[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [16NG] [nwg-chair] NWG feedback on 16ng's IPv4 CS draft



Gabriel,
 
The WiMAX Forum NWG reviewed section 4-3 and Appendix C of draft-ietf-16ng-ipv4-over-802-dot-16-ipcs-04.txt and would like to make a couple of remarks on the MTU issue:
 
- The I-D is not very clear about the MTU issues appearing in an IPv4 over IEEE 802.16 transmission system. The ambiguities mainly result out of the vague definition of the IEEE 802.16 link comprising both the radio part of the link as well as the part of the link between BS and AR, when the functions are located in different entities.
 
- Section 4.3 in particular misses the discussion of the dependencies between MTU size and the tunneling protocol deployed between BS and AR.
 
- Section 4.3 also misses, that there is no packet loss when the MTU size limitation is caused by the encapsulation overhead on the link between BS and AR. E.g. when GRE is used for the tunnel between BS and AR, the transport IP layer can fragment the GRE packets to fit the transport MTU on the link between BS and AR. Reassembly in the tunnel endpoint at the AR will re-establish the original user IP packet.
 
- Please note that the reason of the WiMAX NWG to limit the MTU going over IPv4-CS to 1400 Bytes was to avoid fragmentation on the link between BS and ASN-GW as well as on the link between ASN-GW and CSN (MIP tunnel). Fragmentation and re-assembly require considerable processing power in the network elements.
 
- Appendix C makes statements which would require more detailed review of the I-D by WiMAX NWG. In particular 'The addressing and operation of IPv4-CS described in this document are applicable to the WiMAX networks as well' has not been verified yet.
Furthermore 'Thus, WiMAX MS nodes should use this default (1400) MTU value per the current specification [WMF].  However, due to reasons specified in section 4.3 above, it is strongly recommended that future WiMAX MS nodes support a default MTU of 1500 bytes, and that they implement MTU negotiation capabilities as mentioned in this document.' makes recommendations to WiMAX without understanding the real reasons for the limitation of the MTU size in Mobile WiMAX.
 
We would recommend to 16ng to revise the sections on MTU size to better explain the underlying issues leading to restrictions in the MTU size. In particular the influence of tunneling inside the network should be carefully discussed.
In addition we would kindly ask to either remove whole Appendix C on the WiMAX MTU size or revise the text explaining the real issues in the WiMAX architecture. In particular the statements on the applicability of the I-D on the WiMAX architecture and the recommendation on future modifications in the WiMAX architecture seem not to be very appropriate to us.
 
 
Bye
Max
Vize Chair NWG
 
 

From: ext Gabriel Montenegro [mailto:Gabriel.Montenegro at microsoft.com]
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 11:59 AM
To: nwg-chair at list.wimaxforum.org
Cc: 'Daniel Soohong Park'
Subject: [nwg-chair] NWG feedback on 16ng's IPv4 CS draft

Prakash, Max and Yong Chang,


The IETF 16ng WG has published a revision of this draft:

“Transmission of IPv4 packets over IEEE 802.16's IP Convergence Sublayer”

Per this announcement:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/16ng/current/msg00863.html

We understand that this specification currently is not normative to NWG (as opposed to RFC5121 on IPv6 CS). Nevertheless, given its relevance, and with the hope it may become normative to NWG in some future revision, the 16ng WG would like to solicit feedback from NWG on this draft.

In particular, please note that this draft specifies a default MTU of 1500,  which is different from the WiMAX-specified MTU of 1400 (per the recently approved R1_V1.3.0-Stage-3  NWG specifications).  For MTU discussion, please refer to these sections:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-16ng-ipv4-over-802-dot-16-ipcs-04#section-4.3
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-16ng-ipv4-over-802-dot-16-ipcs-04#appendix-C

The 16ng WG will next meet on Nov 18 during the IETF in Minneapolis (https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/73/agenda.html). If at all possible, it would be best if comments were received before that date in order for the WG to discuss them during the meeting.

Please send your comments to the 16ng at ietf.org mailing list.

Thanks,

Gabriel and Daniel
16ng co-chairs