Capwap Mailing List: Re: Proposed resolution for issue 100. Treatment of wirelessmanagement frames.

[Michael Montemurro (montemurro.michael]

Is there consensus that radio techology specific management frames should be carried as CAPWAP data frames?

 

Thanks,

 

Mike

 

On 6/3/06, Abhijit Choudhury <Abhijit [at] sinett.com> wrote:

Mike,

I'm not sure this make sense.

 

The CAPWAP control channel is for "control and

provisioning" messages between the AC and the WTP.

Per-client information arriving at the WTP should

be sent in the data channel as it is all data to

the AC, and has nothing to do with "control and

provisioning" of the WTP. 

 

There could be radio technology specific information

(e.g. RSSI/SNR) that are collected on a per-client

basis at the AC, and separating out some of the

messages into a separate channel will lead to either

erroneous accounting or more complicated logic that

looks at both channels on a packet-by-packet basis.

All packets sent by a client should come up

the same channel (the data channel).

 

As for security for management frames, 802.11w

should take care of that.

 

Thanks,

   Abhijit

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Montemurro [mailto: montemurro.michael [at] gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 12:39 PM
To: capwap
Subject: [Capwap] Proposed resolution for issue 100. Treatment of wirelessmanagement frames.

Here is my proposed resolution to issue 100:

- Fix the default priority settings in section 11.6 to the values used in section 4.3.3.

- Change the last paragraph in section 4.3 to state that radio technology specific management frames are treated as CAPWAP control messages. It makes sense because control frames are protected.

Does this make sense?

Cheers,

Mike