Re: CAPWAP BOF follow up: nmrg - CAPWAP

[Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>]

> Thanx much for your participation in the list, it goes beyond
> what one can reasonably expect of an AD at this stage.

you left off the <sarcasm> tag

> Seriously, though, the 3GPP UTRAN cellular protocols are
> standardized for interoperability, but the load balancing
> algorithms are up to the vendors.  In practice, they achieve good
> load balancing because the vendors know what they are doing, and
> spend a lot of time and money developing their algorithms. From
> Bernard's comments, it sounds like some of the 802.11 vendors
> either don't know what they are doing or aren't spending enough
> money on the problem, so an interoperable protocol might not, in
> practice, do much to help. Which is what I meant.

i believe that a bit of thought will make you suspect that a
multi-device environment, where different devices have different
load-balancing algorithms, or even the same algorithms with
different constants, will lead to serious thrashing.

> The discussion doesn't seem to be focussed on a good description
> of the problem.

troot!

> Also, BTW, I got some email from an EE Times correspondent and
> spoke with him on the phone for about a half hour. He had the
> misconception that IETF had decided to standardize LWAPP. I
> quickly dissuaded him of that, and tried to put him straight
> about where the discussion is at.

great.  then do tell the rest of us!

randy