Subject: [netlmm] #57: Scenerio should include WLAN

From: netlmm-tracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 11:20:36 -0000

#57: Scenerio should include WLAN
-----------------------------------------+----------------------------------
 Reporter:  [email-masked]     |       Owner:  [email-masked]
     Type:  defect                       |      Status:  new                     
 Priority:  major                        |   Milestone:  milestone2              
Component:  draft-ietf-netlmm-nohost-ps  |     Version:  1.0                     
 Keywords:  PS draft                     |  
-----------------------------------------+----------------------------------
 Pekka Savola writes:

 3) Scenarios doesn't mention the typical large WLAN environment

 I was surprised to see that the most logical reason (in my mind) wasn't
 included in scenarios:  even if you'd have Ethernet connectivity between
 WLAN access-points, at a certain point the network just grows so large
 that
 keeping it as a single broadcast domain is NOT a good idea.  In that
 scenario you'll want to chunk it up, but hopefully retain IP mobility as
 well.  Section 3.1 is written in such a manner that this scenario is not
 highlighted, but rather the focus is on the question about whether a
 single
 VLAN can be made to cover the campus due to wired link restrictions.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://www1.tools.ietf.org/wg/netlmm/trac/ticket/57>
netlmm <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/netlmm/>

_______________________________________________
netlmm mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm

---

From: netlmm-tracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 12:08:33 -0000

#57: Scenerio should include WLAN
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
  Reporter:  [email-masked]     |       Owner:  [email-masked]
      Type:  defect                       |      Status:  new                     
  Priority:  major                        |   Milestone:  milestone2              
 Component:  draft-ietf-netlmm-nohost-ps  |     Version:  1.0                     
Resolution:                               |    Keywords:  PS draft                
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
Comment (by [email-masked]):

 The reason this isn't described is because the WLAN switches (Airespace,
 now Cisco, Aruba, etc.) all have solutions for what they call "IP
 mobility". These solutions provide mobility between IP subnets without
 requiring any host involovement (these solutions don't even require any IP
 level movement detection on the host). These solutions are proprietary,
 however.

 At the time the WG was forming, it seemed quite uncertain whether the WLAN
 switch vendors would adopt a NETLMM solution, so the charter and problem
 statement were confined to the wide area case, where prospects for
 widespread adoption were more promising.

 Recommend that we keep the current text, unless someone from the WLAN
 switch vendor community feels that adoption prospects for an
 interoperable, IP level mobility management solution have improved.

---

From: netlmm-tracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 12:10:48 -0000

#57: Scenerio should include WLAN
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
  Reporter:  [email-masked]     |       Owner:  [email-masked]
      Type:  defect                       |      Status:  assigned                
  Priority:  major                        |   Milestone:  milestone2              
 Component:  draft-ietf-netlmm-nohost-ps  |     Version:  1.0                     
Resolution:                               |    Keywords:  PS draft                
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
Changes (by [email-masked]):

  * cc:  [email-masked] =>
  * status:  new => assigned

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 13:30:25 +0300 (EEST)

On Tue, 23 May 2006, netlmm-tracker wrote:
> Recommend that we keep the current text, unless someone from the 
> WLAN switch vendor community feels that adoption prospects for an 

There is nothing WLAN-specific about this technology, hence products 
implementing NETLMM could be used in deployments instead of WLAN 
switches.  So, I'm puzzled -- why should we seek approval of vendors 
w/ proprietary products before developing a more general, 
interoperable solution that would be competing with theirs?

I think it's important that no one could argue that all what NETLMM 
is doing could be done by these proprietary WLAN switches, and hence 
no IETF activity is needed unless the WLAN switch vendors wish to step 
forward to standardize their stuff -- but this seems clear enough as 
it is.

> Isn't this covered by the text "or in which it is not possible to 
> cover the campus by one VLAN"? That would cover not being able to 
> stretch the same WLAN over the entire campus.

IMHO, no.  The context of that statement is that a VLAN can't span the 
campus because it might not be possible to span the *Ethernet* all the 
way.  It had little to do with the scalability properties with a 
single huge broadcast domain.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: Tom Wan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 10:48:59 +0800

I'd like to add one opinion:
If the current network has implemented the function or the consumer need the 
function,
Then we should consider it. If only some proprietary solution. We should not 
consider it
unless the proprietary solution has been accepted.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Pekka Savola" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2006 6:30 PM
Subject: Re: [netlmm] #57: Scenerio should include WLAN

> implementing NETLMM could be used in deployments instead of WLAN switches. 
> So, I'm puzzled -- why should we seek approval of vendors w/ proprietary 
> products before developing a more general, interoperable solution that 
> would be competing with theirs?
>
> I think it's important that no one could argue that all what NETLMM is 
> doing could be done by these proprietary WLAN switches, and hence no IETF 
> activity is needed unless the WLAN switch vendors wish to step forward to 
> standardize their stuff -- but this seems clear enough as it is.
>
>> Isn't this covered by the text "or in which it is not possible to cover 
>> the campus by one VLAN"? That would cover not being able to stretch the 
>> same WLAN over the entire campus.
>
> way.  It had little to do with the scalability properties with a single 
> huge broadcast domain.
>
> --

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 02:33:57 -0700

Pekka,

Please suggest some text to add to the paragraph after the sentence about 
VLANs that would address your concerns.

            jak