Control and Provisioning of Wireless Access Points (capwap) Working Group, March 26, 2009 3:10pm-4:10pm

Notes: Dorothy Stanley

 

 

Chair (Mahalingam Mani, Dorothy Gellert) called the meeting to order at 3:15 pm.

 

  1. Chairs obtained volunteers for a note taker (Dorothy Stanley) and a jabber scribe (Dan Romascanu).
  2. Review of agenda, no changes identified
    1. Intro/Administrivia (3 min, Chairs):  Note Well, Minute-taker, Jabber-scribe.
    2.  CAPWAP Protocol: CAPWAP Standards & Informational RFC (5 min, Chairs): 5415-5418
    3. Report on MIB drafts (30 min, Yang Shi/Yong)  http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-capwap-base-mib-04.txt and  http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-capwap-802dot11-mib-03.txt
    4.  Implementation Information – updates, if any (5min)

                                                               i.      EPCGlobal

                                                              ii.      WLAN

    1. Next Steps (5-10 min, Chairs)

                                                               i.      MIB drafts – ready for IESG?

    1. Other work proposals in WG

 

  1. Chair: Review of recently published RFCs
    1. Chairs reviewed the list of document published, and congratulated the Group on the milestone.
    2. Dan: The three individual submissions can now be released for publication. Expect them to be published shortly.

 

  1. Richard: MIB Status
    1. Status of CAPWAP Base MIBCurrent version: 04

                                                               i.      Total number Issues found by WG: 43

                                                              ii.      Issues closed: 39

                                                            iii.      Open issues: 4 

    1. CAPWAP Dot11 MIB

                                                               i.      Current version: 03

                                                              ii.      Total number Issues found by WG: 18

                                                            iii.      Issues closed: 12

                                                            iv.      Open issues: 6

    1. Comment: Have all of the issues been posted to the list? Some still need to be posted, will do this.
    2. Open issue: Need a mechanism that preserves the values of ifIndex. Dan explains the issue as he raised it. Richard brought a solution; keep the IFIndex value persistent. This is not a common restriction. Implementations will need to take standard SNMP packages and change to have persistent values. Text has been added to the document to explain this. Another solution was proposed, which would move the problem to the operator.  Believe we can live with the IF Index restriction.
    3. Open Issue: Dot11 MIB should add a new Terminology “WLAN Profile”. Add to the overview section: “WLAN Profile”, a configuration profile which includes several  parameters such as MAC Mode.  The value scope of profile’s Id is 1 to 512. Also, it should explain the relationship between WLAN Profile Id and WLAN ID.  For MIB table, Current WLAN ID object in the capwapDot11WlanTable  should be replaced with  WLAN Profile Id. and capwapDot11WlanBindTable should add a WLAN Profile Id  Object.
    4. Open Issue: Add a WTP Profile Function to the Base MIB. The WTP Profile includes several Configuration parameters such as static IP for a specific WTP. Would be created by an operator before a specific WTP connects to AC. Discussed the rationale for the changes, and an explanation of how the WTP profile will be used.
    5. Chair: Is there any objection to these changes. They are being made late in the process, and will require another WGLC.

                                                               i.      No objection to the changes.

    1. Continue with presentation on how the WTP profile is used.
    2. Describes impact on the current MIB objects: impact to capwapbaseWtpTable – the operator will only query the WPT properties when the WTP is in the RUN status. Configuration related functions should be moved to the capwapBaseWtpProfileEntry.
    3. Describe Impact on the current CAPWAPBaseWtpStateTable – add a new object, the WTP profile ID
    4. Describes impact to capwapBaseWirelessBindingEntry. Change the index valueto the capwapBaseWtpProfileId, since the creation of the Virtual radio interface is triggered by the profile table.
    5. Next steps are to close all open issues in the next revision within two weeks, including updating the references for the published RFCs (5415 and 5416). Then go to WGLC again.
    6. How many days should we wait for feedback on the mailing list? First post the solution text on the list. Update the documents with the final proposed resolution. Then wait for 2 weeks for any objections. Then issue a WGLC on the 2 documents.
    7. Chair: Encourage participants to review the documents.
    8. Comment, CoKo Musaza: Began looking at CAPWAP in 2006. Is CAPWAP a protocol or a software? Is there any implementation working on Unix or Linux? Testing mechanisms? Were they tested using IPv4, IPv6?

                                                               i.      Is a protocol, not a set of software.

                                                              ii.      Have heard that there are 4-5 implementations in progress for WLAN, unknown number for EPCGlobal. Best to ask these questions on the list, ask for folks to respond to the list, or to you directly.

                                                            iii.      Not aware of any IPv6 implementations, again ask on the list.

                                                            iv.      Dan: The protocol is designed to work with IPv6. Up to vendors and customers to require IPv6.

 

  1. Implementation Information – updates
    1. Chair: Is anyone willing to give information on implementations? Ask this question on the list.
    2. No information contributed.

 

  1. Chair asked for any more questions
    1. Comment, Hassana Moustafa: Is there any second phase? There was discussion on this at the last meeting.
    2. Chair: Asked at the last meeting, so far have been no contributions or expressions of interest.
    3. Dan: AD perspective is that we need to finish the MIB, then at the next IETF meeting see if there is interest, or contributions. Also discuss on the list.

 

  1. Meeting adjourned at 4:10pm.