[14:11:46] --- jeff_mandin has joined
[14:12:05] --- jeff_mandin has left
[14:48:51] --- jeff_mandin has joined
[14:52:35] --- jc_lee has joined
[15:00:15] --- frodek has joined
[15:05:24] <jeff_mandin> Q : Are there slide sets available other than the 3 sets that are together with the session agenda?
[15:09:36] <frodek> doesn't seem so
[15:09:47] --- petrescu has joined
[15:10:54] <petrescu> hello!
[15:11:15] --- petrescu is now known as petrescu7
[15:11:17] <petrescu7> hey!
[15:12:46] --- jc_lee has left
[15:12:48] --- admcd has joined
[15:13:21] --- petrescu7 has left: Disconnected
[15:15:35] --- petrescu7 has joined
[15:16:23] <petrescu7> if anybody needs I could do scribe. This could serve as minute-helper or other translations.
[15:16:32] <jeff_mandin> Q: Are the chairs or secretary monitoring this room for comments?
[15:17:01] <petrescu7> if admcd or frodek are Chairs then yes, otherwise no.
[15:17:03] --- jc_lee has joined
[15:17:24] <frodek> frodek != chair
[15:17:30] <admcd> admcd != chair
[15:18:00] <petrescu7> greatest idea on earth would be to splash jabber on the projector, as a small window eventually...
[15:18:02] <jeff_mandin> Are any of you physically in the meeting?
[15:18:07] <petrescu7> I am
[15:18:10] <jc_lee> I would appreciate if someone does jabber scribe.
[15:18:12] <frodek> frodek = yes
[15:18:56] <petrescu7> I could do but I'll need help with names, people's names.
[15:19:29] <petrescu7> is the current slideset available?
[15:19:38] <jc_lee> Parviz Yegani
[15:20:07] <jc_lee> the name of presenter who is presenting now
[15:20:09] <jeff_mandin> petrescu: would you be able to relay my comments to the live meeting when the chairs present my slides?
[15:20:25] <petrescu7> On the mike you mean?
[15:21:33] --- admcd has left
[15:21:33] <jeff_mandin> On the mike yes, assuming that there's an opportunity. Probably at the end of the slides
[15:22:06] <petrescu7> I'll try that. Know that wifi connection here has hickups.
[15:22:32] <petrescu7> commenter (townsley): when you say define protocols, you mean define in wimax or id them and define them other place?
[15:22:41] <petrescu7> parviz:...
[15:23:08] <frodek> (switch to .11a and your no more wifi problems anywhere at IETF64)
[15:23:29] <petrescu7> have no 11a card, only b
[15:24:35] <frodek> (.11b devices also support .11a and depending of OS and driver you may be able to lock it to .11a)
[15:28:08] --- petrescu7 has left: Disconnected
[15:29:14] --- petrescu has joined
[15:30:15] <petrescu> windows xp... I'm locking the MAC address of the AP in salon ab.
[15:30:40] <petrescu> James Kempf: "NEtwork-based, localized mobility management : the Problem.
[15:36:57] <petrescu> parviz: given interest in wimax... pmipv6, should we really have discussion, from ietf to wimax
[15:37:05] <petrescu> JK: has been approached, please talk to IESG about it.
[15:37:39] <petrescu> Yu-Seon Kim is YSK
[15:38:00] <petrescu> wibro is wireless broadband.
[15:38:14] <petrescu> in Korea.
[15:38:33] --- psavola has joined
[15:41:56] <petrescu> question: cisco: what the data rates and the distances are?
[15:42:15] <petrescu> YSK: elsobdy answers the question.
[15:42:21] <petrescu> question: convergence layer is what?
[15:42:46] <petrescu> YSK: typical issue WiBro is that... I'm not an expert. Technical questions, expterts in the company, mail.
[15:43:30] <petrescu> Gabriel Montenegro speaking.
[15:43:53] <jeff_mandin> Petrescu, can you please tell the chairs that I'm listening to the audio stream and will relay comments via jabber?
