Lwapp Mailing List: RE: Another Way to Think about CAPWAP

[Jerome Moisand (jmoisand]

Explain?

TCP works real well as the transport for COPS, which is one of the most
real-time & transactional control protocols which has been defined so
far, I believe. And is used in real-life deployment for policy control
with tens of policy decisions per second and the management of o(100k)
policy objects.

Not sure to see the fundamental difference (except that APs would
clearly have much less policy/control objects to deal with).

-----Original Message-----
From: lwapp-admin [at] frascone.com [mailto:lwapp-admin [at] frascone.com]On
Behalf Of Jim Murphy
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 2:03 PM
To: Pat R. Calhoun
Cc: Rama Krishna Prasad; Yang, Lily L; James Kempf; Paulo Francisco; Jim
Murphy; Branislav Meandzija; LWAPP
Subject: Re: [Lwapp] Another Way to Think about CAPWAP




Pat R. Calhoun wrote:

> There are mainly three different types of data that need to go between

> AP and AC.
> Discovery related messages,  configuration/signaling information and 
> actual
> data packets.  Data packet could be voice data and requires QoS. TCP 
> is not
> a good transport to transfer this information. For discovery,
> multicasting is required and TCP is not suitable. For control and 
> signaling data,
> either TCP or UDP with application reliability can be adapted.
>
> <PRC> For the most part you are correct, but it also depends on the 
> aggressiveness
> required for control messages. For instance, if TCP's backoff 
> algorithm could harm
> the 802.11 service, then it may not be the right transport.
>

TCP is not what you want due to head of line blocking.

Jim

>
>
> PatC
>


_______________________________________________
Lwapp mailing list
Lwapp [at] frascone.com
http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/lwapp