Analysis of IPv6 Link Models for 802.16 Based Networks
draft-ietf-16ng-ipv6-link-model-analysis-03
The information below is for an old version of the document that is already published as an RFC.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 4968.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Syam Madanapalli | ||
| Last updated | 2015-10-14 (Latest revision 2007-02-21) | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Intended RFC status | Informational | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | (None) | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 4968 (Informational) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | Jari Arkko | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-16ng-ipv6-link-model-analysis-03
16ng Working Group S. Madanapalli, Ed.
Internet-Draft LogicaCMG
Intended status: Informational February 19, 2007
Expires: August 23, 2007
Analysis of IPv6 Link Models for 802.16 based Networks
draft-ietf-16ng-ipv6-link-model-analysis-03.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 23, 2007.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Abstract
This document provides different IPv6 link models that are suitable
for 802.16 based networks and provides analysis of various
considerations for each link model and the applicability of each link
model under different deployment scenarios. This document is result
of a Design Team that was formed to analyze the IPv6 link models for
802.16 based networks.
Madanapalli Expires August 23, 2007 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Link Models for 802.16 February 2007
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. IPv6 Link Models for 802.16 based Networks . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Shared IPv6 Prefix Link Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.1. Prefix Assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.2. Address Autoconfiguration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.3. Duplicate Address Detection . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.4. Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1.5. Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Point-to-point Link Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2.1. Prefix Assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2.2. Address Autoconfiguration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2.3. Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.4. Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.3. Ethernet Like Link Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.3.1. Prefix Assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.3.2. Address Autoconfiguration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.3.3. Duplicate Address Detection . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.3.4. Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.3.5. Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4. Renumbering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Effect on Dormant Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. Conclusions and Relevant Link Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 17
Madanapalli Expires August 23, 2007 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Link Models for 802.16 February 2007
1. 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.
This document looks at various considerations in selecting a link
model for 802.16 based networks and provides an analysis of the
various possible link models. And finally this document provides a
recommendation for choosing one link model that best suits for the
deployment.
2. Terminology
The terminology in this document is based on the definitions in [6],
in addition to the ones specified in this section.
Access Router (AR): An entity that performs an IP routing function to
provide IP connectivity for Mobile Stations. In WiMAX Networks, the
AR is an Access Service Network Gateway.
Access Service Network (ASN) - The ASN is defined as a complete set
of network functions needed to provide radio access to a WiMAX
subscriber. The ASN is the access network to which the MS attaches.
The IPv6 access router is an entity within the ASN. The term ASN is
specific to the WiMAX network architecture.
Dormant Mode: A state in which a mobile station restricts its ability
to receive normal IP traffic by reducing monitoring of radio
channels. This allows the mobile station to save power and reduces
signaling load on the network. In the dormant mode, the MS is only
listening at scheduled intervals to the paging channel. The network
(e.g. the AR) maintains state about an MS which has transitioned to
Madanapalli Expires August 23, 2007 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Link Models for 802.16 February 2007
dormant mode and can page it when needed.
3. IPv6 Link Models for 802.16 based Networks
This section discusses various IPv6 link models for 802.16 based
networks and provides their operational considerations in practical
deployment scenarios.
3.1. Shared IPv6 Prefix Link Model
In this model, all MSs attached to an AR share one or more prefixes
for constructing their global IPv6 addresses, however this model does
not any multicast capability. The following figures illustrates high
level view of this link model wherein one more prefixes advertised on
the link would be used by all the MSs attached to the IPv6 link.
+-----+
| MS1 |-----+
+-----+ |
|
|
+-----+ | +-----+ +--------+
| MS2 |-----+-----| BS1 |----------| AR |-------Internet
+-----+ | +-----+ +--------+
. | ____________
. | ()__________()
+-----+ | L2 Tunnel
| MSn |-----+
+-----+
Figure 1. Shared IPv6 Prefix Link Model
The above figure shows the case where the BS and AR exist as separate
entities. In this case a tunnel exists between the BS and AR per MS
basis.
In this link model, the link between the MS and the AR at the IPv6
layer is viewed as a shared link and the lower layer link between the
MS and BS is a point-to-point link. This point-to-point link between
the MS and BS is extended all the way to the AR when the granularity
of the tunnel between the BS and AR is on per MS basis. This is
illustrated in the following figure below.
