Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.11 Networks operating in mode Outside the Context of a Basic Service Set (IPv6-over-80211-OCB)
draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-19
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 8691.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Alexandre Petrescu , Nabil Benamar , Jerome Haerri , Jong-Hyouk Lee , Thierry Ernst | ||
| Last updated | 2018-02-22 | ||
| Replaces | draft-petrescu-ipv6-over-80211p | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews |
GENART Telechat review
(of
-47)
Ready with Issues
TSVART Last Call review
(of
-46)
On the Right Track
GENART Last Call review
(of
-46)
Almost Ready
IOTDIR Early review
(of
-34)
Not Ready
INTDIR Early review
(of
-34)
Not Ready
|
||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up | |
| Document shepherd | Carlos J. Bernardos | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | Carlos Bernardos <cjbc@it.uc3m.es> |
draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-19
Network Working Group A. Petrescu
Internet-Draft CEA, LIST
Intended status: Standards Track N. Benamar
Expires: August 26, 2018 Moulay Ismail University
J. Haerri
Eurecom
J. Lee
Sangmyung University
T. Ernst
YoGoKo
February 22, 2018
Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.11 Networks operating in mode
Outside the Context of a Basic Service Set (IPv6-over-80211-OCB)
draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-19.txt
Abstract
In order to transmit IPv6 packets on IEEE 802.11 networks running
outside the context of a basic service set (OCB, earlier "802.11p")
there is a need to define a few parameters such as the supported
Maximum Transmission Unit size on the 802.11-OCB link, the header
format preceding the IPv6 header, the Type value within it, and
others. This document describes these parameters for IPv6 and IEEE
802.11-OCB networks; it portrays the layering of IPv6 on 802.11-OCB
similarly to other known 802.11 and Ethernet layers - by using an
Ethernet Adaptation Layer.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 26, 2018.
Petrescu, et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IPv6-over-80211-OCB February 2018
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Communication Scenarios where IEEE 802.11-OCB Links are Used 4
4. IPv6 over 802.11-OCB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Frame Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2.1. Ethernet Adaptation Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.3. Link-Local Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.4. Address Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.4.1. Address Mapping -- Unicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.4.2. Address Mapping -- Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.5. Stateless Autoconfiguration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.6. Subnet Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Appendix A. ChangeLog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Appendix B. 802.11p . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Appendix C. Aspects introduced by the OCB mode to 802.11 . . . . 23
Appendix D. Changes Needed on a software driver 802.11a to
become a 802.11-OCB driver . . . 27
Appendix E. EtherType Protocol Discrimination (EPD) . . . . . . 28
Appendix F. Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
F.1. Vehicle ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
F.2. Reliability Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
F.3. Multiple interfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
F.4. MAC Address Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Petrescu, et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IPv6-over-80211-OCB February 2018
Appendix G. IEEE 802.11 Messages Transmitted in OCB mode . . . . 31
Appendix H. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
H.1. Capture in Monitor Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
H.2. Capture in Normal Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Appendix I. Extra Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
1. Introduction
This document describes the transmission of IPv6 packets on IEEE Std
802.11-OCB networks [IEEE-802.11-2016] (a.k.a "802.11p" see
Appendix B). This involves the layering of IPv6 networking on top of
the IEEE 802.11 MAC layer, with an LLC layer. Compared to running
IPv6 over the Ethernet MAC layer, there is no modification expected
to IEEE Std 802.11 MAC and Logical Link sublayers: IPv6 works fine
directly over 802.11-OCB too, with an LLC layer.
The IPv6 network layer operates on 802.11-OCB in the same manner as
operating on Ethernet, but there are two kinds of exceptions:
o Exceptions due to different operation of IPv6 network layer on
802.11 than on Ethernet. To satisfy these exceptions, this
document describes an Ethernet Adaptation Layer between Ethernet
headers and 802.11 headers. The Ethernet Adaptation Layer is
described Section 4.2.1. The operation of IP on Ethernet is
described in [RFC1042], [RFC2464] and
[I-D.hinden-6man-rfc2464bis].
o Exceptions due to the OCB nature of 802.11-OCB compared to 802.11.
This has impacts on security, privacy, subnet structure and
handover behaviour. For security and privacy recommendations see
Section 5 and Section 4.5. The subnet structure is described in
Section 4.6. The handover behaviour on OCB links is not described
in this document.
In the published literature, many documents describe aspects and
problems related to running IPv6 over 802.11-OCB:
[I-D.ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-survey].
2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
IP-OBU (Internet Protocol On-Board Unit): an IP-OBU is a computer
situated in a vehicle such as an automobile, bicycle, or similar. It
has at least one IP interface that runs in mode OCB of 802.11, and
Petrescu, et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IPv6-over-80211-OCB February 2018
that has an "OBU" transceiver. See the definition of the term "OBU"
in section Appendix I.
IP-RSU (IP Road-Side Unit): an IP-RSU is situated along the road. An
IP-RSU has at least two distinct IP-enabled interfaces; at least one
interface is operated in mode OCB of IEEE 802.11 and is IP-enabled.
An IP-RSU is similar to a Wireless Termination Point (WTP), as
defined in [RFC5415], or an Access Point (AP), as defined in IEEE
documents, or an Access Network Router (ANR) defined in [RFC3753],
with one key particularity: the wireless PHY/MAC layer of at least
one of its IP-enabled interfaces is configured to operate in
802.11-OCB mode. The IP-RSU communicates with the IP-OBU in the
vehicle over 802.11 wireless link operating in OCB mode.
OCB (outside the context of a basic service set - BSS): A mode of
operation in which a STA is not a member of a BSS and does not
utilize IEEE Std 802.11 authentication, association, or data
confidentiality.
802.11-OCB: mode specified in IEEE Std 802.11-2016 when the MIB
attribute dot11OCBActivited is true. The OCB mode requires
transmission of QoS data frames (IEEE Std 802.11e), half-clocked
operation (IEEE Std 802.11j), and use of 5.9 GHz frequency band.
Nota: any implementation should comply with standards and regulations
set in the different countries for using that frequency band.
3. Communication Scenarios where IEEE 802.11-OCB Links are Used
The IEEE 802.11-OCB Networks are used for vehicular communications,
as 'Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments'. The IP communication
scenarios for these environments have been described in several
documents; in particular, we refer the reader to
[I-D.ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-survey], that lists some
scenarios and requirements for IP in Intelligent Transportation
Systems.
The link model is the following: STA --- 802.11-OCB --- STA. In
vehicular networks, STAs can be IP-RSUs and/or IP-OBUs. While
802.11-OCB is clearly specified, and the use of IPv6 over such link
is not radically new, the operating environment (vehicular networks)
brings in new perspectives.
The mechanisms for forming and terminating, discovering, peering and
mobility management for 802.11-OCB links are not described in this
document.
Petrescu, et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IPv6-over-80211-OCB February 2018
4. IPv6 over 802.11-OCB
4.1. Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU)
The default MTU for IP packets on 802.11-OCB MUST be 1500 octets. It
is the same value as IPv6 packets on Ethernet links, as specified in
[RFC2464]. This value of the MTU respects the recommendation that
every link on the Internet must have a minimum MTU of 1280 octets
(stated in [RFC8200], and the recommendations therein, especially
with respect to fragmentation).
