Subject: [16ng] Charter discussion

From: "Soohong Daniel Park" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2006 19:11:05 +0900

It is time to start the 16ng WG charter discussion. Please take a look
at the charter below, then let us know your comments and feedbacks on
that.

++++++++++++[BEGIN]++++++++++++

IP over IEEE 802.16(e) Networks (16ng)

Last Modified: 2006-04-07

Description of Working Group:

Broadband Wireless Access Networks address the inadequacies of low
bandwidth wireless communication for user requirements such as high
quality data/voice service, fast mobility, wide coverage, etc. The
IEEE 802.16 Working Group on Broadband Wireless Access Standards
develops standards and recommended practices to support the
development and deployment of Broadband Wireless Metropolitan
Area Networks. Additionally, IEEE 802.16e is an amendment that
adds support for mobility over the base IEEE 802.16 specification.

Recently, the WiMAX Forum, and, in particular, its NWG (Network
Working Group) is defining the IEEE 802.16(e) network architecture
(e.g., IPv4, IPv6, Mobility, interworking with different networks,
AAA, etc). The NWG is thus taking on work at layers above those
defined by the IEEE 802 standards (typically limited to the physical
and link layers only). Similarly, WiBro (Wireless Broadband), Korea
effort which focuses on the 2.3 GHz spectrum band, is also based on
the IEEE 802.16e specification.

IEEE 802.16(e) is different from existing wireless access technologies
such as IEEE 802.11 or 3G, and, while 802.16 defines the encapsulation
of an IP datagram in an IEEE 802.16 MAC payload, complete description
of IP operation is not present and can benefit from IETF input and
specification.

For example: immediately subsequent to network entry, an 802.16
subscriber station has no capability whatsoever for data (as opposed
to management) connectivity. The criteria by which the Base Station
(or other headend elements) set up the 802.16 MAC connections for
data transport are not part of the 802.16 standard, and depend on
the type of data services being offered (e.g., the set up of transport
connections will be different for IPv4 and IPv6 services).
Additionally - as 802.16 is a point-to-multipoint network- an 802.16
subscriber station is not capable of multicasting (e.g., for neighbor
discovery, ARP, IP multicasting services, etc.) or direct communication
to the other nodes in the network. While the built-in Convergence
Sublayers (either IP CS or Ethernet CS) may rectify this, full details
are not yet fleshed out.

The principal objective of the 16ng working group is to identify what
limitations and considerations apply to IPv4 and IPv6 adoption over
IEEE 802.16(e), and to propose available solutions taking into
consideration IP CS as well as Ethernet CS. The working group may issue
recommendations to IEEE 802.16 aiming at improving support for IP.

These recommendations will be needed rather soon. The WiMAX Forum is
slated to specify IPv6 operation over IEEE 802.16(e) in 2006. On the
other hand, WiBro is already planning IPv4 deployment in 2006 (IPv6 over
WiBro will begin in the near future). Accordingly, the working group
will work and coordinate with the WiMAX Forum and with the WiBro efforts.

The scope of this working group is as follows (WG Deliverables);

-  Produce "16ng Goal and Requirement and Terminology" to identify the
16ng goal and technical requirement of IP adoption over IEEE 802.16(e)
along with 16ng related terminology to be used for the base guideline
while defining solution frameworks. [Informational RFC]

-  Produce "IPv6 over IEEE 802.16(e) Networks in conjunction with IPv6 CS"
to define IPv6 operation including the transmission of IPv6 over IEEE 802.16(e)
link, Neighbor Discovery Protocol, Stateful (DHCPv6) and Stateless Address
Configuration, Broadcast, Multicast, etc. [Proposed Standard RFC]

-  Produce "IPv6 over IEEE 802.16(e) Networks in conjunction with Ethernet CS"
to define IPv6 operation including the transmission of IPv6 over IEEE 802.16(e)
link, Neighbor Discovery Protocol, Stateful (DHCPv6) and Stateless Address
Configuration, Broadcast, Multicast, etc. [Proposed Standard RFC]

-  Produce "IPv4 over IEEE 802.16(e) Networks in conjunction with IPv4 CS"
to define IPv4 operation including the transmission of IPv4 over IEEE 802.16(e)
links, ARP operation, Stateful Address Configuration (DHCPv4), Broadcast,
Multicast, etc [Proposed Standard RFC]

-  Produce "IPv4 over IEEE 802.16(e) Networks in conjunction with Ethernet CS"
to define IPv4 operation including the transmission of IPv4 over IEEE 802.16(e)
links, ARP operation, Stateful Address Configuration (DHCPv4), Broadcast,
Multicast, etc [Proposed Standard RFC]

-  Produce "IP deployment over IEEE 802.16(e) Networks" to illustrate the IP
deployment scenarios and considerations over IEEE 802.16(e) networks based on
the WiMAX and WiBro. [Informational RFC]

As for fast mobility, the characteristics of IEEE 802.16e link-layer operation
may require special considerations when implementing Fast Mobile IPv6
(RFC 4068), something which may be pursued in the MIPSHOP WG.
In the case of Fast Mobile IPv4 (FMIPv4) over IEEE 802.16(e), the
specification will be done by the MIP4 WG. The 16ng WG will participate
and help coordinate with the other 16ng efforts.

This working group will reuse existing specifications whenever reasonable
and possible. Further items such as support for 802.16 mesh networks can
be considered after rechartering.