Madanapalli Expires August 23, 2007 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Link Models for 802.16 February 2007
MS
+----+ +----+
| | IPv6 (Shared link) | |
| L3 |=====================================| |
| | | |
|----| PTP conn. +----+ L2 Tunnel | AR |---Internet
| L2 |-------------| BS |==================| |
| | | | | |
+----+ +----+ | |
| |
+----+ L2 Tunnel | |
| BS |==================| |
| | | |
+----+ +----+
Figure 2. Shared IPv6 Prefix Link Model - Layered View
In this link model, an AR can serve one or more BSs. All MSs
connected to BSs that are served by an AR are on the same IPv6 link.
This model is different from Ethernet Like Link model wherein the
later model provides Ethernet link abstraction and multicast
capability to IPv6 layer, whereas the Shared IPv6 Prefix Link Model
defined here does not provide native link layer multicast and
broadcast capabilities.
3.1.1. Prefix Assignment
One or more IPv6 prefixes are assigned to the link and hence shared
by all the nodes that are attached to the link. The prefixes are
advertised with autonomous flag (A-Flag) set and the On-link flag
(L-flag) reset for address autoconfiguration so that the nodes may
not make an on-link assumption for the addresses in those prefixes.
3.1.2. Address Autoconfiguration
The standard IPv6 address autoconfiguration mechanisms, which are
specified in [2] [3] are used.
3.1.3. Duplicate Address Detection
The DAD procedure as specified in [2] does not adapt well to the
802.16 air interface as there is no native multicast support. The
DAD can be performed with MLD snooping [7] and the AR relaying the
DAD probe to the address owners in case if the address is duplicate,
called Relay DAD. In this method, the MS behavior is same as
Madanapalli Expires August 23, 2007 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Link Models for 802.16 February 2007
specified in [2] and the optimization is achieved with the support of
AR, which maintains MLD table for a list of multicast addresses and
the nodes that joined the multicast address. The relay DAD works as
below:
1. An MS constructs a Link Local Address as specified in [2].
2. The MS constructs a solicited node multicast address for the
corresponding Link Local Address and sends an MLD Join request
for the solicited node multicast address.
3. The MS starts verifying address uniqueness by sending a DAD NS on
the initial MAC transport connection.
4. The AR consults the MLD table for who joined the multicast
address. If the AR does not find any entry in the MLD table, the
AR silently discards the DAD NS. If the AR founds a match, the
AR relays the DAD NS to the address owner.
5. The address owner defends the address by sending DAD NA, which is
relayed to the DAD originating MS via the AR.
6. If the DAD originating MS does not receive any response (DAD NA)
to its DAD NS, the MS assigns the address to its interface. If
the MS receives the DAD NA, the MS discards the tentative address
and behaves as specified in [2].
3.1.4. Considerations
3.1.4.1. Reuse of existing standards
The shared IPv6 prefix model uses the existing specification and does
not require any protocol changes or any new protocols. However this
model requires implementation changes for DAD optimization on the AR.
3.1.4.2. On-link Multicast Support
No native on-link multicast is possible with this method. However
the multicast can be supported with using a backend process in AR
that maintains the multicast members list and forwards the multicast
packets to the MSs belonging to a particular multicast group in
unicast manner. MLD snooping [7] should be used for maintaining the
multicast members list.
3.1.4.3. Consistency in IP Link Definition
The definition of IPv6 link is consistent for all procedures and
functionalities except for the support of native on-link multicast
support.
3.1.4.4. Packet Forwarding
All the packets travel to the AR before being delivered to the final
destination as the layer 2 transport connection exists between the MS
Madanapalli Expires August 23, 2007 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Link Models for 802.16 February 2007
and AR. The AR handles the packets with external IPv6 addresses
normally. However the packets with link local destination addresses
are relayed by the AR to destination without decrementing the hop-
limit.
3.1.4.5. Changes to Host Implementation
This link model does not require any implementation changes for the
host implementation.
3.1.4.6. Changes to Router Implementation
This link model requires MLD snooping in the AR for supporting Relay
DAD.
3.1.5. Applicability
This model is good for providing shared on-link services in
conjunction with IP convergence sublayar with IPv6 classifiers.
However in public access networks like cellular networks, this model
cannot be used for the end users to share any of their personal
devices/services with the public.
This link model was also under consideration of the WiMAX Forum
Network Working Group for using with IPv6 CS access.
3.2. Point-to-point Link Model
In this model, a set of MAC transport connections between an MS and
the AR are treated as a single link. The point-to-point link model
follows the recommendations of [8]. In this model, each link between
an MS and the AR is allocated a separate, unique prefix or a set of
unique prefixes by the AR. No other node under the AR has the same
prefixes on the link between it and the AR. The following diagram
illustrates this model.