4.2. Frame Format
IP packets are transmitted over 802.11-OCB as standard Ethernet
packets. As with all 802.11 frames, an Ethernet adaptation layer is
used with 802.11-OCB as well. This Ethernet Adaptation Layer
performing 802.11-to-Ethernet is described in Section 4.2.1. The
Ethernet Type code (EtherType) for IPv6 MUST be 0x86DD (hexadecimal
86DD, or otherwise #86DD).
The Frame format for transmitting IPv6 on 802.11-OCB networks is the
same as transmitting IPv6 on Ethernet networks, and is described in
section 3 of [RFC2464].
4.2.1. Ethernet Adaptation Layer
An 'adaptation' layer is inserted between a MAC layer and the
Networking layer. This is used to transform some parameters between
their form expected by the IP stack and the form provided by the MAC
layer.
An Ethernet Adaptation Layer makes an 802.11 MAC look to IP
Networking layer as a more traditional Ethernet layer. At reception,
this layer takes as input the IEEE 802.11 Data Header and the
Logical-Link Layer Control Header and produces an Ethernet II Header.
At sending, the reverse operation is performed.
The operation of the Ethernet Adaptation Layer is depicted by the
double arrow in Figure 1.
Petrescu, et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IPv6-over-80211-OCB February 2018
+--------------------+------------+-------------+---------+-----------+
| 802.11 Data Header | LLC Header | IPv6 Header | Payload |.11 Trailer|
+--------------------+------------+-------------+---------+-----------+
\ / \ /
----------------------------- --------
\---------------------------------------------/
^
|
802.11-to-Ethernet Adaptation Layer
|
v
+---------------------+-------------+---------+
| Ethernet II Header | IPv6 Header | Payload |
+---------------------+-------------+---------+
Figure 1: Operation of the Ethernet Adaptation Layer
The Receiver and Transmitter Address fields in the 802.11 Data Header
MUST contain the same values as the Destination and the Source
Address fields in the Ethernet II Header, respectively. The value of
the Type field in the LLC Header MUST be the same as the value of the
Type field in the Ethernet II Header.
The ".11 Trailer" contains solely a 4-byte Frame Check Sequence.
In OCB mode, IPv6 packets MAY be transmitted either as "IEEE 802.11
Data" or alternatively as "IEEE 802.11 QoS Data", as illustrated in
Figure 2.
+--------------------+-------------+-------------+---------+-----------+
| 802.11 Data Header | LLC Header | IPv6 Header | Payload |.11 Trailer|
+--------------------+-------------+-------------+---------+-----------+
or
+--------------------+-------------+-------------+---------+-----------+
| 802.11 QoS Data Hdr| LLC Header | IPv6 Header | Payload |.11 Trailer|
+--------------------+-------------+-------------+---------+-----------+
Figure 2: 802.11 Data Header or 802.11 QoS Data Header
The distinction between the two formats is given by the value of the
field "Subtype" in the Frame Control Field. The value of the field
"Subtype" in the 802.11 Data header is 0x0. The value of the field
"Subtype" in the 802.11 QoS header is 8.
Petrescu, et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IPv6-over-80211-OCB February 2018
The mapping between qos-related fields in the IPv6 header (e.g.
"Traffic Class", "Flow label") and fields in the "802.11 QoS Data
Header" (e.g. "QoS Control") are not specified in this document.
Guidance for a potential mapping is provided in
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-ieee-802-11], although it is not specific to OCB
mode.
The placement of IPv6 networking layer on Ethernet Adaptation Layer
is illustrated in Figure 3.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Ethernet Adaptation Layer |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 802.11 MAC |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 802.11 PHY |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Ethernet Adaptation Layer stacked with other layers
(in the above figure, a 802.11 profile is represented; this is used
also for 802.11 OCB profile.)
Other alternative views of layering are EtherType Protocol
Discrimination (EPD), see Appendix E, and SNAP see [RFC1042].
4.3. Link-Local Addresses
The link-local address of an 802.11-OCB interface is formed in the
same manner as on an Ethernet interface. This manner is described in
section 5 of [RFC2464]. Additionally, if stable identifiers are
needed, it is RECOMMENDED to follow the Recommendation on Stable IPv6
Interface Identifiers [RFC8064]. Additionally, if semantically
opaque Interface Identifiers are needed, a potential method for
generating semantically opaque Interface Identifiers with IPv6
Stateless Address Autoconfiguration is given in [RFC7217].
4.4. Address Mapping
Unicast and multicast address mapping MUST follow the procedures
specified for Ethernet interfaces in sections 6 and 7 of [RFC2464].
Petrescu, et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IPv6-over-80211-OCB February 2018
4.4.1. Address Mapping -- Unicast
The procedure for mapping IPv6 unicast addresses into Ethernet link-
layer addresses is described in [RFC4861].
4.4.2. Address Mapping -- Multicast
The multicast address mapping is performed according to the method
specified in section 7 of [RFC2464]. The meaning of the value "3333"
mentioned in that section 7 of [RFC2464] is defined in section 2.3.1
of [RFC7042].
Transmitting IPv6 packets to multicast destinations over 802.11 links
proved to have some performance issues
[I-D.perkins-intarea-multicast-ieee802]. These issues may be
exacerbated in OCB mode. Solutions for these problems should
consider the OCB mode of operation.
4.5. Stateless Autoconfiguration
The Interface Identifier for an 802.11-OCB interface is formed using
the same rules as the Interface Identifier for an Ethernet interface;
this is described in section 4 of [RFC2464]. No changes are needed,
but some care must be taken when considering the use of the Stateless
Address Auto-Configuration procedure.
The bits in the interface identifier have no generic meaning and the
identifier should be treated as an opaque value. The bits
'Universal' and 'Group' in the identifier of an 802.11-OCB interface
are significant, as this is an IEEE link-layer address. The details
of this significance are described in [RFC7136].
As with all Ethernet and 802.11 interface identifiers ([RFC7721]),
the identifier of an 802.11-OCB interface may involve privacy, MAC
address spoofing and IP address hijacking risks. A vehicle embarking
an OBU or an IP-OBU whose egress interface is 802.11-OCB may expose
itself to eavesdropping and subsequent correlation of data; this may
reveal data considered private by the vehicle owner; there is a risk
of being tracked; see the privacy considerations described in
Appendix F.
If stable Interface Identifiers are needed in order to form IPv6
addresses on 802.11-OCB links, it is recommended to follow the
recommendation in [RFC8064]. Additionally, if semantically opaque
Interface Identifiers are needed, a potential method for generating
semantically opaque Interface Identifiers with IPv6 Stateless Address
Autoconfiguration is given in [RFC7217].
Petrescu, et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IPv6-over-80211-OCB February 2018
4.6. Subnet Structure
A subnet is formed by the external 802.11-OCB interfaces of vehicles
that are in close range (not their on-board interfaces). This
ephemeral subnet structure is strongly influenced by the mobility of
vehicles: the 802.11 hidden node effects appear. On another hand,
the structure of the internal subnets in each car is relatively
stable.