[15:43:54] <petrescu> Max Riegel is author of slides.
[15:44:10] <petrescu> Ok, when he breaks.
[15:44:30] <petrescu> you want me to tell that to the mike or walk with my feet to Chairs table?
[15:44:57] <jeff_mandin> Sorry the current ppt is not on the agenda so I was mistaken
[15:45:20] <petrescu> Ok, the ppt says title "tunnelling ip packets through the wimax axxess network":
[15:46:04] <jeff_mandin> Thanks. my slides should be next on the same topic
[15:46:46] <petrescu> slide says: "Convergence Sublayer". is Service specific CS. 802.16e defines 11 different convergence sublayers types suitable for IP.
[15:47:28] <petrescu> slide: 802.16e CS Options. A table of all the CS options available.
[15:47:54] <jeff_mandin> Who is speaking?
[15:47:56] --- momose has joined
[15:47:59] <petrescu> Gabriel.
[15:48:37] <petrescu> slide: classification and encapsulation. Has two ISO-like stacks, communicating on the MCA CPS layer.
[15:50:12] <petrescu> slide: header fields for classification.
[15:50:17] <petrescu> slide: header overhead.
[15:51:01] <petrescu> slide: conclusion.
[15:51:22] <petrescu> Jeff, do you get audio stream?
[15:51:37] <jeff_mandin> yes
[15:51:59] <petrescu> slide: from jeff mandin.
[15:53:22] <petrescu> slide: overview
[15:54:26] <petrescu> slide: converfgence sublayer - why and what.
[15:54:40] <petrescu> question: explain why if there's a convergence layer, why is there any work to do?
[15:54:56] <petrescu> GM: looks like Etherent, but it's not. On the air, multicast, broadast.
[15:55:15] <petrescu> GM: you could layer it, maye it will work. If want to poptopmiz there is work to do.
[15:55:25] <petrescu> commenter: otherwise IP. 16 is .. IP.
[15:55:36] <petrescu> GM: not sure to understand that.
[15:56:10] <petrescu> GM: it's equally easy. Virtual interface. We look at ip tunnels. VPN and MIP epxeriences.
[15:56:20] <petrescu> slide: airling resource conservation.
[15:56:36] --- frodek has left
[15:56:45] --- frodek has joined
[15:56:47] <petrescu> margaret wasserman approachin, she is MW
[15:57:03] <jeff_mandin> Answer to person who asked "what work is there to do?": 2 things mainly: configuration of "classifier tables"; optimization w/ Proxy ARP etc. ;
[15:57:41] <jeff_mandin> That's the answer about "what there is to do for eth CS?"
[15:58:03] <petrescu> MW: if there is already a convergene layrer...
[15:58:07] <jeff_mandin> Petrescu can you relay my answer
[15:58:19] <petrescu> trying...
[15:59:11] <petrescu> there you go...
[15:59:16] <jeff_mandin> thanks
[15:59:33] <petrescu> I'm not sure I am at ease with relaying...
[16:00:05] <jeff_mandin> Thanks nonetheless
[16:03:04] --- petrescu has left: Replaced by new connection
[16:03:19] --- loa has joined
[16:03:25] --- petrescu7 has joined
[16:03:46] <petrescu7> slide: summary of CS features cont.
[16:04:07] <jc_lee> petrescu, you are doing gooood job~ ;-)
[16:04:16] <petrescu7> thanks...
[16:04:39] <petrescu7> carsten Borman is CB
[16:04:52] <petrescu7> slide" summary of cs features contd
[16:04:55] <petrescu7> slide: postrscript.
[16:05:08] <petrescu7> CB: deployment model is what? Little boxes with wimax radio and ether?
[16:05:26] <petrescu7> GM: all of them, ethernet to device, many devices behind that box, pcmcia card...
[16:05:47] <petrescu7> CB: if you have a thing like an AP in the ipcs model this would have to include a router right? someone is saying yes.
[16:05:52] <petrescu7> GM: not necessarily.
