| CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T40 | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
|
From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) (pcalhoun |
|
| Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:07:50 -0700 (PDT) | |
All, Here is the IESG Review Comment: T40 - The same section should include information about impact on network traffic. What is the extra level of traffic that is expected by introducing and deploying CAPWAP? Is there any limit of AC load that needs to be taken into consideration in order to avoid congestion on the network or on the AC? Probably this section should be renamed to also cover Operational considerations, I have added the following paragraph to the section, along with the modified section name: <text> 13. Operational Considerations [...] The CAPWAP protocol's control channel is fairly light weight from a traffic perspective. Once the WTP has been configured, the WTP sends periodic statistics. Further, the specification calls for a keepalive packet to be sent on the protocol's data channel to make sure that any possible middleboxes (e.g., NAT) maintain their UDP state. The overhead associated with the control and data channel is not expected to impact network traffic. That said, the CAPWAP protocol does allow for the frequency of these packets to be modified through the DataChannelKeepAlive and StatisticsTimer (see section 4.7.2 and section 4.7.14, respectively). </text> PatC
-
CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T40 Pat Calhoun (pacalhou), June 18 2008
-
Re: CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T40 Romascanu, Dan (Dan), June 18 2008
- Re: CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T40 Pat Calhoun (pacalhou), June 18 2008
-
Re: CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T40 Romascanu, Dan (Dan), June 18 2008
Results generated by Tiger Technologies using MHonArc.