The 802.11 networks in OCB mode may be considered as 'ad-hoc'
networks. The addressing model for such networks is described in
[RFC5889].
The operation of the Neighbor Discovery protocol (ND) over 802.11 OCB
links is different than over 802.11 links. In OCB, the link layer
does not ensure that all associated members receive all messages,
because there is no association operation. The operation of ND over
802.11 OCB is not specified in this document.
The operation of the Mobile IPv6 protocol over 802.11 OCB links is
different than on other links. The Movement Detection operation
(section 11.5.1 of [RFC6275]) can not rely on Neighbor Unreachability
Detection operation of the Neighbor Discovery protocol, for the
reason mentioned in the previous paragraph. Also, the 802.11 OCB
link layer is not a lower layer that can provide an indication that a
link layer handover has occured. The operation of the Mobile IPv6
protocol over 802.11 OCB is not specified in this document.
5. Security Considerations
Any security mechanism at the IP layer or above that may be carried
out for the general case of IPv6 may also be carried out for IPv6
operating over 802.11-OCB.
The OCB operation is stripped off of all existing 802.11 link-layer
security mechanisms. There is no encryption applied below the
network layer running on 802.11-OCB. At application layer, the IEEE
1609.2 document [IEEE-1609.2] does provide security services for
certain applications to use; application-layer mechanisms are out-of-
scope of this document. On another hand, a security mechanism
provided at networking layer, such as IPsec [RFC4301], may provide
data security protection to a wider range of applications.
802.11-OCB does not provide any cryptographic protection, because it
operates outside the context of a BSS (no Association Request/
Response, no Challenge messages). Any attacker can therefore just
sit in the near range of vehicles, sniff the network (just set the
interface card's frequency to the proper range) and perform attacks
Petrescu, et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IPv6-over-80211-OCB February 2018
without needing to physically break any wall. Such a link is less
protected than commonly used links (wired link or protected 802.11).
The potential attack vectors are: MAC address spoofing, IP address
and session hijacking and privacy violation.
Within the IPsec Security Architecture [RFC4301], the IPsec AH and
ESP headers [RFC4302] and [RFC4303] respectively, its multicast
extensions [RFC5374], HTTPS [RFC2818] and SeND [RFC3971] protocols
can be used to protect communications. Further, the assistance of
proper Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) protocols [RFC4210] is
necessary to establish credentials. More IETF protocols are
available in the toolbox of the IP security protocol designer.
Certain ETSI protocols related to security protocols in Intelligent
Transportation Systems are described in [ETSI-sec-archi].
As with all Ethernet and 802.11 interface identifiers, there may
exist privacy risks in the use of 802.11-OCB interface identifiers.
Moreover, in outdoors vehicular settings, the privacy risks are more
important than in indoors settings. New risks are induced by the
possibility of attacker sniffers deployed along routes which listen
for IP packets of vehicles passing by. For this reason, in the
802.11-OCB deployments, there is a strong necessity to use protection
tools such as dynamically changing MAC addresses. This may help
mitigate privacy risks to a certain level. On another hand, it may
have an impact in the way typical IPv6 address auto-configuration is
performed for vehicles (SLAAC would rely on MAC addresses and would
hence dynamically change the affected IP address), in the way the
IPv6 Privacy addresses were used, and other effects.
6. IANA Considerations
No request to IANA.
7. Contributors
Christian Huitema, Tony Li.
Romain Kuntz contributed extensively about IPv6 handovers between
links running outside the context of a BSS (802.11-OCB links).
Tim Leinmueller contributed the idea of the use of IPv6 over
802.11-OCB for distribution of certificates.
Marios Makassikis, Jose Santa Lozano, Albin Severinson and Alexey
Voronov provided significant feedback on the experience of using IP
messages over 802.11-OCB in initial trials.
Petrescu, et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IPv6-over-80211-OCB February 2018
Michelle Wetterwald contributed extensively the MTU discussion,
offered the ETSI ITS perspective, and reviewed other parts of the
document.
8. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Witold Klaudel, Ryuji Wakikawa,
Emmanuel Baccelli, John Kenney, John Moring, Francois Simon, Dan
Romascanu, Konstantin Khait, Ralph Droms, Richard 'Dick' Roy, Ray
Hunter, Tom Kurihara, Michal Sojka, Jan de Jongh, Suresh Krishnan,
Dino Farinacci, Vincent Park, Jaehoon Paul Jeong, Gloria Gwynne,
Hans-Joachim Fischer, Russ Housley, Rex Buddenberg, Erik Nordmark,
Bob Moskowitz, Andrew (Dryden?), Georg Mayer, Dorothy Stanley, Sandra
Cespedes, Mariano Falcitelli, Sri Gundavelli, Abdussalam Baryun,
Margaret Cullen, Erik Kline, Carlos Jesus Bernardos Cano and William
Whyte. Their valuable comments clarified particular issues and
generally helped to improve the document.
Pierre Pfister, Rostislav Lisovy, and others, wrote 802.11-OCB
drivers for linux and described how.
For the multicast discussion, the authors would like to thank Owen
DeLong, Joe Touch, Jen Linkova, Erik Kline, Brian Haberman and
participants to discussions in network working groups.
The authors would like to thank participants to the Birds-of-
a-Feather "Intelligent Transportation Systems" meetings held at IETF
in 2016.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC1042] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "Standard for the transmission
of IP datagrams over IEEE 802 networks", STD 43, RFC 1042,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1042, February 1988,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1042>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2464] Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet
Networks", RFC 2464, DOI 10.17487/RFC2464, December 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2464>.
Petrescu, et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IPv6-over-80211-OCB February 2018
[RFC2818] Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2818, May 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2818>.
[RFC3753] Manner, J., Ed. and M. Kojo, Ed., "Mobility Related
Terminology", RFC 3753, DOI 10.17487/RFC3753, June 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3753>.
[RFC3971] Arkko, J., Ed., Kempf, J., Zill, B., and P. Nikander,
"SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", RFC 3971,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3971, March 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3971>.
[RFC4086] Eastlake 3rd, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker,
"Randomness Requirements for Security", BCP 106, RFC 4086,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4086, June 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4086>.
[RFC4210] Adams, C., Farrell, S., Kause, T., and T. Mononen,
"Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate
Management Protocol (CMP)", RFC 4210,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4210, September 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4210>.
[RFC4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, DOI 10.17487/RFC4301,
December 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4301>.
[RFC4302] Kent, S., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4302, December 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4302>.
[RFC4303] Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)",
RFC 4303, DOI 10.17487/RFC4303, December 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4303>.
[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>.
[RFC5374] Weis, B., Gross, G., and D. Ignjatic, "Multicast
Extensions to the Security Architecture for the Internet
Protocol", RFC 5374, DOI 10.17487/RFC5374, November 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5374>.
Petrescu, et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IPv6-over-80211-OCB February 2018
[RFC5415] Calhoun, P., Ed., Montemurro, M., Ed., and D. Stanley,
Ed., "Control And Provisioning of Wireless Access Points
(CAPWAP) Protocol Specification", RFC 5415,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5415, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5415>.
