRM duplicates for ESSs up to 80,000 stations using IRMs of 46 random bits. I have now posted r1 where I have added the results for IRMs of 44 random bits.

https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/23/11-23-2148-01-00bh-probability-of-irm-duplicates.pptx

The results are:

For a busy ESS (network), with each STA associating 3 x per day, storing a high number of IRMs (80,000)

For 46 random bits:

Each AP (40) in ESS has a duplicate every 2.54 days
Each STA only experiences a duplicate every 14 years.

(i.e., Action frame exchange to get new IRM is a small overhead)

Notes: Assumed 2000 STAs per AP

For S1G (8000 STAs per AP), each AP has 1.57 duplicates per day.

For 44 random bits:

Each AP in ESS has a duplicate 1.57 times per day (i.e., 4 times more frequently)
Each STA experiences a duplicate every 3.5 years.

Note: For S1G (8000 STAs per AP), each AP has 6.3 duplicates per day

I do not intend to ask Mark for time to present this as it would probably take up a lot of valuable time. I have included all the formulas and derivations I used, so those interested can check my analysis and results, and of course, I welcome comments. The results are what matters as I have provided above. Of course if anyone feels that my assumptions of the maximum size (80,000) ESS should be different, or each STA should on average associate more (or less) than 3x a day, please let me know and I will run the numbers accordingly.

I leave it to the group to decide if the effect of reducing the random bits from 46 to 44 is significant enough that we could use it as a reason to stick with the “locally administered address space”, and not change to “selected randomly from among the Administratively Assigned local identifiers specified in IEEE Std 802.”?

Thanks

Graham

To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBH list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBH&A=1

To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBH list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBH&A=1