[16:06:03] <petrescu7> commenter: ipcs doesn't mean BS has to be a router.
[16:06:09] <petrescu7> CB: not bs but IMS
[16:06:43] <petrescu7> Parviz:one of the bullet points: layer 2 termination, this has to do with multiple devices behind the MS. In that sense if
[16:06:52] <petrescu7> you want to route traffic...
[16:07:08] <petrescu7> Parviz: you have to have a router or like a router (switch) to route towards the network.
[16:07:12] <jeff_mandin> No it also has to do w/ multiple IP gateways or FAs
[16:07:18] <petrescu7> GM: if you running a MIP this becomes like NEMO.
[16:07:33] <petrescu7> questionner: ...
[16:07:39] <petrescu7> questionner.. in the aps?
[16:07:54] <petrescu7> Parviz: traffic from the mobile to the network deosn't have to be visible to the BS...
[16:08:12] <petrescu7> Parviz: the IP packet becomes visible to the .. gateway.
[16:08:25] <petrescu7> Parviz: :in another model, the packet is not visible to the bs, but to the as as a whole.
[16:08:33] <petrescu7> CB: the left hand of the picture actually...
[16:08:53] <petrescu7> many people around mike...
[16:09:16] <petrescu7> alper yegin: ... etherent cs model, indivicually address the host behind the ms, you have a MAC header.
[16:09:31] <jeff_mandin> You might whisper to Gabriel that the first slide in the appendix is an illustration of an application using Eth CS
[16:10:02] <jeff_mandin> ... if it's possible
[16:10:31] --- petrescu7 has left: Disconnected
[16:11:04] --- petrescu has joined
[16:11:28] <petrescu> Gabriel is far from me...
[16:11:33] <jeff_mandin> OK
[16:11:45] <petrescu> slide: Goal and Scope
[16:11:53] <petrescu> I missed the name of presenter.
[16:12:15] <jeff_mandin> 굴림M. Shin M shin its says
[16:12:22] <jc_lee> his name is myung-ki shin
[16:12:22] <petrescu> thanks
[16:12:31] <jc_lee> use mkshin..
[16:12:38] <jc_lee> or mks
[16:12:39] <petrescu> Myung-Ki Shin is MKS
[16:12:53] <petrescu> slide: scenario and architecture
[16:14:03] <petrescu> slide: scenario BS deployment
[16:15:00] <petrescu> slide: secnario addressing
[16:16:18] <petrescu> Erik Nordmark is EN
[16:16:23] <petrescu> slide: eight scenarios
[16:16:52] <petrescu> EN: you can't proivide this? You can provide this with 802.11 today? YOu might want to run send, but what's the problem?
[16:17:26] <petrescu> MKS: second case is basically in the view of ISP there are no problems, but if we implement ndp on the th link then we should implement the ..casting on the ..th link..
[16:17:37] <petrescu> EN: you might need multicast even on the previous one...
[16:17:56] <petrescu> EN: prefix delegation you may use. To do dhcpv6 on this link you better support multicast.
[16:18:15] <petrescu> EN: bs is dhcpv6 relay probably. YOu need that capability anyhow. Otherwise looks like ip in ip tunnel...
[16:18:28] <petrescu> MKS: there are assumptions on the possibliity to implement that kind of protocol.
[16:18:35] <petrescu> MKS: the problem is the ...crest.
[16:18:50] <petrescu> commenter: connection in the .16 network. The .16 does not provide a mc channel.
[16:19:13] --- cabo--tzi--org has joined
[16:19:14] <petrescu> commenter: majorly for layer 2 there is multicast. Although there is an mbs service... how to use that kind of multicast channel.
[16:19:29] <petrescu> commenter: (aboba is BA)
[16:19:42] <petrescu> BA: bad effects on the driver architecture: forged arp.
[16:20:10] <petrescu> BA: because kernel mode... weird effects. Run IPv6 on top of a driver running v4 ethernet.
[16:20:26] <petrescu> BA: features of IPv4 or IPv6 missing from the driver kernel.