[RFC5889] Baccelli, E., Ed. and M. Townsley, Ed., "IP Addressing
Model in Ad Hoc Networks", RFC 5889, DOI 10.17487/RFC5889,
September 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5889>.
[RFC6275] Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility
Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, DOI 10.17487/RFC6275, July
2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6275>.
[RFC7042] Eastlake 3rd, D. and J. Abley, "IANA Considerations and
IETF Protocol and Documentation Usage for IEEE 802
Parameters", BCP 141, RFC 7042, DOI 10.17487/RFC7042,
October 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7042>.
[RFC7136] Carpenter, B. and S. Jiang, "Significance of IPv6
Interface Identifiers", RFC 7136, DOI 10.17487/RFC7136,
February 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7136>.
[RFC7217] Gont, F., "A Method for Generating Semantically Opaque
Interface Identifiers with IPv6 Stateless Address
Autoconfiguration (SLAAC)", RFC 7217,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7217, April 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7217>.
[RFC7721] Cooper, A., Gont, F., and D. Thaler, "Security and Privacy
Considerations for IPv6 Address Generation Mechanisms",
RFC 7721, DOI 10.17487/RFC7721, March 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7721>.
[RFC8064] Gont, F., Cooper, A., Thaler, D., and W. Liu,
"Recommendation on Stable IPv6 Interface Identifiers",
RFC 8064, DOI 10.17487/RFC8064, February 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8064>.
[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
Petrescu, et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IPv6-over-80211-OCB February 2018
9.2. Informative References
[ETSI-sec-archi]
"ETSI TS 102 940 V1.2.1 (2016-11), ETSI Technical
Specification, Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS);
Security; ITS communications security architecture and
security management, November 2016. Downloaded on
September 9th, 2017, freely available from ETSI website at
URL http://www.etsi.org/deliver/
etsi_ts/102900_102999/102940/01.02.01_60/
ts_102940v010201p.pdf".
[I-D.hinden-6man-rfc2464bis]
Crawford, M. and R. Hinden, "Transmission of IPv6 Packets
over Ethernet Networks", draft-hinden-6man-rfc2464bis-02
(work in progress), March 2017.
[I-D.ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-survey]
Jeong, J., Cespedes, S., Benamar, N., Haerri, J., and M.
Wetterwald, "Survey on IP-based Vehicular Networking for
Intelligent Transportation Systems", draft-ietf-ipwave-
vehicular-networking-survey-00 (work in progress), July
2017.
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-ieee-802-11]
Szigeti, T., Henry, J., and F. Baker, "Diffserv to IEEE
802.11 Mapping", draft-ietf-tsvwg-ieee-802-11-11 (work in
progress), December 2017.
[I-D.perkins-intarea-multicast-ieee802]
Perkins, C., Stanley, D., Kumari, W., and J. Zuniga,
"Multicast Considerations over IEEE 802 Wireless Media",
draft-perkins-intarea-multicast-ieee802-03 (work in
progress), July 2017.
[IEEE-1609.2]
"IEEE SA - 1609.2-2016 - IEEE Standard for Wireless Access
in Vehicular Environments (WAVE) -- Security Services for
Applications and Management Messages. Example URL
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7426684/ accessed on
August 17th, 2017.".
[IEEE-1609.3]
"IEEE SA - 1609.3-2016 - IEEE Standard for Wireless Access
in Vehicular Environments (WAVE) -- Networking Services.
Example URL http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7458115/
accessed on August 17th, 2017.".
Petrescu, et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft IPv6-over-80211-OCB February 2018
[IEEE-1609.4]
"IEEE SA - 1609.4-2016 - IEEE Standard for Wireless Access
in Vehicular Environments (WAVE) -- Multi-Channel
Operation. Example URL
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7435228/ accessed on
August 17th, 2017.".
[IEEE-802.11-2016]
"IEEE Standard 802.11-2016 - IEEE Standard for Information
Technology - Telecommunications and information exchange
between systems Local and metropolitan area networks -
Specific requirements - Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium
Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY)
Specifications. Status - Active Standard. Description
retrieved freely on September 12th, 2017, at URL
https://standards.ieee.org/findstds/
standard/802.11-2016.html".
[IEEE-802.11p-2010]
"IEEE Std 802.11p (TM)-2010, IEEE Standard for Information
Technology - Telecommunications and information exchange
between systems - Local and metropolitan area networks -
Specific requirements, Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access
Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications,
Amendment 6: Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments;
document freely available at URL
http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/
download/802.11p-2010.pdf retrieved on September 20th,
2013.".
Appendix A. ChangeLog
The changes are listed in reverse chronological order, most recent
changes appearing at the top of the list.
From draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-18 to draft-ietf-ipwave-
ipv6-over-80211ocb-19
o Removed the text about fragmentation.
o Removed the mentioning of WSMP and GeoNetworking.
o Removed the explanation of the binary representation of the
EtherType.
o Rendered normative the paragraph about unicast and multicast
address mapping.
Petrescu, et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft IPv6-over-80211-OCB February 2018
o Removed paragraph about addressing model, subnet structure and
easiness of using LLs.
o Clarified the Type/Subtype field in the 802.11 Header.
o Used RECOMMENDED instead of recommended, for the stable interface
identifiers.
From draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-17 to draft-ietf-ipwave-
ipv6-over-80211ocb-18
o Improved the MTU and fragmentation paragraph.
From draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-16 to draft-ietf-ipwave-
ipv6-over-80211ocb-17
o Susbtituted "MUST be increased" to "is increased" in the MTU
section, about fragmentation.
From draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-15 to draft-ietf-ipwave-
ipv6-over-80211ocb-16
o Removed the definition of the 'WiFi' term and its occurences.
Clarified a phrase that used it in Appendix C "Aspects introduced
by the OCB mode to 802.11".
o Added more normative words: MUST be 0x86DD, MUST fragment if size
larger than MTU, Sequence number in 802.11 Data header MUST be
increased.
From draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-14 to draft-ietf-ipwave-
ipv6-over-80211ocb-15
o Added normative term MUST in two places in section "Ethernet
Adaptation Layer".
From draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-13 to draft-ietf-ipwave-
ipv6-over-80211ocb-14
o Created a new Appendix titled "Extra Terminology" that contains
terms DSRC, DSRCS, OBU, RSU as defined outside IETF. Some of them
are used in the main Terminology section.
o Added two paragraphs explaining that ND and Mobile IPv6 have
problems working over 802.11 OCB, yet their adaptations is not
specified in this document.
Petrescu, et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft IPv6-over-80211-OCB February 2018
From draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-12 to draft-ietf-ipwave-
ipv6-over-80211ocb-13
o Substituted "IP-OBU" for "OBRU", and "IP-RSU" for "RSRU"
throughout and improved OBU-related definitions in the Terminology
section.
From draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-11 to draft-ietf-ipwave-
ipv6-over-80211ocb-12
o Improved the appendix about "MAC Address Generation" by expressing
the technique to be an optional suggestion, not a mandatory
mechanism.
From draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-10 to draft-ietf-ipwave-
ipv6-over-80211ocb-11
o Shortened the paragraph on forming/terminating 802.11-OCB links.
o Moved the draft tsvwg-ieee-802-11 to Informative References.
From draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-09 to draft-ietf-ipwave-
ipv6-over-80211ocb-10
o Removed text requesting a new Group ID for multicast for OCB.
o Added a clarification of the meaning of value "3333" in the
section Address Mapping -- Multicast.
o Added note clarifying that in Europe the regional authority is not
ETSI, but "ECC/CEPT based on ENs from ETSI".
o Added note stating that the manner in which two STAtions set their
communication channel is not described in this document.
o Added a time qualifier to state that the "each node is represented
uniquely at a certain point in time."
o Removed text "This section may need to be moved" (the "Reliability
Requirements" section). This section stays there at this time.
o In the term definition "802.11-OCB" added a note stating that "any
implementation should comply with standards and regulations set in
the different countries for using that frequency band."
o In the RSU term definition, added a sentence explaining the
difference between RSU and RSRU: in terms of number of interfaces
and IP forwarding.
Petrescu, et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft IPv6-over-80211-OCB February 2018
o Replaced "with at least two IP interfaces" with "with at least two
real or virtual IP interfaces".
o Added a term in the Terminology for "OBU". However the definition
is left empty, as this term is defined outside IETF.
o Added a clarification that it is an OBU or an OBRU in this phrase
"A vehicle embarking an OBU or an OBRU".
o Checked the entire document for a consistent use of terms OBU and
OBRU.
o Added note saying that "'p' is a letter identifying the
Ammendment".
o Substituted lower case for capitals SHALL or MUST in the
Appendices.
o Added reference to RFC7042, helpful in the 3333 explanation.
Removed reference to individual submission draft-petrescu-its-
scenario-reqs and added reference to draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-
networking-survey.
o Added figure captions, figure numbers, and references to figure
numbers instead of 'below'. Replaced "section Section" with
"section" throughout.
o Minor typographical errors.
From draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-08 to draft-ietf-ipwave-
ipv6-over-80211ocb-09
o Significantly shortened the Address Mapping sections, by text
copied from RFC2464, and rather referring to it.
o Moved the EPD description to an Appendix on its own.
o Shortened the Introduction and the Abstract.
o Moved the tutorial section of OCB mode introduced to .11, into an
appendix.
o Removed the statement that suggests that for routing purposes a
prefix exchange mechanism could be needed.
o Removed refs to RFC3963, RFC4429 and RFC6775; these are about ND,
MIP/NEMO and oDAD; they were referred in the handover discussion
section, which is out.
Petrescu, et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft IPv6-over-80211-OCB February 2018
o Updated a reference from individual submission to now a WG item in
IPWAVE: the survey document.
o Added term definition for WiFi.
o Updated the authorship and expanded the Contributors section.
o Corrected typographical errors.
From draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-07 to draft-ietf-ipwave-
ipv6-over-80211ocb-08
o Removed the per-channel IPv6 prohibition text.
o Corrected typographical errors.
From draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-06 to draft-ietf-ipwave-
ipv6-over-80211ocb-07
o Added new terms: OBRU and RSRU ('R' for Router). Refined the
existing terms RSU and OBU, which are no longer used throughout
the document.
o Improved definition of term "802.11-OCB".
o Clarified that OCB does not "strip" security, but that the
operation in OCB mode is "stripped off of all .11 security".
o Clarified that theoretical OCB bandwidth speed is 54mbits, but
that a commonly observed bandwidth in IP-over-OCB is 12mbit/s.
o Corrected typographical errors, and improved some phrasing.
From draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-05 to draft-ietf-ipwave-
ipv6-over-80211ocb-06
o Updated references of 802.11-OCB document from -2012 to the IEEE
802.11-2016.
o In the LL address section, and in SLAAC section, added references
to 7217 opaque IIDs and 8064 stable IIDs.
From draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-04 to draft-ietf-ipwave-
ipv6-over-80211ocb-05
o Lengthened the title and cleanded the abstract.
Petrescu, et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft IPv6-over-80211-OCB February 2018
o Added text suggesting LLs may be easy to use on OCB, rather than
GUAs based on received prefix.
o Added the risks of spoofing and hijacking.
o Removed the text speculation on adoption of the TSA message.
o Clarified that the ND protocol is used.
o Clarified what it means "No association needed".
o Added some text about how two STAs discover each other.
o Added mention of external (OCB) and internal network (stable), in
the subnet structure section.
o Added phrase explaining that both .11 Data and .11 QoS Data
headers are currently being used, and may be used in the future.
o Moved the packet capture example into an Appendix Implementation
Status.
o Suggested moving the reliability requirements appendix out into
another document.
o Added a IANA Consiserations section, with content, requesting for
a new multicast group "all OCB interfaces".
o Added new OBU term, improved the RSU term definition, removed the
ETTC term, replaced more occurences of 802.11p, 802.11 OCB with
802.11-OCB.
o References:
* Added an informational reference to ETSI's IPv6-over-
GeoNetworking.
* Added more references to IETF and ETSI security protocols.
* Updated some references from I-D to RFC, and from old RFC to
new RFC numbers.
* Added reference to multicast extensions to IPsec architecture
RFC.
* Added a reference to 2464-bis.
* Removed FCC informative references, because not used.
Petrescu, et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft IPv6-over-80211-OCB February 2018
o Updated the affiliation of one author.
o Reformulation of some phrases for better readability, and
correction of typographical errors.
From draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-03 to draft-ietf-ipwave-
ipv6-over-80211ocb-04
o Removed a few informative references pointing to Dx draft IEEE
1609 documents.
o Removed outdated informative references to ETSI documents.
o Added citations to IEEE 1609.2, .3 and .4-2016.
o Minor textual issues.
From draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-02 to draft-ietf-ipwave-
ipv6-over-80211ocb-03
o Keep the previous text on multiple addresses, so remove talk about
MIP6, NEMOv6 and MCoA.
o Clarified that a 'Beacon' is an IEEE 802.11 frame Beacon.
o Clarified the figure showing Infrastructure mode and OCB mode side
by side.
o Added a reference to the IP Security Architecture RFC.
o Detailed the IPv6-per-channel prohibition paragraph which reflects
the discussion at the last IETF IPWAVE WG meeting.
o Added section "Address Mapping -- Unicast".
o Added the ".11 Trailer" to pictures of 802.11 frames.
o Added text about SNAP carrying the Ethertype.
o New RSU definition allowing for it be both a Router and not
necessarily a Router some times.
o Minor textual issues.
From draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-01 to draft-ietf-ipwave-
ipv6-over-80211ocb-02
Petrescu, et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft IPv6-over-80211-OCB February 2018
o Replaced almost all occurences of 802.11p with 802.11-OCB, leaving
only when explanation of evolution was necessary.
o Shortened by removing parameter details from a paragraph in the
Introduction.
o Moved a reference from Normative to Informative.
o Added text in intro clarifying there is no handover spec at IEEE,
and that 1609.2 does provide security services.
o Named the contents the fields of the EthernetII header (including
the Ethertype bitstring).
o Improved relationship between two paragraphs describing the
increase of the Sequence Number in 802.11 header upon IP
fragmentation.
o Added brief clarification of "tracking".
From draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-00 to draft-ietf-ipwave-
ipv6-over-80211ocb-01
o Introduced message exchange diagram illustrating differences
between 802.11 and 802.11 in OCB mode.
o Introduced an appendix listing for information the set of 802.11
messages that may be transmitted in OCB mode.
o Removed appendix sections "Privacy Requirements", "Authentication
Requirements" and "Security Certificate Generation".
o Removed appendix section "Non IP Communications".
o Introductory phrase in the Security Considerations section.
o Improved the definition of "OCB".
o Introduced theoretical stacked layers about IPv6 and IEEE layers
including EPD.
o Removed the appendix describing the details of prohibiting IPv6 on
certain channels relevant to 802.11-OCB.
o Added a brief reference in the privacy text about a precise clause
in IEEE 1609.3 and .4.
o Clarified the definition of a Road Side Unit.
Petrescu, et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft IPv6-over-80211-OCB February 2018
o Removed the discussion about security of WSA (because is non-IP).
o Removed mentioning of the GeoNetworking discussion.
o Moved references to scientific articles to a separate 'overview'
draft, and referred to it.
Appendix B. 802.11p
The term "802.11p" is an earlier definition. The behaviour of
"802.11p" networks is rolled in the document IEEE Std 802.11-2016.
In that document the term 802.11p disappears. Instead, each 802.11p
feature is conditioned by the Management Information Base (MIB)
attribute "OCBActivated". Whenever OCBActivated is set to true the
IEEE Std 802.11 OCB state is activated. For example, an 802.11
STAtion operating outside the context of a basic service set has the
OCBActivated flag set. Such a station, when it has the flag set,
uses a BSS identifier equal to ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff.
Appendix C. Aspects introduced by the OCB mode to 802.11
In the IEEE 802.11-OCB mode, all nodes in the wireless range can
directly communicate with each other without involving authentication
or association procedures. At link layer, it is necessary to set the
same channel number (or frequency) on two stations that need to
communicate with each other. The manner in which stations set their
channel number is not specified in this document. Stations STA1 and
STA2 can exchange IP packets if they are set on the same channel. At
IP layer, they then discover each other by using the IPv6 Neighbor
Discovery protocol.
Briefly, the IEEE 802.11-OCB mode has the following properties:
o The use by each node of a 'wildcard' BSSID (i.e., each bit of the
BSSID is set to 1)
o No IEEE 802.11 Beacon frames are transmitted
o No authentication is required in order to be able to communicate
o No association is needed in order to be able to communicate
o No encryption is provided in order to be able to communicate
o Flag dot11OCBActivated is set to true
All the nodes in the radio communication range (IP-OBU and IP-RSU)
receive all the messages transmitted (IP-OBU and IP-RSU) within the
Petrescu, et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft IPv6-over-80211-OCB February 2018
radio communications range. The eventual conflict(s) are resolved by
the MAC CDMA function.
The message exchange diagram in Figure 4 illustrates a comparison
between traditional 802.11 and 802.11 in OCB mode. The 'Data'
messages can be IP packets such as HTTP or others. Other 802.11
management and control frames (non IP) may be transmitted, as
specified in the 802.11 standard. For information, the names of
these messages as currently specified by the 802.11 standard are
listed in Appendix G.
STA AP STA1 STA2
| | | |
|<------ Beacon -------| |<------ Data -------->|
| | | |
|---- Probe Req. ----->| |<------ Data -------->|
|<--- Probe Res. ------| | |
| | |<------ Data -------->|
|---- Auth Req. ------>| | |
|<--- Auth Res. -------| |<------ Data -------->|
| | | |
|---- Asso Req. ------>| |<------ Data -------->|
|<--- Asso Res. -------| | |
| | |<------ Data -------->|
|<------ Data -------->| | |
|<------ Data -------->| |<------ Data -------->|
(i) 802.11 Infrastructure mode (ii) 802.11-OCB mode
Figure 4: Difference between messages exchanged on 802.11 (left) and
802.11-OCB (right)
The interface 802.11-OCB was specified in IEEE Std 802.11p (TM) -2010
[IEEE-802.11p-2010] as an amendment to IEEE Std 802.11 (TM) -2007,
titled "Amendment 6: Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments".
Since then, this amendment has been integrated in IEEE 802.11(TM)
-2012 and -2016 [IEEE-802.11-2016].
In document 802.11-2016, anything qualified specifically as
"OCBActivated", or "outside the context of a basic service" set to be
true, then it is actually referring to OCB aspects introduced to
802.11.
In order to delineate the aspects introduced by 802.11-OCB to 802.11,
we refer to the earlier [IEEE-802.11p-2010]. The amendment is
concerned with vehicular communications, where the wireless link is
Petrescu, et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft IPv6-over-80211-OCB February 2018
similar to that of Wireless LAN (using a PHY layer specified by
802.11a/b/g/n), but which needs to cope with the high mobility factor
inherent in scenarios of communications between moving vehicles, and
between vehicles and fixed infrastructure deployed along roads.
While 'p' is a letter identifying the Ammendment, just like 'a, b, g'
and 'n' are, 'p' is concerned more with MAC modifications, and a
little with PHY modifications; the others are mainly about PHY
modifications. It is possible in practice to combine a 'p' MAC with
an 'a' PHY by operating outside the context of a BSS with OFDM at
5.4GHz and 5.9GHz.
The 802.11-OCB links are specified to be compatible as much as
possible with the behaviour of 802.11a/b/g/n and future generation
IEEE WLAN links. From the IP perspective, an 802.11-OCB MAC layer
offers practically the same interface to IP as the 802.11a/b/g/n and
802.3. A packet sent by an IP-OBU may be received by one or multiple
IP-RSUs. The link-layer resolution is performed by using the IPv6
Neighbor Discovery protocol.
To support this similarity statement (IPv6 is layered on top of LLC
on top of 802.11-OCB, in the same way that IPv6 is layered on top of
LLC on top of 802.11a/b/g/n (for WLAN) or layered on top of LLC on
top of 802.3 (for Ethernet)) it is useful to analyze the differences
between 802.11-OCB and 802.11 specifications. During this analysis,
we note that whereas 802.11-OCB lists relatively complex and numerous
changes to the MAC layer (and very little to the PHY layer), there
are only a few characteristics which may be important for an
implementation transmitting IPv6 packets on 802.11-OCB links.
