Subject: Volunteer Needed to review draft-ietf-16ng-ipv6-link-model-analysis

From: Ross Callon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 09:45:36 -0400

I would like one or two routing-clueful volunteers to review:
     Analysis of IPv6 Link Models for 802.16 based Networks
     draft-ietf-16ng-ipv6-link-model-analysis-03.txt

particularly from the perspective of implications of this
document on routing protocols or methods for routing over
the 802.16 network models described.

This document was supposed to be on the agenda for today's
IESG call, but I have deferred it for two weeks, implying that I
would need a review back by two weeks from yesterday.

 From the introduction:

   802.16 [4] [5] is a point-to-multipoint connection oriented access
   technology for the last mile without bi-directional native multicast
   support. 802.16 has defined only downlink multicast support. This
   leads to two methods for running IP protocols that traditionally
   assume the availability of multicast at the link layer. One method
   is to use bridging e.g. 802.1D [6] to support bi-directional multicast,
   another method is to treat the 802.16 MAC transport connections
   between an MS and BS as point-to-point IP link, so that, the IP
   protocols (e.g. ARP, IPv6 Neighbor Discovery) can be run without
   any problems.

   This is further complicated by the definition of commercial network
   models like WiMAX, which defines the WiMAX transport connection
   that extend the 802.16 MAC transport connection all the way to an
   access router by using a tunnel between the base station and the
   access router. This leads to multiple ways of deploying IP over
   802.16 based networks.

In reading this through, it seems pretty clear that there are routing
implications of the model chosen, which are not described in the
document.

Thanks, Ross