Subject: RE: [Capwap] Questions on the CAPWAP Protocol Specification

From: "Richard Gwee" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 14:28:58 +0800

Hi Scott,

Thanks for the email. My "complaint" is about the ambiguity which is
your initial understanding. You have not misunderstood my meaning in the
first place :). However, you did raise a valid point in who determine
the necessity to upgrade the firmware. My opinion all the while is that
the decision making should lies with the AC.

Hi Sujatha,

Thanks for the email reply. The AC descriptor you mentioned does contain
some value on the hardware and software version. Unfortunately, the
draft specification does not seem to indicate clearly on how these
values are to be used in answering my question. Perhaps some
confirmation from others rather than we assume?

Thanks and Regards
Richard 

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Kelly [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 12:23 AM
To: [email-masked]; Richard Gwee;
[email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Capwap] Questions on the CAPWAP Protocol Specification

Comments inline below...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2006 11:58 PM
> To: Scott Kelly; 'Richard Gwee'; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [Capwap] Questions on the CAPWAP Protocol Specification
> 
> Hi Scott,
>  Thanks for the response.
>  I agree  that if we add all the relevant Message Elements to
Configure
> Request, my problem will be solved.
> 
> The suggested Message Elements from Join Request to be added to the
> Configure Request are
> 1. WTP name - this is the way the WTP identifies itself to the AC.
> 2.WTP descriptor  - the AC should know the encryption capabilities of
the
> WTP
> 3.Location Data
> 4. WTP radio information - radio type and radio id
> 
> But I am not sure if this will solve Richard's Problem . I was under
the
> assumption that the  WTP should use the
> AC Descriptor (Firmware Version/ SW version etc) to make that
decision.
> The AC descriptor is part of the
> Discovery REsponse from the AC to the WTP.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding Richard's complaint. I thought he was
concerned about the ambiguity as to how the AC knows which state to
transition to, and that this ambiguity arose due to the fact that with
the join removed, the AC has no idea which is appropriate - firmware
upgrade vs configuration. 

I guess the question is, who makes the decision about the necessity of
firmware upgrade: the AC or the WTP? You seem to indicate it should be
the WTP, but I've been thinking it should be the AC. If this is correct,
then placing the fields you've described above into the configure
exchange resolve this. Am I missing something?

Scott

Republic Polytechnic, 9 Woodlands Avenue 9, Singapore 738964 (Near Woodlands MRT/Interchange)
. www.rp.sg . Fax: +65 6415-1310 . 

Republic Polytechnic, the first Institute of Higher Learning to fully adopt the Problem-Based Learning approach in Singapore, continues to strive towards best practices and maintain excellence in service standards with the following certifications: Singapore Innovation Class (SIC), Singapore Quality Class (SQC), People Developer Standards and QEHS (ISO 9001, 14001 and OHSAS 18001)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONFIDENTIALITY CAUTION: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and contains information that is privileged and confidential. If you, the reader of this message, are not the intended recipient, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return email and delete the original message. Thank you.  

_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap

Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 12:38:48 +0530

Hi 

There is a mismatch in the information in the specification.

(a)
In Section 2.2 (CAPWAP state machine)

Run to Run(r): 
in WTP: 
Echo Request: The WTP receives an Echo Request message (see
            Section 6.1), to which it MUST respond with an Echo Response
            message(see Section 6.2).
Here it is mentioned  as WTP RECEIVES Echo Request and WTP has to send Echo
Response.

(b)In section 12 CAPWAP protocol timers 
  
   12.3.  NeighborDeadInterval

   The minimum time, in seconds, a WTP MUST wait without having received
   Echo Responses to its Echo Requests, before the destination for the
   Echo Request may be considered dead.  Must be no less than
   2*EchoInterval seconds and no greater than 240 seconds.

   12.5.  EchoInterval

   The minimum time, in seconds, between sending echo requests to the AC
   with which the WTP has joined.

   Here it is mentioned as WTP SENDS the Echo Request. 

  Please do the necessary changes in the spec.

Thanks and Regards
Bharani

***************************************

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Gwee [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, 14 March 2006 11:59 AM
To: Scott Kelly; [email-masked];
[email-masked]

Hi Scott,

Hi Sujatha,

Thanks and Regards
Richard 

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Kelly [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 12:23 AM
To: [email-masked]; Richard Gwee;
[email-masked]

Comments inline below...

Configure
the
the
decision.

Scott

Republic Polytechnic, 9 Woodlands Avenue 9, Singapore 738964 (Near Woodlands
MRT/Interchange)
. www.rp.sg . Fax: +65 6415-1310 . 

Republic Polytechnic, the first Institute of Higher Learning to fully adopt
the Problem-Based Learning approach in Singapore, continues to strive
towards best practices and maintain excellence in service standards with the
following certifications: Singapore Innovation Class (SIC), Singapore
Quality Class (SQC), People Developer Standards and QEHS (ISO 9001, 14001
and OHSAS 18001)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
CONFIDENTIALITY CAUTION: This message is intended only for the use of the
individual or entity to whom it is addressed and contains information that
is privileged and confidential. If you, the reader of this message, are not
the intended recipient, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this
communication. If you have received this communication in error, please
notify us immediately by return email and delete the original message. Thank
you.