Capwap Mailing List: I updated the comment to the issue: WTP Id Issue

[Richard (rishyang]

Hi, Abhijit:

I just discussed the WTP Id issues with my coeditor Yong again by Skype.
I updated the comments to the issues, kindly let me know your opinion.

To Dan: Kindly also let me know your opinion, thanks.


1.  WTP Id issues
[Abhijit] WTP Profile.  While it's possible to use the
(VendorId+SerialNumber), I really suspect that a MAC address is more
appropriate and something most vendors will end up using. To your point
about the Base MAC Address not being a MUST, RFC 5415 seems ambiguous
about it.
Note that while the RFC specifically sates the other types MUST or MAY
be included, it doesn't say so for Base MAC Address.  It says the Base
Mac Address may be assigned but says nothing about whether it MUST or
MAY be included in the Board Data Type.
Another option is the Base BSSID. Again although the spec only says it's
recommended, I suspect most vendors will have it available.
Could we add text to the effect that one can use either the
(VendorId+SerialNumber) as you suggested or the Base MAC Address or Base
BSSID if it's available?

[Richard ] As we could not offer two options (BAC Mac or
(VendorId+SerialNumber))
to identify a WTP when we design the MIB, we have to choose one way  
between
these two.  For either of them,  it  has some problem.
Suppose we use (VendorId+SerialNumber)), the good thing is that they  
are must be
carried in the capwap message. The problem is that the Index to a WTP  
becomes two
(Used be one).  It is not good to the MIB design.
Suppose we use the base MAC, the good thing is that keep the index to  
a WTP simple.
The problem is that RFC5415 does not clearly say whether the field is  
MUST or MAY.

From the MIB design perspective, it would be better to use "BASE Mac"  
and hope it
is feasible to add some text in the MIB draft and ask that "base MAC  
address" field is must
have.

BTW,  what's your opinion to other two issue?

Regards
Richard