The most important 802.11-OCB point which influences the IPv6
functioning is the OCB characteristic; an additional, less direct
influence, is the maximum bandwidth afforded by the PHY modulation/
demodulation methods and channel access specified by 802.11-OCB. The
maximum bandwidth theoretically possible in 802.11-OCB is 54 Mbit/s
(when using, for example, the following parameters: 20 MHz channel;
modulation 64-QAM; coding rate R is 3/4); in practice of IP-over-
802.11-OCB a commonly observed figure is 12Mbit/s; this bandwidth
allows the operation of a wide range of protocols relying on IPv6.
o Operation Outside the Context of a BSS (OCB): the (earlier
802.11p) 802.11-OCB links are operated without a Basic Service Set
(BSS). This means that the frames IEEE 802.11 Beacon, Association
Request/Response, Authentication Request/Response, and similar,
are not used. The used identifier of BSS (BSSID) has a
hexadecimal value always 0xffffffffffff (48 '1' bits, represented
as MAC address ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff, or otherwise the 'wildcard'
BSSID), as opposed to an arbitrary BSSID value set by
administrator (e.g. 'My-Home-AccessPoint'). The OCB operation -
Petrescu, et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft IPv6-over-80211-OCB February 2018
namely the lack of beacon-based scanning and lack of
authentication - should be taken into account when the Mobile IPv6
protocol [RFC6275] and the protocols for IP layer security
[RFC4301] are used. The way these protocols adapt to OCB is not
described in this document.
o Timing Advertisement: is a new message defined in 802.11-OCB,
which does not exist in 802.11a/b/g/n. This message is used by
stations to inform other stations about the value of time. It is
similar to the time as delivered by a GNSS system (Galileo, GPS,
...) or by a cellular system. This message is optional for
implementation.
o Frequency range: this is a characteristic of the PHY layer, with
almost no impact on the interface between MAC and IP. However, it
is worth considering that the frequency range is regulated by a
regional authority (ARCEP, ECC/CEPT based on ENs from ETSI, FCC,
etc.); as part of the regulation process, specific applications
are associated with specific frequency ranges. In the case of
802.11-OCB, the regulator associates a set of frequency ranges, or
slots within a band, to the use of applications of vehicular
communications, in a band known as "5.9GHz". The 5.9GHz band is
different from the 2.4GHz and 5GHz bands used by Wireless LAN.
However, as with Wireless LAN, the operation of 802.11-OCB in
"5.9GHz" bands is exempt from owning a license in EU (in US the
5.9GHz is a licensed band of spectrum; for the fixed
infrastructure an explicit FCC authorization is required; for an
on-board device a 'licensed-by-rule' concept applies: rule
certification conformity is required.) Technical conditions are
different than those of the bands "2.4GHz" or "5GHz". The allowed
power levels, and implicitly the maximum allowed distance between
vehicles, is of 33dBm for 802.11-OCB (in Europe), compared to 20
dBm for Wireless LAN 802.11a/b/g/n; this leads to a maximum
distance of approximately 1km, compared to approximately 50m.
Additionally, specific conditions related to congestion avoidance,
jamming avoidance, and radar detection are imposed on the use of
DSRC (in US) and on the use of frequencies for Intelligent
Transportation Systems (in EU), compared to Wireless LAN
(802.11a/b/g/n).
o 'Half-rate' encoding: as the frequency range, this parameter is
related to PHY, and thus has not much impact on the interface
between the IP layer and the MAC layer.
o In vehicular communications using 802.11-OCB links, there are
strong privacy requirements with respect to addressing. While the
802.11-OCB standard does not specify anything in particular with
respect to MAC addresses, in these settings there exists a strong
Petrescu, et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft IPv6-over-80211-OCB February 2018
need for dynamic change of these addresses (as opposed to the non-
vehicular settings - real wall protection - where fixed MAC
addresses do not currently pose some privacy risks). This is
further described in Section 5. A relevant function is described
in IEEE 1609.3-2016 [IEEE-1609.3], clause 5.5.1 and IEEE
1609.4-2016 [IEEE-1609.4], clause 6.7.
Other aspects particular to 802.11-OCB, which are also particular to
802.11 (e.g. the 'hidden node' operation), may have an influence on
the use of transmission of IPv6 packets on 802.11-OCB networks. The
OCB subnet structure is described in Section 4.6.
Appendix D. Changes Needed on a software driver 802.11a to become a
802.11-OCB driver
The 802.11p amendment modifies both the 802.11 stack's physical and
MAC layers but all the induced modifications can be quite easily
obtained by modifying an existing 802.11a ad-hoc stack.
Conditions for a 802.11a hardware to be 802.11-OCB compliant:
o The PHY entity shall be an orthogonal frequency division
multiplexing (OFDM) system. It must support the frequency bands
on which the regulator recommends the use of ITS communications,
for example using IEEE 802.11-OCB layer, in France: 5875MHz to
5925MHz.
o The OFDM system must provide a "half-clocked" operation using 10
MHz channel spacings.
o The chip transmit spectrum mask must be compliant to the "Transmit
spectrum mask" from the IEEE 802.11p amendment (but experimental
environments tolerate otherwise).
o The chip should be able to transmit up to 44.8 dBm when used by
the US government in the United States, and up to 33 dBm in
Europe; other regional conditions apply.
Changes needed on the network stack in OCB mode:
o Physical layer:
* The chip must use the Orthogonal Frequency Multiple Access
(OFDM) encoding mode.
* The chip must be set in half-mode rate mode (the internal clock
frequency is divided by two).
Petrescu, et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft IPv6-over-80211-OCB February 2018
* The chip must use dedicated channels and should allow the use
of higher emission powers. This may require modifications to
the local computer file that describes regulatory domains
rules, if used by the kernel to enforce local specific
restrictions. Such modifications to the local computer file
must respect the location-specific regulatory rules.
MAC layer:
* All management frames (beacons, join, leave, and others)
emission and reception must be disabled except for frames of
subtype Action and Timing Advertisement (defined below).
* No encryption key or method must be used.
* Packet emission and reception must be performed as in ad-hoc
mode, using the wildcard BSSID (ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff).
* The functions related to joining a BSS (Association Request/
Response) and for authentication (Authentication Request/Reply,
Challenge) are not called.
* The beacon interval is always set to 0 (zero).
* Timing Advertisement frames, defined in the amendment, should
be supported. The upper layer should be able to trigger such
frames emission and to retrieve information contained in
received Timing Advertisements.
Appendix E. EtherType Protocol Discrimination (EPD)
A more theoretical and detailed view of layer stacking, and
interfaces between the IP layer and 802.11-OCB layers, is illustrated
in Figure 5. The IP layer operates on top of the EtherType Protocol
Discrimination (EPD); this Discrimination layer is described in IEEE
Std 802.3-2012; the interface between IPv6 and EPD is the LLC_SAP
(Link Layer Control Service Access Point).
Petrescu, et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft IPv6-over-80211-OCB February 2018
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-{ }+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
{ LLC_SAP } 802.11-OCB
+-+-+-+-+-+-{ }+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Boundary
| EPD | | |
| | MLME | |
+-+-+-{ MAC_SAP }+-+-+-| MLME_SAP |
| MAC Sublayer | | | 802.11-OCB
| and ch. coord. | | SME | Services
+-+-+-{ PHY_SAP }+-+-+-+-+-+-+-| |
| | PLME | |
| PHY Layer | PLME_SAP |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: EtherType Protocol Discrimination
Appendix F. Design Considerations
The networks defined by 802.11-OCB are in many ways similar to other
networks of the 802.11 family. In theory, the encapsulation of IPv6
over 802.11-OCB could be very similar to the operation of IPv6 over
other networks of the 802.11 family. However, the high mobility,
strong link asymmetry and very short connection makes the 802.11-OCB
link significantly different from other 802.11 networks. Also, the
automotive applications have specific requirements for reliability,
security and privacy, which further add to the particularity of the
802.11-OCB link.
