Re: [802.21] transport layer for MIH IS.
On 1/25/2005 5:10 AM, Mike Moreton wrote:
> Vivek,
>
> Thanks - that makes sense. In which case an IP transport is definitely not
> an alternative.
Not as the scope of 802.21, but still very viable for IS transport within IETF,
or maybe as VSA of the AAA protocol.
>
> Am I right in saying that there may be two parts to this? Some sort of basic
> information transfer that happens before authentication (but must be limited
> in scope due to the lack of authentication), followed by an ongoing protocol
> exchange.
>
> The former must be embedded in L2 protocols (e.g. 802.11 management frames)
> while the latter can be encapsulated in L2 (either via an ethertype, or in
> UDP/IP).
In our Lucent proposal and so proposed by others, new Ethertype is defined for
802.21. This could also carry UDP/IP IS IEs between MIH entities.
>
> Mike.
>
> -----Original Message----- From: owner-stds-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Gupta, Vivek G
> Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 4:34 PM To: STDS-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [802.21] transport layer for MIH IS.
>
>
> Mike,
>
> We discussed the first two options during our meeting. The other advantage of
> (1) is that we may be able to transfer data through an unauthenticated port
> in cases of MACs which currently may not allow say Class 1 data frames. We
> may be trying to solve a larger media specific problem here. While (2) may be
> required for supporting media like Ethernet(not sure how good an argument
> that is). (1) definitely requires changes to other standards while in case of
> (2) we may get by without any changes to media specific MACs.
>
> Best Regards, -Vivek
>
> |-----Original Message----- |From: owner-stds-802-21@ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-21@ieee.org] On |Behalf Of Mike Moreton |Sent: Monday,
> January 24, 2005 6:06 AM |To: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org |Subject: RE:
> [802.21] transport layer for MIH IS. | |It may be that you covered this in
> more detail at your meeting... | |I can think of at least 4 different
> possibilities: | |(1) Define new MAC specific management frames (e.g. a
> variant of action |frames in 802.11). This would require changes to each MAC
> specification, |but would allow the MAC to give these frames whatever
> priority was required. | |(2) Transport in an L2 data frame with a new
> Ethertype allocated for the |protocol. This would not require any MAC
> changes for an 802 MAC, but would |require you to live with the different
> priorities available for data frames, |and probably would need some special
> support within cellular. | |(3) Carried in IP packets. Gives you wider
> addressability than L2, but |it's not clear that you need this if you're only
> going from STA to AP (or |whatever you call them). In practice, the IETF are
> likely to insist on you |using UDP encapsulation. | |(4) Carried over TCP.
> Built-in reliability, but do you want it? | |Plus all the advantages and
> disadvantages you've already mentioned... | |Mike. |