Subject: [Seamoby] A Question about L2 ID .....

From: Ivano De Luca <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 12:18:33 +0200

Hello,
One question for you.
Which is exactly the ID at L2 that MN listen to make handover decisions?
Is it the ESSID of AP? Or is it the MAC Address? Or other?

I've understood that it is the ESSID, but it is not the one by 
definition....
If there are some APs in MN's range with the same name, what happens?

Ivano

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

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 08:22:29 -0700

It's the MAC address. 

        jak

---

From: Ivano De Luca <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 17:22:07 +0200

> It's the MAC address.
But do you know that tha AP's MAC address could be changed by users ? 
So I don't think it's a good ID for AP
Don't you ?

Ivano

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 08:27:36 -0700

The ESSID could be changed as well.  The attacker would need to break into
the AP in order to change either. The assumption is that the AP has been
secured. The security for that is outside of the scope of the CARD protocol.

            jak

---

From: Simone Molendini <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 15:28:51 +0200

I have concerns on the fact that par. 5.1.3.1 defines the "L2 type" 
and "L2 ID" fields as a L2 general ID (with unassigned values and 
prefixes).

The fixed-length EUI-64 is used as a global identifier in a number of 
the format prefixes Interface IDs (including IEEE802).

Why using what haven't been already defined when something else has 
been defined and registered?

Simone

---

From: "Eunsoo Shim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 10:54:48 -0400

The CARD protocol should be able to operate on any kind of (wireless) L2
technologies including their various MAC/link address formats.
So the CARD protocol does not assume any single format for MAC/link
addresses.
Hope this answers your question.

Eunsoo

---

From: Simone Molendini <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 17:23:21 +0200

>Hope this answers your question.

First of all, thank you for your help.
I've got this point and I agree: the use of a L2 (wireless) MAC for a 
plurality of technologies needs.

I just think that it's a waste of work defining a syntax when a 
standard, to this purpose, already exists: the (Modified) EUI-64 is 
used, for example, to derive a *number* of kind of MACs into IPv6 
addresses (see Appendix A in RFC3513).

If the CARD protocol aims to define a global MAC, EUI-64 is an easy 
solution (IMHO).

Simone

---

From: Marco Liebsch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 16:51:22 +0200

Hi Simone,

I think the current specification doesn't conflict with using the
format for actual identifiers you refer to, as long as it contains a unique
(technology specific) L2 identifier (like MAC addresses).
I also agree that we should reuse specified numbers and formats if possible.
However, I don't see a need to specify in the CARD protocol
document the actual L2 identifier to be used for individual access 
technologies.
But I also think it is needed to have control on the numbers assigned to 
L2 "type"
(see issue#30), hence, the proposal is to request IANA for number assignment
and initial types could be the ones indicated in the recent draft. If 
accuracy
of types must be larger (802.11a, 802.11b, FDD CDMA, TDD CDMA,...),
this should be discussed on the mailing list. We checked also here
whether or not already existing type identifiers can be re-used, but
did not find something appropriate. If you know about available
type identifiers, please send a pointer to this information.

marco