Goals and Milestones:

Jul 06 Submit Internet-Draft on 16ng Goal, Requirement and Terminology to
       IESG for considerations of publication as Informational RFC

Sep 06 Submit Internet-Draft on IPv6/IPv6CS transmission over IEEE 802.16(e)
       networks to IESG for consideration of publication as Proposed
Standard RFC

Nov 06 Submit Internet-Draft on IPv6/EthernetCS transmission over IEEE 802.16(e)
       networks to IESG for consideration of publication as Proposed
Standard RFC

Feb 07 Submit Internet-Draft on IPv4/IPv4CS transmission over IEEE 802.16(e)
       to IESG for consideration of publication as Proposed Standard RFC

Apr 07 Submit Internet-Draft on IPv4/EthernetCS transmission over IEEE 802.16(e)
       networks to IESG for consideration of publications as Proposed
Standard RFC

June 07 Submit Internet-Draft on IP deployment over IEEE 802.16(e) networks to
       IESG for consideration of publication as Informational RFC

July 07 Working Group close or rechartering if necessary

++++++++++++[END]++++++++++++

--

Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park)
Mobile Convergence Laboratory, SAMSUNG Electronics.

---

From: Soohong Daniel Park <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 09:57:54 +0900

I would call for comments on the "16ng deliverable as IP deployment
over IEEE 802.16(e) Networks". It aims to guage 16ng consensus
whether we might take this item or not (leave it as v6ops task). 
I heard the relavant draft [2] below was officially accepted as v6ops
WG item at Dallas. That is why I try to clarify this item at this time.

[1] 16ng deliverable (none of draft)
-  Produce "IP deployment over IEEE 802.16(e) Networks" to illustrate the IP
deployment scenarios and considerations over IEEE 802.16(e) networks based on
the WiMAX and WiBro. [Informational RFC]

[2] v6ops individual submission regarding 802.16 deployment scenario
http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-shin-v6ops-802-16-deployment-scenarios-00.txt

To me, both are for the same goal. But [2] just mention IPv6, not IPv4 
([1] will figure out both IPv4 and IPv6). Further, 16ng does not have a
chance to go through [2] as much as we satisfy. [2] seems a bit general 
document as one of v6ops broadband deployment (WLAN, PLC, Cable, 
and WMAN). Also, v6ops broadband deployment draft is under IESG
evaluation after WGLC. So, [2] will may be ready to the WGLC quickly 
as far as I am concern. 

CALL FOR COMMENTS:

- Working on 16ng deliverable regardless of [2] ?
- Sending 16ng comments on [2], then published by v6ops ?
(In that case, we should consider how to deal with IPv4)
- Considering [2] as a candidate of 16ng deployment deliverable ?

Any comments are highly welcome. 

>From [email-masked] Wed Apr 12 12:20:45 2006
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 11:34:21 +0900
From: Myung-Ki Shin <[email-masked]>
Organization: ETRI
To: Soohong Daniel Park <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [16ng] Charter discussion - IP deployment over IEEE 802.16(e)
 Networks
cc: [email-masked]
cc: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Hi, Daniel,  (I'm ccing [email-masked])

Actually, I don't think that the goal of two drafts are the same.

V6ops draft [2] covers the issues on IPv6 deployment and
integration methods and scenarios in 802.16 broadband access
networks in coexistence with deployed IPv4 services.
It extends works of <draft-ietf-v6ops-bb-deployment-scenarios-01.txt>.
This is also one of goals and scope of v6ops WG.
In this draft, authors do not try to define any new network models or 
protocols.

But, in my view, 16ng should focus on network and IP link models
(e.g, WiMAX and WiBro), not IPv6 deployment and scenarios, etc.

So, I think the 16ng deliverable [1] should be published as a separate
document, focusing on network and IP link models (IPv4 and IPv6, both).

Any thoughts ?

Thanks,
Myung-Ki,

-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Myung-Ki Shin, Ph.D.| [email-masked]
ETRI/PEC            | 161 Gajeong-dong Yuseong-gu
Tel:+82-42-860-4847 | Daejeon, 305-350 Korea

Soohong Daniel Park wrote:
> I would call for comments on the "16ng deliverable as IP deployment
> over IEEE 802.16(e) Networks". It aims to guage 16ng consensus
> whether we might take this item or not (leave it as v6ops task). 
> I heard the relavant draft [2] below was officially accepted as v6ops
> WG item at Dallas. That is why I try to clarify this item at this time.
> 
> 
> [1] 16ng deliverable (none of draft)
> [2] v6ops individual submission regarding 802.16 deployment scenario
> http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-shin-v6ops-802-16-deployment-scenarios-00.txt
> 
> 
> To me, both are for the same goal. But [2] just mention IPv6, not IPv4 
> ([1] will figure out both IPv4 and IPv6). Further, 16ng does not have a
> chance to go through [2] as much as we satisfy. [2] seems a bit general 
> document as one of v6ops broadband deployment (WLAN, PLC, Cable, 
> and WMAN). Also, v6ops broadband deployment draft is under IESG
> evaluation after WGLC. So, [2] will may be ready to the WGLC quickly 
> as far as I am concern. 
> 
> 
> CALL FOR COMMENTS:
> 
> - Working on 16ng deliverable regardless of [2] ?
> - Sending 16ng comments on [2], then published by v6ops ?
> (In that case, we should consider how to deal with IPv4)
> - Considering [2] as a candidate of 16ng deployment deliverable ?
> 
> 
> Any comments are highly welcome. 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 16ng mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://eeca16.sogang.ac.kr/mailman/listinfo/16ng
>