Hui, On 2012/10/21, at 22:47, Hui Deng wrote:
> For the difference of split mac and Local Mac, it's all of matter of either > 802.11 or 802.3 over CAPWAP Ctrl/Data Tunnel. > > For Local Mac, all functions will be based on AC, because 802.11 will be > terminated at AC other than AP. This is the reason in our current PS draft to > only define Split MAC function scope. > > Most of above has been stated by previous CAPWAP RFCs. I think you meant that the remote-mac terminated _all_ 802.11 frame at AC other than AP. Yes, RFC4118, which you might cite in a further draft, has described well CAPWAP models like as follow. > > +--------------+--- +---------------+--- +--------------+--- > | CAPWAP | | CAPWAP | | CAPWAP | > | functions |AC | functions |AC | functions | > |==============|=== |---------------| |--------------| > | | | non RT MAC | | |AC > | 802.11 MAC | |===============|=== | 802.11 MAC | > | |WTP | Realtime MAC | | | > |--------------| |---------------|WTP |==============|=== > | 802.11 PHY | | 802.11 PHY | | 802.11 PHY |WTP > +--------------+--- +---------------+--- +--------------+--- > > (a) "Local MAC" (b) "Split MAC" (c) "Remote MAC" > > > For us, we have both of them deployed, it depends on the operators's strategy. > I do understand that. We also operate wifi service too. > If there is a problem about how Local MAC has Interop issue, this PS draft > would be happy to include them, the draft is still open. > I am think that AP pass all 802.11 to ACs, it may not have an issue, because > 802.11 is a standard. > > Other problems described in current PS draft are not tighted with either > Split MAC or Local MAC. > So you mean that local-mac and remote-mac doesn't have interoperability issues in your experience but split-mac does have that. I think it would be nice if the draft describe well why the IETF need to revisit CAPWAP for split-mac interoperability as you requested even other two could be interoperable. I guess that those would be to make much better AP hand-over experience, scalability and rich control functions which the current CAPWAP doesn't have. > thanks a lot for your review and discussion. > Best regards, You are welcome, hope that helps you. --satoru _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
