List Info

Thread: RE: DHCP




RE: DHCP
country flaguser name
United States
2007-03-21 08:58:17

Stefano,

 

I’m not denying the need for a L3 ES and CS transport.

I’m saying L2 ES and CS transport is also one of the accepted scenarios.

 

Are we not on the same page?

 

Alper

 

 


From: Stefano Faccin [mailto:smfaccinmarvell.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 2:15 PM
To: Telemaco Melia; Alper Yegin
Cc: STDS-802-21listserv.ieee.org; mipshopietf.org; Vijay Devarapalli
Subject: RE: [Mipshop] DHCP

 

Indeed. However, I need to add something. Alper, can you help me understand in which forum or framework or circle it is an accepted scenario that ES and CS are taken care at L2? That may be true for some (few) access technologies, but cannot be generalized, therefore there is the need for a L3 solution. As a matter of fact, there is plenty of discussion going on on why it is useful to have it L3 for many technologies, in particular to have a technology independent solution for multi-mode terminals and networks.

 

If we want to talk about L2 solution, there are technologies (e.g. 802.11) that have solutions L2.  

 

Stefano

 


From: Telemaco Melia [mailto:telemaco.melianetlab.nec.de]
Sent: Wed 3/21/2007 6:10 AM
To: Alper Yegin
Cc: STDS-802-21listserv.ieee.org; mipshopietf.org; 'Vijay Devarapalli'
Subject: Re: [Mipshop] DHCP

Hi Alper,

I would suggest to wait for tomorrow's DT presentation.

telemaco

Alper Yegin wrote:
>       There have been already proposals using DHCP for 802.21 services
>       discovery.
>
>       The DT is currently considering different scenarios and associated
>       requirements targeting a single solution.
>       This might change if complexity increases too much.
>
>
> I don't understand why designing one protocol that does three things (IS,
>; ES, CS) is better than using an existing protocol (DHCP) for what it has
> used for (configuration [IS]), and designing another protocol that takes
> care of the other two (ES, CS).
>;
> I'm not aware of any technical reason that requires all three
> functionalities to be bundled up in single protocol. And in fact, I see
> reason to separate them. It is an accepted scenario that ES and CS are taken
> care of by the L2 in some networks, leaving IS to L3.
>
> Comments?
>
> Alper
>
>
>
>;  


--
Telemaco Melia ;                 telemaco.melianetlab.nec.de
Research Staff Member           Tel: +49 (0) 6221 4342- 142
Network Laboratories      ;      Fax: +49 (0) 6221 4342- 155
NEC Europe Ltd.   ;        ;      Web: http://www.netlab.nec.de
Network Laboratories          ;
Kurfuersten-Anlage 36      
69115 Heidelberg
GERMANY  


NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014


_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
Mipshopietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop

RE: DHCP
user name
2007-03-21 09:03:29

Alper,

it really sounded like ES and CS L2 are “the” solution so there is no need for ES and CS at L3, that’;s why I reacted. If we agree on the need for ES and CS L3, then I am fine, and I would avoid further references to what is being done or not L2, since we’re here to work on the L3 solution. Whether the same protocol needs to provide all three service or not is another question, and I would not discuss its merit at this point (that’s more of DT decision than a chair suggestion).

 

Stefano

 


From: Alper Yegin [mailto:alper.yeginyegin.org]
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 6:58 AM
To: Stefano Faccin; 'Telemaco Melia'
Cc: STDS-802-21listserv.ieee.org; mipshopietf.org; 'Vijay Devarapalli'
Subject: RE: [Mipshop] DHCP

 

Stefano,

 

I’m not denying the need for a L3 ES and CS transport.

I’m saying L2 ES and CS transport is also one of the accepted scenarios.

 

Are we not on the same page?

 

Alper

 

 


From: Stefano Faccin [mailto:smfaccinmarvell.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 2:15 PM
To: Telemaco Melia; Alper Yegin
Cc: STDS-802-21listserv.ieee.org; mipshopietf.org; Vijay Devarapalli
Subject: RE: [Mipshop] DHCP

 

Indeed. However, I need to add something. Alper, can you help me understand in which forum or framework or circle it is an accepted scenario that ES and CS are taken care at L2? That may be true for some (few) access technologies, but cannot be generalized, therefore there is the need for a L3 solution. As a matter of fact, there is plenty of discussion going on on why it is useful to have it L3 for many technologies, in particular to have a technology independent solution for multi-mode terminals and networks.

 

If we want to talk about L2 solution, there are technologies (e.g. 802.11) that have solutions L2.  

 

Stefano

 


From: Telemaco Melia [mailto:telemaco.melianetlab.nec.de]
Sent: Wed 3/21/2007 6:10 AM
To: Alper Yegin
Cc: STDS-802-21listserv.ieee.org; mipshopietf.org; 'Vijay Devarapalli'
Subject: Re: [Mipshop] DHCP

Hi Alper,

I would suggest to wait for tomorrow's DT presentation.

telemaco

Alper Yegin wrote:
>       There have been already proposals using DHCP for 802.21 services
>       discovery.
>
>       The DT is currently considering different scenarios and associated
>       requirements targeting a single solution.
>       This might change if complexity increases too much.
>
>
> I don't understand why designing one protocol that does three things (IS,
>; ES, CS) is better than using an existing protocol (DHCP) for what it has
> used for (configuration [IS]), and designing another protocol that takes
> care of the other two (ES, CS).
>;
> I'm not aware of any technical reason that requires all three
> functionalities to be bundled up in single protocol. And in fact, I see
> reason to separate them. It is an accepted scenario that ES and CS are taken
> care of by the L2 in some networks, leaving IS to L3.
>
> Comments?
>
> Alper
>
>
>
>;  


--
Telemaco Melia ;                 telemaco.melianetlab.nec.de
Research Staff Member           Tel: +49 (0) 6221 4342- 142
Network Laboratories      ;      Fax: +49 (0) 6221 4342- 155
NEC Europe Ltd.   ;        ;      Web: http://www.netlab.nec.de
Network Laboratories          ;
Kurfuersten-Anlage 36      
69115 Heidelberg
GERMANY  


NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014


_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
Mipshopietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop

[1-2]

about | contact  Other archives ( Real Estate discussion Medical topics )