Capwap Mailing List: Re: CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T40

[Romascanu, Dan (Dan) (dromasca]

OK with me. 

Dan
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun [at] cisco.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 8:08 PM
> To: capwap [at] frascone.com
> Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T40
> 
> 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
> _________________________________________________________________
> To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
> http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap
> 
> Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap
>