[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Fw: Review on v6ops 802.16 deployment scenario
Here is one more comment on the draft-ietf-v6ops-802-16-deployment-scenarios-01.txt
Thanks much Basavaraj Patil.
Hope this helps too.
Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park)
Mobile Convergence Laboratory, SAMSUNG Electronics.
> My review comments:
>
>
> Review of I-D: draft-ietf-v6ops-802-16-deployment-scenarios-01.txt
>
> General:
>
> The document is poorly written and makes a lot of assumptions. It also
> does not take into consideration the fact that IPv6 can be transported
> directly over the MAC (IP specific part of the packet CS), over 802.3
> of the packet CS or 802.1Q part of the packet CS. Given the variants,
> the deployment models vary. The fact is that IEEE std 802.16 has
> specified the means to transport IPv6 over the air interface between a
> host and a BS. The network models and deployments that are possible
> are numerous and this document does not do justice in explaining
> this.
> The document is not really useful from a deployment of IPv6
> perspective at all.
>
> - The introduction section mentions 802.16 as applicable for
> stationary networks only. It is better to clarify the variants of
> IEEE 802.16 specifications (i.e .16d, .16e and possibly others in
> the future). Comments such as "IEEE 802.16e is one of the most
> promising access technologies...." are unnecessary in the context of
> this document.
>
> - The introduction section needs to be reworked to just focus on what
> this document is discussing instead of speculations about
> deployments and capabilities.
>
> - The title of Section 2 and the text in that section appear to be
> mismatched.
>
> - In section 2.1:
> " The IEEE 802.11 access network (WLAN) has driven the revolution of
> wireless communication. However, the more people use it the more its
> limitations such as short range and lack of mobility support arose.
> Compared with such IEEE 802.11 network, IEEE 802.16 supports enhanced
> features such as wider coverage and mobility. So it is expected that
> IEEE 802.16 network could be the next step of IEEE 802.11 network.
> "
>
> This statement is irrelevant and speculative. Is of no value here.
>
> - Statement:
> " The mechanism of transporting IP traffic over IEEE 802.16 networks is
> outlined in [IEEE802.16],"
>
> IEEE 802.16 std only specifies the convergence sublayers and the
> ability to transport IP over the air interface. Beyond that it does
> not specify anything about the network for either IPv4 or IPv6. The
> statement above gives the impression that only IPv6 operation is not
> specified by 802.16 specs.
>
> - The definition of MS is not clear. "In motion or during halts" needs
> to be better explained. It is better to refer to the terms in the
> 16NG problem statement I-D.
>
> - Definition of BS leaves much to be desired. Again recommend the use
> of the definition from the 16NG PS I-D.
>
> - Figure 1 is just an example. There are many different models for
> 802.16 technology. As an example, the BS can be connected directly
> to a BRAS which then provides IP connectivity. IP is transported
> over Ethernet between the MS and BS and to the BRAS. So only showing
> the figure 1 implies that this is the only model which is not true.
>
> - In section 2.2, the description of the issue about the PMP nature of
> the 802.16 link and the issue as applicable to IPv6 is not
> clear. Lack of multicast capability on the uplink is not considered
> an issue for IPv6. It just implies a different link model.
>
> - The reasoning why the IETF should specify IPv6 operation is
> vague. In section 2.2, bullet 2, there is mention of classifiers,
> MAC payload and other terms which do not make sense without a proper
> explanation.
>
> - There is a claim that IEEE 802.16 is different as compared to 802.11
> or 3G. How is it different? After all 802.16 is just another
> air-interface specification.
>
> - In bullet 3 the statement:
> "The specification of IEEE 802.16 defines several
> CSs for carrying IP packets, but does not provide a detailed
> description of how to carry them. The several CSs are generally
> classified into two types of CS: IPv6 CS and Ethernet CS.
> "
>
> 802.16 describes how IP payload is transported over the air
> interface. This is the scope of the spec and that is all that is
> needed. So the above claim is incorrect. Also there is only the
> ATM CS and the Packet CS. IP(v4/v6), Ethernet and 802.3 are all part
> of the packet CS. There is no IPv6 CS and Eth CS.
>
> - In section 2.2.1 there is the statement:
> "This use case will be implemented only with the licensed spectrum."
>
> It refers to the mobility support. I do not understand why mobility
> will be supported only in the licensed spectrum. This is an invalid
> statement.
>
> - Why the reference to WiMAX and Wibro in sec 2.2.1? This is supposed
> to be a document describing generic .16 deployment models.
>
> - Section 2.2.1.1 talks about upgrading the MS, BS, AR and ER to dual
> stack. Why? Does not make any sense.
>
> - Sec 2.2.1.3 mentions that IPv6 should be transported directly over
> the 802.16 MAC and not over Ethernet. There is no proper
> justification. Both are possible and are options for IPv6
> deployment.
>
> - In Sec 2.2.1.3:
> "Native IPv6 should be preferred over tunneling
> mechanisms as native IPv6 deployment option might be more scalable
> and provide required service performance.
> "
> Not clear why this recommendation.
>
> - Sec 2.2.1.4 should take into consideration hosts such as CPEs which
> can act as routers. There are many variants of an MS.
>
> - In Section 2.2.1.5 the statement:
> " As for mobility management, the movement between BSs is handled by
> Mobile IPv6 [RFC3775], if it requires a subnet change. Also, in
> certain cases (e.g., fast handover [I-D.ietf-mipshop-fmipv6-
> rfc4068bis]) the link mobility information must be available for
> facilitating layer 3 handoff procedure.
> "
>
> The authors are making a very long-shot judgement about the mobility
> models that are possible.
>
> - In sec 2.2.2
> "Many wireless
> Internet service providers (Wireless ISPs) have planned to use IEEE
> 802.16 for the purpose of high quality broadband wireless service
> "
> Is this even needed?
>
> - Sec 2.2.2.1 again mentions infrastructure changes. What
> infrastructure is intended to be upgraded? The dual-stack
> requirement is invalid. It depends on the deployment environment.
>
>
> -Basavaraj