[16:20:39] <petrescu> BA: nic becomes operator specific. Extremely expensive operation costs.
[16:20:58] <petrescu> commenter:multicast .16 natively sincerely rupposrt multicast.
[16:21:06] <petrescu> commenter: preserve the service of ND./
[16:21:22] <petrescu> EN: just because no... doesn't mean convergence layer can't provide it.
[16:21:33] <petrescu> EN: get it to be functional first.
[16:21:39] <petrescu> EN: multicast performance...
[16:21:51] <petrescu> MKS: many ways to solve the problem.
[16:22:31] <jeff_mandin> Answer: Eth CS does in the downlink and can in the uplink with bridging
[16:22:52] <jeff_mandin> ie. if you add a bridging element above the CS layer
[16:30:14] --- petrescu has left: Replaced by new connection
[16:30:32] --- petrescu has joined
[16:30:56] <petrescu> Rajeev Koodli is RK
[16:31:10] <petrescu> slide: fast mip handovers
[16:31:16] <petrescu> slide: background
[16:31:42] <petrescu> slide: fast handovers
[16:34:34] <petrescu> slide: 802.16e handover overview
[16:36:38] <petrescu> slide": predictive fast handover over ieee 802.16e
[16:38:11] <petrescu> Parviz approaching
[16:38:59] <petrescu> slide: reactive fast handover over ieee 802.16e
[16:39:50] <petrescu> parivz: normally uou have multiple targets.
[16:39:58] <petrescu> those predictive targets
[16:40:11] <petrescu> RK: by the time you've done... you figured out the target so you know what is.
[16:40:24] <petrescu> Junhoon Jee is JJ
[16:40:33] <petrescu> slide: 16ng problem statement
[16:40:39] <petrescu> slide: introduction
[16:41:04] <petrescu> slide: problem statements
[16:41:58] <petrescu> slide: 2nd slide of problem statement
[16:42:25] <petrescu> slide: 3rd
[16:42:49] <petrescu> JJ: end of it.
[16:42:54] <petrescu> slide: proposed charter.
[16:43:04] <petrescu> GM speaking.
[16:44:06] <petrescu> John Loughney is JL, approaching mike.
[16:44:36] <petrescu> RK: it's rfc4068
[16:45:07] <petrescu> JL: 3rd bullet point, what is that secnarion? Submip?
[16:45:25] <petrescu> GM: larger than sub-mip scenario. DSL-modem look-alike. MN going to a bus or scenario.
[16:45:53] <petrescu> slide: charter discussion: limited window of opportinif, gauging audience interest.
[16:46:00] <petrescu> slide: should we form a WG?
[16:46:22] <petrescu> IPv6 co-chari approaching, and phil roberts, which is pr.
[16:46:35] <petrescu> co-chair of ipv6: will they run ip
[16:48:55] --- petrescu has left: Replaced by new connection
[16:49:07] --- petrescu has joined
[16:50:01] <petrescu> PR: scope issue. If WiBro WiMax is plunging in. What is the status of 802.16e itself is?
[16:50:12] <petrescu> If convergence layer then that's 802.16e exactly.
[16:50:23] <petrescu> GM: I don't know, the suggestion of covnergence layer is from ...
[16:50:44] <petrescu> commenter (he's a 6ng chair): physical capability layer (for multicast)?
[16:51:02] <petrescu> Grag Daley GD: co-ordination and guidance (on v4 and v6) is necessary.
[16:51:22] <petrescu> GD: haven't read the docs, are they available. If interested in us, we have to have open access.
[16:51:36] <petrescu> BA: ietf participants have access to both and, but no to wimax.
[16:51:45] <petrescu> GD: is this requirement for wimax compatibility as well?
[16:51:59] <petrescu> alper yegin is AY: currently no access to wimax.
[16:52:19] <petrescu> commenter (cisco?): multicast word is there, but impression is that based on local multicast.
[16:52:34] <petrescu> SHould be part of the charter how do you do l3 multicast.
