Capwap Mailing List: Re: (no subject)

[Alper Yegin (alper]

>> Why not achieve these goals by:
>> - Running PANA between the station and access router.
> PANA assumes a completely different architecture - not one that any of the
> startups seemed to have adopted.

I'm going by your description of the arch in this thread. Maybe there are
missing details that make a difference. Please share.

> I suppose it would be ok for the IETF to work
> on something that is not being productized, but I'd wonder why...

It is not just OK, it is even better. Trying to solve yesterday's problem
that will miss the train is not the right model for IETF.

> 
>> - Having AP relay interesting IEEE 802.11 bits to the access router as it
>> bridges (forwards) the packets. This can be carried as some sort of auxilary
>> data as part of the IEEE headers. IEEE (SDO) could define this.
> This is what LWAPP does, right?

Our aim is not finding problems to a solution, it is finding the right
solutions to a problem.

> I don't see this as a MAC or PHY layer thing,
> so I don't see why IEEE would be interested.

Well, note that we are trying to glue two pieces (AP and AR) that IEEE broke
apart, not IETF.

Alper