Madanapalli Expires August 23, 2007 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Link Models for 802.16 February 2007
+----+ +----+
+-----+ | | Tunnel | |
| MS1 |-------------|....|===================| |
+-----+ | | | |
| | | |
+-----+ | | Tunnel | |
| MS2 |-------------|....|===================| |---Internet
+-----+ | | | AR |
| BS | | |
+-----+ | | Tunnel | |
| MS3 |-------------|....|===================| |
+-----+ | | | |
+----+ +----+
Figure 3. Point-to-point Link Model
There are multiple possible ways that the point-to-point link between
the AR and the MS can be implemented.
1. One way to accomplish this is to run PPP on the link [8].
Running PPP requires that the 802.16 link use the Ethernet CS and
PPP over Ethernet [9]. Since the IPv6 CS does not support PPP,
whether PPP can be run depends on the network architecture.
2. If the actual physical medium is shared, like Ethernet, but PPP
is not run, the link can be made point to point between the MS
and AR by having each MS on a separate VLAN [11].
3. If neither PPP nor VLAN is used, the set of 802.16 connections
can be viewed as a virtual point-to-point link.
3.2.1. Prefix Assignment
Prefixes are assigned to the link using the standard [1] Router
Advertisement mechanism. The AR assigns a unique prefix or set of
unique prefixes for each MS. In the prefix information options, both
the A-flag and L-flag are set to 1, as they can be used for address
autoconfiguration and the prefixes are on link.
3.2.2. Address Autoconfiguration
MSs perform link local as well as global address autoconfiguration
exactly as specified in [2], including duplicate address detection.
Because there is only one other node on the link, the AR, there is
only a possibility of an address conflict with the AR, so collisions
are statistically very unlikely, and easy to fix if they should
occur.
Madanapalli Expires August 23, 2007 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Link Models for 802.16 February 2007
If DHCP is used for address configuration ('M=1' in the Router
Advertisement), the DHCP server must provide addresses with a
separate prefix per MS. The prefix must of course match a prefix the
ASN Gateway has advertised to the MS (if any).
3.2.3. Considerations
3.2.3.1. Reuse of existing standards
This solution reuses RFC 2461, 2462, and if PPP is used, RFC 2472 and
RFC 2516. No changes in these protocols are required, the protocols
must only be configured properly.
If PPP is not used, any VLAN solution, such as IEEE 802.1Q [9], or
any L2 tunnel can be used.
3.2.3.2. On-link Multicast Support
Since the link between the MS and the AR is point to point, any
multicast can only be sent by one or the other node. Link local
multicast between other nodes and the AR will not be seen.
3.2.3.3. Consistency in IP Link Definition
The IP link is fully consistent with a standard IP point-to-point
link, without exception.
3.2.3.4. Packet Forwarding
The MS always sends all packets to the AR, because it is the only
other node on the link. Link local unicast and multicast packets are
also forwarded only between the two.
3.2.3.5. Changes to Host Implementation
Host implementations follow standard IPv6 stack procedures. No
changes needed.
3.2.3.6. Changes to Router Implementation
If PPP is used, no changes in router implementations are needed. If
PPP is not used, the AR must be capable of doing the following:
1. Each MS is assigned a separate VLAN when 802.1X [12] or each MS
must have an L2 tunnel to the AR to aggregate all the connections
to the MS and present these set of connections as an interface to
the IPv6 layer.
Madanapalli Expires August 23, 2007 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Link Models for 802.16 February 2007
2. The AR must be configured to include a unique prefix or set of
prefixes for each MS. This unique prefix or set of prefixes must
be included in Router Advertisements every time they are sent,
and if DHCP is used, the addresses leased to the MS must include
only the uniquely advertised prefixes.
Note that, depending on the router implementation, these functions
may or may not be possible with simple configuration. No protocol
changes are required, however.
3.2.4. Applicability
In enterprise networks, shared services including printers, fax
machines, and other such on-line services are often available in on
the local link. These services are typically discovered using some
kind of link local service discovery protocol. The unique prefix per
MS model is not appropriate for these kinds of deployments, since it
is not possible to have shared link services in the ASN.
The p2p link model is applicable to deployments where there are no
shared services in the ASN. Such deployments are typical of service
provider networks like cellular network which provide public access
to wireless network.