[16:52:34] <cabo--tzi--org> Dino Farinacci
[16:52:55] <petrescu> Dino Farinacci is DF: promiss of Wi... you need multicast support.
[16:53:09] <petrescu> DF: don't look at local link multicast.
[16:53:20] <petrescu> BA: charter doesn't mention v4, right?
[16:53:36] <petrescu> presenter: because of the ... some kind of stuff from the wimax...
[16:54:02] <petrescu> GM: speaking far from mike
[16:54:07] <petrescu> RP is Raj Patil:
[16:54:20] <petrescu> RP: internet convergence is most relevant. We are in hurry to get this out.
[16:54:41] <petrescu> RP: are those two the convergence layers?
[16:54:56] <petrescu> RP: why not bringing it to IPv6, knowing all this IPv6 we've been done.
[16:55:02] <petrescu> Samita Chakrabarti is SK
[16:55:07] <petrescu> SK: why not in the IPv6 WG?
[16:55:40] <petrescu> SK: lot of work as issues for running of IPv6 over 16 can be solved below IP layer. Maybe implementation specific, there may be some little guidance for IPv6 to run on 16
[16:56:06] <petrescu> SK: e.g. for broadcast and multicast, or point to multipoint. There is something downlong, but not uplink.
[16:56:29] <petrescu> MW: ask questions efore people have to leave.
[16:56:44] <petrescu> MW: how many people understand what's being p[roposed here well enough to make a devision
[16:56:47] <petrescu> Like half room
[16:56:58] <petrescu> MW: how many people the IETF should have a WG
[16:57:03] <petrescu> like 3/4 room.
[16:57:22] <petrescu> MW: I'm counting keep your hands up.
[16:57:47] <petrescu> guys you get your numbers from the officials not from this chat allright?
[16:57:54] <petrescu> 28 also
[16:58:05] <petrescu> MW: how many people not to IETF have a WG in this area
[16:58:09] <petrescu> MW: I see one or two.
[16:58:27] <petrescu> MW: how many of you plan time to work on this
[16:58:39] <petrescu> I count 10, MW says pretty much.
[16:58:56] <petrescu> MW: how many think the Charter is in good enough shape, or Charter needs serious overhaul?
[16:59:05] <petrescu> MW: how many think Charter is pretty good, like 20.
[16:59:15] <petrescu> MW: how many think Charter is off-base, like 10...
[16:59:24] <petrescu> MW:same questin again...
[16:59:39] <petrescu> Commenter: who's going to work on IPv4?
[16:59:49] <petrescu> MW: who thinks charter needs serious work before. Like 11.
[17:00:07] --- loa has left
[17:00:18] <petrescu> MW: someone wasked whether IPv4 as well.. how many IPv4 want this?
[17:00:25] <petrescu> commenter: IPv4 absolutely must be done.
[17:00:38] <cabo--tzi--org> (Dino again)
[17:04:33] --- petrescu has left: Replaced by new connection
[17:04:42] --- petrescu has joined
[17:04:44] --- jc_lee has left
[17:05:24] <petrescu> last questions were from ADs counting: how many people in room participate in ieee, wimax and wibro. Answers like 0, 10 and 10.
[17:05:44] <petrescu> Sorry for hicups guys... bye.
[17:05:55] <petrescu> meeting is adjourned.
[17:06:00] --- petrescu has left
[17:06:38] --- cabo--tzi--org has left: Disconnected
[17:11:20] --- petrescu has joined
[17:12:01] --- petrescu has left
[17:12:33] --- frodek has left
[17:13:56] --- momose has left: Replaced by new connection
[17:15:03] --- psavola has left
[17:16:10] --- cabo--tzi--org has joined
[17:19:08] --- jeff_mandin has left
[17:32:32] --- cabo--tzi--org has left
[18:19:20] --- petrescu has joined
[18:19:27] --- petrescu has left
[19:56:49] --- petrescu has joined
[19:58:43] --- petrescu has left
[20:56:58] --- petrescu has joined
[20:57:03] --- petrescu has left