Re: laugh test - capwap

["Bernard Aboba" <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>]

> The last effort that tried for something in nearly the same space was 
> FORCES, I think. What's the relationship (if any) between what was learned 
> there and this effort?

Another analogy is L2 PPVPNs.  We have groups both in IETF and in IEEE 
working on this.  As I understand it, they have managed to carve out 
portions of the problem within their respective areas of expertise.  In this 
case it is also likely that we will have IETF and IEEE groups working on the 
problem, except that the charter is somewhat vague on how the split will be 
handled.

> Nit - one thing is for certain: calling the thing that does weird stuff 
> with Access Points an Access Router is a biasing of the architecture that's 
> completely uncalled-for. No way you should require the net's access router 
> and AP controller to be on the same box.

What's more, if one portion of the "split AP" does in fact meet the 
definition of a router, I can't see how  both entities comprising the Access 
Point can function correctly within the 802.11 architecture.   For example:

1. What does a router do when it receives a packet?
2. If one half of the "split AP" did this, then forwarding decisions would 
most certainly not be made based on the learning table created from 
Association/Reassociation state, which is how an 802.11 AP functions.

I think this highlights some of the risks in having the architecture work 
done in the IETF.

_________________________________________________________________
Add MSN 8 Internet Software to your existing Internet access and enjoy 
patented spam protection and more.  Sign up now!   
http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/byoa