3.3. Ethernet Like Link Model
This model describes a scheme for configuration and provisioning of
an IEEE 802.16 networks so that it emulates a broadcast link in a
manner similar to Ethernet. Figure 4 illustrates an example of the
Ethernet model. This model essentially functions like an Ethernet
link, which means the model works as described in [1], [2].
One way to construct an Ethernet like link is to implement bridging
[13] between BSs and AR like switched Ethernet. In the Figure 4,
bridging performs link aggregation between BSs and AR. Bridging also
supports multicast packet filtering.
Madanapalli Expires August 23, 2007 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Link Models for 802.16 February 2007
+-----+ +---+ +----+
| MS1 |---+ | | +---|AR1 |---Internet
+-----+ | | S| | +----+
+-----+ | +-----+ |E w| |
| MS2 |---+---| BS1 |---|t i| |
+-----+ +-----+ |h t|---+
| c| | +----+
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ | h| +---|AR2 |---Internet
|Hosts|--|MS/GW|-------| BS2 |---| | +----+
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +---+
A network
may exists behind
MS/GW
Figure 4: Ethernet Like Link Model
3.3.1. Prefix Assignment
Prefixes are assigned as specified in [1], [2].
3.3.2. Address Autoconfiguration
It is the same as described in [2].
3.3.3. Duplicate Address Detection
It is the same as described in [2].
3.3.4. Considerations
3.3.4.1. Reuse of existing standards
All the IPv6 standards can be preserved or reused in this model.
3.3.4.2. On-link Multicast Support
On-link multicast can be emulated in unicast manner by efficiently
bridging between all BSs with IEEE 802.16 providing the links between
the MSs and the bridge on top of the BS. MLD snooping should be used
for efficient forwarding of multicast packets as specified in [7].
Nevertheless, in case of bridging, direct inter-MSs communication may
not be not allowed due to restrictions from the service providers.
Madanapalli Expires August 23, 2007 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Link Models for 802.16 February 2007
3.3.4.3. Consistency in IP Link Definition
This model is consistent with the IP link definition.
3.3.4.4. Packet Forwarding
When properly configured and assisted by simple bridging, IEEE 802.16
can emulate a simple broadcast network like Ethernet.
3.3.4.5. Changes to Host Implementation
No special impact on host implementation.
3.3.4.6. Changes to Router Implementation
No special impact on router implementation under a separated AR-BS
model, if the bridging is implemented in BS. Some networks e.g.
WiMAX networks may require bridging be implemented in the AR (ASN
Gateway).
3.3.5. Applicability
This model works with the Ethernet CS and is chosen for fixed/nomadic
WiMAX networks by the WiMAX Forum Network Working Group.
4. Renumbering
If the downstream prefixes managed by the AR are involved in
renumbering, it may be necessary to renumber each link under the AR.
[10] discusses recommended procedures for renumbering.
If the prefixes are advertised in RAs, the AR must withdraw the
existing prefixes and advertise the new ones. Since each MS
irrespective of the link model is on a separate point-to-point link
at the MAC level because of the 802.16 connection oriented
architecture, the AR must send an RA withdrawing the old prefix and
advertising the new one to each link. In point-to-point link model,
the number of RAs sent is equal to the number of nodes the AR serves,
whereas in the other two models, the AR sends a single RA to BS that
is sent to all the MSs as separate RAs.
If DHCP is used to assign addresses, either the DHCP address lease
lifetime may be reduced prior to the renumbering event to encourage
MSs to renew their addresses quickly or a DHCP Reconfigure message
may be sent to each of the MSs by the server to cause them to renew
their addresses.
Madanapalli Expires August 23, 2007 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Link Models for 802.16 February 2007
In conclusion, the amount of traffic on the air-interface is same for
all link models. However the number of RAs sent by the AR to BS can
be more compared to the other two models.
5. Effect on Dormant Mode
If the network needs to deliver packets to an MS, which is in dormant
mode, the AR pages the MS. The MS that is monitoring the paging
channel receives the page and transitions out of the dormant mode to
active mode. It establishes connectivity with the network by
requesting and obtaining the radio resources. The network is then
able to deliver the packets to the MS. In many networks, packets
destined to an MS in dormant mode are buffered at the AR in the
network until connectivity is established.
Support for dormant MSs is critical in mobile networks and hence it
is a necessary feature. Paging capability and optimizations possible
for paging an MS are not either enhanced or handicapped by the link
model itself. However the multicast capability within a link may
cause for an MS to wake up for unwanted packet. This can be avoided
by filtering the multicast packets and delivering the packets to only
for MSs that are listening for particular multicast packets. As the
Shared IPv6 Prefix model does not have the multicast capability and
point-to-point link model has only one node on the link, they do not
have any effect on the dormant mode. The Ethernet like link model
may have the multicast capability, which requires filtering at the BS
to support the dormant mode for the MSs.
