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

Agreed.

Default MTU is 1500 - if WiMAX does not want to update their SPEC or does not want to conform to this IETF draft, it is SDO business. Thus we can move forward independently.

Thanks,

-Samita

From: gabriel montenegro [mailto:g_e_montenegro at yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 9:39 AM
To: Samita Chakrabarti; Riegel, Maximilian (NSN - DE/Munich); Wesley George
Cc: ext Alper Yegin; 16ng at ietf.org
Subject: Re: [16NG] [nwg-chair] NWG feedback on 16ng's IPv4 CS draft

I think what we need (my intention) is not more details, but less. I agree that there is

some overlap with the WiMAX spec. We should simply refer to WiMAX for the WiMAX-specifics,

and drop the recommendation that WiMAX should adopt this spec. Given the difference in MTU,

I won't hold my breath for them to do so, but it's really their business.

From: Samita Chakrabarti <samitac at ipinfusion.com>
To: "Riegel, Maximilian (NSN - DE/Munich)" <maximilian.riegel at nsn.com>; ext Gabriel Montenegro <Gabriel.Montenegro at microsoft.com>; Wesley George <wgeorge at sprint.net>
Cc: ext Alper Yegin <alper.yegin at yegin.org>; 16ng at ietf.org
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 11:44:47 AM
Subject: Re: [16NG] [nwg-chair] NWG feedback on 16ng's IPv4 CS draft

Hi Max,

As I understand from NWG feedback that they did not like IETF to recommend 1500 byte MTU size (Appendix section) for future revision of NWG Wimax specs. Other than that there are minor editorial changes that we want to do to polish the draft.

Here is the summary from NWG feedback:

> > 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.

What is your suggestion on updating Appendix C?

Thanks,

-Samita

From: Riegel, Maximilian (NSN - DE/Munich) [mailto:maximilian.riegel at nsn.com]
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 12:19 AM
To: ext Gabriel Montenegro; Samita Chakrabarti; Wesley George
Cc: ext Alper Yegin; 16ng at ietf.org
Subject: RE: [16NG] [nwg-chair] NWG feedback on 16ng's IPv4 CS draft

Is there really a demand to work on an update of the IPv4-CS I-D?

Which details would require/qualify for an IETF specification?

The current architectural model closely resembles the WiMAX architecture, and WiMAX provides a comprehensive specification for it.

Bye

Max

From: ext Gabriel Montenegro [mailto:Gabriel.Montenegro at microsoft.com]
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 8:21 PM
To: Samita Chakrabarti; 'Wesley George'; Riegel, Maximilian (NSN - DE/Munich)
Cc: 'ext Alper Yegin'; 16ng at ietf.org
Subject: RE: [16NG] [nwg-chair] NWG feedback on 16ng's IPv4 CS draft

yes, I've been delinquently holding to the pen.

Lets shoot for end of the month at the latest.

From: Samita Chakrabarti [samitac at ipinfusion.com]
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 11:15 AM
To: 'Wesley George'; 'Riegel, Maximilian (NSN - DE/Munich)'
Cc: 'ext Alper Yegin'; Gabriel Montenegro; 16ng at ietf.org
Subject: RE: [16NG] [nwg-chair] NWG feedback on 16ng's IPv4 CS draft

Hi Wes,

Yes, there will be an updated draft before Stockholm. Gabriel was working on
the updates.

I am expecting that we will soon have a revision to review.

Thanks,
-Samita

> -----Original Message-----
> From: 16ng-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:16ng-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Wesley George
> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 9:54 AM
> To: Riegel, Maximilian (NSN - DE/Munich)
> Cc: ext Alper Yegin; ext Gabriel Montenegro; 16ng at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [16NG] [nwg-chair] NWG feedback on 16ng's IPv4 CS draft
>
> Is someone working on an updated version of this draft to be reviewed in
> Stockholm since we did not meet in SFO? I believe that one of the first
> times that I submitted objections to the MTU language, I provided a
proposed
> text that would cover some of the concerns raised below, not all of which
> was included in subsequent drafts.
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/16ng/current/msg00824.html
>
> Thanks,
> Wes
>
> _________________________________________
>    Wesley George
>        Sprint IP Engineering
>    703-689-7505 (O) 703-864-4902 (PCS)
>          http://www.sprint.net/
> _________________________________________
>
>
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, Riegel, Maximilian (NSN - DE/Munich) wrote:
>
> > 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
> > <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-0
> > 4#
> > section-4.3
> > <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-0
> > 4#
> > appendix-C
> > <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 <mailto:16ng at ietf.org>
> > mailing list.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Gabriel and Daniel
> > 16ng co-chairs
> >
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 16NG mailing list
> 16NG at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng