Thoughts on AP Functional Descriptions Feb-19 Thoughts on AP Functional Descriptions L. Lily Yang Steve Shellhammer Intel Corp. lily.l.yang@intel.com Stephen.j.shellhammer@intel.com Lily Yang, Steve Shellhammer, Intel

Overview Background & Motivation How to achieve interoperability? Feb-19 Overview Background & Motivation How to achieve interoperability? Scoping for “AP Functional Descriptions” Requirements and Reality Check Open Questions for the new SG/TG Summary & Conclusion Lily Yang, Steve Shellhammer, Intel

AP Functional Descriptions: Logical View Feb-19 Background Original “Access Points”: Logical AP Functions = One Physical Entity (“AP”) Subsequently in the industry some vendors have partitioned the AP functionality into different physical entities Logical AP Functions = Combination of Physical Entities AP Functions: Logical AP Functional Descriptions: Logical View Lily Yang, Steve Shellhammer, Intel

Motivation: Interoperability Feb-19 Motivation: Interoperability Interest from IETF: defining a protocol between these physical entities to allow interoperability in the WLAN market X-Y Protocol Physical Entity X: From vendor A Physical Entity Y: From vendor B interoperable Lily Yang, Steve Shellhammer, Intel

How to achieve interoperability? Feb-19 How to achieve interoperability? IETF interest X-Y Protocol Physical Entity X Physical Entity Y First Step: Need help from IEEE Logical Functions for “X+Y” = “AP Functionality” It takes efforts from both IEEE and IETF Lily Yang, Steve Shellhammer, Intel

Additional Benefit of “AP Functional Descriptions” Feb-19 Additional Benefit of “AP Functional Descriptions” Facilitate other WLAN architecture development with interoperability in mind Example: ESS Mesh mesh Protocol Mesh Node #1 From vendor A Mesh Node #2 From vendor B Mesh Node = “AP Functionality” + “mesh Functionality” Lily Yang, Steve Shellhammer, Intel

Feb-19 Why by IEEE 802.11? The 802.11 WG defines the MAC and PHY layers, which are the basis for construction of an AP The 802.11 WG embodies the subject matter experts that best understand the workings of an AP Lily Yang, Steve Shellhammer, Intel

Scoping for “AP Functional Descriptions” Feb-19 Scoping for “AP Functional Descriptions” What’s in the scope? Clear logical decomposition of the AP functionality into some logical units (modules, services, functions, or whatever makes sense) Clear description of the interaction, relationship or interfaces between these logical units (SAP) What’s out of the scope? Physical mapping of these logical units onto physical entities (this implies a specific architecture: belongs to other groups) Lily Yang, Steve Shellhammer, Intel

Basic Requirements for “AP Functional Descriptions” Feb-19 Basic Requirements for “AP Functional Descriptions” Allow WLAN architecture flexibility and innovation Facilitate interoperability (possibly with additional work done elsewhere) Provide common framework for existing and future WLAN architecture development Lily Yang, Steve Shellhammer, Intel

Feb-19 Reality Check How future proof can it really be? (Common challenge for any technology development) Architecture flexibility Support infinite number of arbitrary architectures Figure out the relevant architectures in today’s market Study the evolutional path from past and present Keep eyes on the emerging architectures on the horizon Interesting architecture examples for study: Autonomous Centralized Distributed Lily Yang, Steve Shellhammer, Intel

Some open questions for the new SG/TG to investigate Feb-19 Some open questions for the new SG/TG to investigate What do we have today in the Standards (as starting points)? What is missing, lacking, or confusing? What are the technical challenges in describing AP functions? How to approach the functional decomposition? What is the right granularity for decomposition? How to describe the interface or interaction? Can data plane and control plane be separated clearly to facilitate more dynamic control and configuration? What kind of documents will be produced in the end? What impact does it have on other groups? Lily Yang, Steve Shellhammer, Intel

Reference Model in 802.11 (Clause 5 & 10) Feb-19 Reference Model in 802.11 (Clause 5 & 10) MAC_SAP MAC MLME Station Management Entity (SME) MLME_SAP MAC MIB PHY_SAP PLCP MLME_PLME_SAP PLME PMD_SAP PMD PHY MIB PLME_SAP This decomposition is probably not sufficient. Lily Yang, Steve Shellhammer, Intel

AP Architecture in IAPP (11F) Feb-19 AP Architecture in IAPP (11F) May be used to generalize beyond IAPP. Lily Yang, Steve Shellhammer, Intel

Data Plane Architecture from 11i Feb-19 Data Plane Architecture from 11i Does it capture all? What about control plane? Lily Yang, Steve Shellhammer, Intel

Suggested Next Step for IEEE 802.11 WG Feb-19 Suggested Next Step for IEEE 802.11 WG Form a new IEEE 802.11 SG/TG to provide better AP functional descriptions Clear logical decomposition of AP functionality Clear description of the interfaces Harmonize across different WLAN architectures Centralized Architectures (with IETF CAPWAP) Distributed Architecture (with IEEE 802.11s) Lily Yang, Steve Shellhammer, Intel

Summary Share our thoughts on AP Functional Descriptions Feb-19 Summary Share our thoughts on AP Functional Descriptions Why? Interoperability. How? First step is to have common understanding of what constitute “AP functions”. What? Functional decomposition and interfaces. Very important first step toward interoperability Other groups can take this and develop additional protocols to achieve interoperability. Conclusion: a new study group is needed in 802.11 WG to accomplish this. Lily Yang, Steve Shellhammer, Intel