6. Conclusions and Relevant Link Models
Ethernet Like Link model would be used when the deployment requires
the use of Ethernet CS as this is the only model being proposed for
the Ethernet CS and running IPv6 over Ethernet is well understood.
For IP CS with IPv6 classifiers, point-to-point link model appears to
the choice because of its simplicity for performing the DAD and does
not break any existing applications or require defining any new
protocol. However the IPv6 shared prefix model would be defined if
there is any interest from service provider community.
7. Security Considerations
This document provides the analysis of various IPv6 link models for
802.16 based networks and this document as such does not introduce
any new security threats.
Madanapalli Expires August 23, 2007 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Link Models for 802.16 February 2007
8. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA.
9. Acknowledgements
This document is a result of discussions in v6subnet design team for
IPv6 Prefix Model Analysis. The members of this design team in
alphabetical order were: Dave Thaler, David Johnston, Junghoon Jee,
Max Riegel, Myungki Shin and Syam Madanapalli. The discussion in the
DT was benefited from the active participation of James Kempf, Behcet
Sarikaya, Basavaraj Patil and JinHyeock Choi in the DT mailing list.
The DT thanks the chairs (Gabriel Montenegro and Soohong Daniel Park)
and Shepherding AD (Jari Arkko) for their active participation and
motivation.
10. Contributors
The members who provided the text based on the DT discussion are:
Myung-Ki Shin
ETRI
myungki.shin@gmail.com
James Kempf
DoCoMo Communications Labs USA
kempf@docomolabs-usa.com
Soohong Daniel Park
Samsung Electronics
soohong.park@samsung.com
Dave Thaler
Microsoft
dthaler@microsoft.com
JinHyeock Choi
Samsung Advanced Institute of Technology
jinchoe@samsung.com
Behcet Sarikaya
Huawei USA
sarikaya@ieee.org
11. References
Madanapalli Expires August 23, 2007 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Link Models for 802.16 February 2007
11.1. Normative References
[1] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., and W. Simpson, "Neighbor Discovery
for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461, December 1998.
[2] Thomson, S. and T. Narten, "IPv6 Stateless Address
Autoconfiguration", RFC 2462, December 1998.
[3] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C., and M.
Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6
(DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003.
11.2. Informative References
[4] "IEEE 802.16-2004, IEEE standard for Local and metropolitan
area networks, Part 16:Air Interface for fixed broadband
wireless access systems", October 2004.
[5] "IEEE 802.16e, IEEE standard for Local and metropolitan area
networks, Part 16:Air Interface for fixed and Mobile broadband
wireless access systems", October 2005.
[6] Jee, J., "IP over 802.16 Problem Statement and Goals",
October 2006, <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
draft-ietf-16ng-ps-goals-00.txt>.
[7] Christensen, M., Kimball, K., and F. Solensky, "Considerations
for Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) and Multicast
Listener Discovery (MLD) Snooping Switches", RFC 4541,
May 2006.
[8] Wasserman, M., "Recommendations for IPv6 in Third Generation
Partnership Project (3GPP) Standards", RFC 3314,
September 2002.
[9] Mamakos, L., Lidl, K., Evarts, J., Carrel, D., Simone, D., and
R. Wheeler, "A Method for Transmitting PPP Over Ethernet
(PPPoE)", RFC 2516, February 1999.
[10] Baker, F., Lear, E., and R. Droms, "Procedures for Renumbering
an IPv6 Network without a Flag Day", RFC 4192, September 2005.
[11] "IEEE, Virtual Bridged Local Area Networks, IEEE 802.1Q",
May 2003.
[12] "IEEE, Port-based Network Access Control, IEEE 802.1X",
December 2004.
Madanapalli Expires August 23, 2007 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Link Models for 802.16 February 2007
[13] "IEEE Std 802.1D-2004, "IEEE Standard for Local and
metropolitan area networks, Media Access Control (MAC)
Bridges"", June 2004.
Author's Address
Syam Madanapalli (editor)
LogicaCMG
Global Innovation Center
125 Yemlur P.O.
Bangalore 560037
India
Email: smadanapalli@gmail.com
Madanapalli Expires August 23, 2007 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Link Models for 802.16 February 2007
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Madanapalli Expires August 23, 2007 [Page 17]