Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] CAPWAP Control and Data Plane Separation Draft - draft-zhang-opsawg-capwap-cds

From: "Rajesh Pazhyannur (rpazhyan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 04:40:02 +0000

Hello Dapeng

Yes, you are right that we are proposing that all station generated management messages are encapsulated within a CAPWAP data tunnel. This is, consistent, with existing behavior when the AP is either in Local MAC or Split MAC mode.  There are two options for the non-management related station  traffic: 1) local bridging and 2) tunneled to a WTP/Access Router. For option 2), the WTP will need *another* data tunnel. Further, to maintain the simplicity and ease of provisioning of the data tunnel end point, we want the tunnel end point information to be signaled to the WTP (typically after the control channel is established). In the existing CAPWAP model, the data tunnel is assumed to have the same IP address as the control channel end point, thereby eliminating the need for additional signaling.

Hopefully, that clarifies why we need 1) multiple data tunnels and 2) need additional signaling for the establishment of data tunnel.

Regards

Rajesh
*******************************

Hi Zhen,
The update of the draft actually proposes a way of encapsulating any new controlling messages to an independent CAPWAP Data tunnel. This way is straightforward, but do you think there is a need of signaling and selection of multiple Data tunnels on the WTP?
Regards,
Dapeng Liu
*******************************