F.1. Vehicle ID
In automotive networks it is required that each node is represented
uniquely at a certain point in time. Accordingly, a vehicle must be
identified by at least one unique identifier. The current
specification at ETSI and at IEEE 1609 identifies a vehicle by its
MAC address, which is obtained from the 802.11-OCB Network Interface
Card (NIC).
In case multiple 802.11-OCB NICs are present in one car, implicitely
multiple vehicle IDs will be generated. Additionally, some software
generates a random MAC address each time the computer boots; this
constitutes an additional difficulty.
A mechanim to uniquely identify a vehicle irrespectively to the
multiplicity of NICs, or frequent MAC address generation, is
necessary.
Petrescu, et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft IPv6-over-80211-OCB February 2018
F.2. Reliability Requirements
The dynamically changing topology, short connectivity, mobile
transmitter and receivers, different antenna heights, and many-to-
many communication types, make IEEE 802.11-OCB links significantly
different from other IEEE 802.11 links. Any IPv6 mechanism operating
on IEEE 802.11-OCB link must support strong link asymmetry, spatio-
temporal link quality, fast address resolution and transmission.
IEEE 802.11-OCB strongly differs from other 802.11 systems to operate
outside of the context of a Basic Service Set. This means in
practice that IEEE 802.11-OCB does not rely on a Base Station for all
Basic Service Set management. In particular, IEEE 802.11-OCB shall
not use beacons. Any IPv6 mechanism requiring L2 services from IEEE
802.11 beacons must support an alternative service.
Channel scanning being disabled, IPv6 over IEEE 802.11-OCB must
implement a mechanism for transmitter and receiver to converge to a
common channel.
Authentication not being possible, IPv6 over IEEE 802.11-OCB must
implement an distributed mechanism to authenticate transmitters and
receivers without the support of a DHCP server.
Time synchronization not being available, IPv6 over IEEE 802.11-OCB
must implement a higher layer mechanism for time synchronization
between transmitters and receivers without the support of a NTP
server.
The IEEE 802.11-OCB link being asymmetric, IPv6 over IEEE 802.11-OCB
must disable management mechanisms requesting acknowledgements or
replies.
The IEEE 802.11-OCB link having a short duration time, IPv6 over IEEE
802.11-OCB should implement fast IPv6 mobility management mechanisms.
F.3. Multiple interfaces
There are considerations for 2 or more IEEE 802.11-OCB interface
cards per vehicle. For each vehicle taking part in road traffic, one
IEEE 802.11-OCB interface card could be fully allocated for Non IP
safety-critical communication. Any other IEEE 802.11-OCB may be used
for other type of traffic.
The mode of operation of these other wireless interfaces is not
clearly defined yet. One possibility is to consider each card as an
independent network interface, with a specific MAC Address and a set
of IPv6 addresses. Another possibility is to consider the set of
Petrescu, et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft IPv6-over-80211-OCB February 2018
these wireless interfaces as a single network interface (not
including the IEEE 802.11-OCB interface used by Non IP safety
critical communications). This will require specific logic to
ensure, for example, that packets meant for a vehicle in front are
actually sent by the radio in the front, or that multiple copies of
the same packet received by multiple interfaces are treated as a
single packet. Treating each wireless interface as a separate
network interface pushes such issues to the application layer.
Certain privacy requirements imply that if these multiple interfaces
are represented by many network interface, a single renumbering event
shall cause renumbering of all these interfaces. If one MAC changed
and another stayed constant, external observers would be able to
correlate old and new values, and the privacy benefits of
randomization would be lost.
The privacy requirements of Non IP safety-critical communications
imply that if a change of pseudonyme occurs, renumbering of all other
interfaces shall also occur.
F.4. MAC Address Generation
In 802.11-OCB networks, the MAC addresses may change during well
defined renumbering events. A 'randomized' MAC address has the
following characteristics:
o Bit "Local/Global" set to "locally admninistered".
o Bit "Unicast/Multicast" set to "Unicast".
o The 46 remaining bits are set to a random value, using a random
number generator that meets the requirements of [RFC4086].
To meet the randomization requirements for the 46 remaining bits, a
hash function may be used. For example, the SHA256 hash function may
be used with input a 256 bit local secret, the "nominal" MAC Address
of the interface, and a representation of the date and time of the
renumbering event.
Appendix G. IEEE 802.11 Messages Transmitted in OCB mode
For information, at the time of writing, this is the list of IEEE
802.11 messages that may be transmitted in OCB mode, i.e. when
dot11OCBActivated is true in a STA:
o The STA may send management frames of subtype Action and, if the
STA maintains a TSF Timer, subtype Timing Advertisement;
Petrescu, et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft IPv6-over-80211-OCB February 2018
o The STA may send control frames, except those of subtype PS-Poll,
CF-End, and CF-End plus CFAck;
o The STA may send data frames of subtype Data, Null, QoS Data, and
QoS Null.
Appendix H. Implementation Status
This section describes an example of an IPv6 Packet captured over a
IEEE 802.11-OCB link.
By way of example we show that there is no modification in the
headers when transmitted over 802.11-OCB networks - they are
transmitted like any other 802.11 and Ethernet packets.
We describe an experiment of capturing an IPv6 packet on an
802.11-OCB link. In topology depicted in Figure 6, the packet is an
IPv6 Router Advertisement. This packet is emitted by a Router on its
802.11-OCB interface. The packet is captured on the Host, using a
network protocol analyzer (e.g. Wireshark); the capture is performed
in two different modes: direct mode and 'monitor' mode. The topology
used during the capture is depicted below.
The packet is captured on the Host. The Host is an IP-OBU containing
an 802.11 interface in format PCI express (an ITRI product). The
kernel runs the ath5k software driver with modifications for OCB
mode. The capture tool is Wireshark. The file format for save and
analyze is 'pcap'. The packet is generated by the Router. The
Router is an IP-RSU (ITRI product).
+--------+ +-------+
| | 802.11-OCB Link | |
---| Router |--------------------------------| Host |
| | | |
+--------+ +-------+
Figure 6: Topology for capturing IP packets on 802.11-OCB
During several capture operations running from a few moments to
several hours, no message relevant to the BSSID contexts were
captured (no Association Request/Response, Authentication Req/Resp,
Beacon). This shows that the operation of 802.11-OCB is outside the
context of a BSSID.
Petrescu, et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft IPv6-over-80211-OCB February 2018
Overall, the captured message is identical with a capture of an IPv6
packet emitted on a 802.11b interface. The contents are precisely
similar.
H.1. Capture in Monitor Mode
The IPv6 RA packet captured in monitor mode is illustrated below.
The radio tap header provides more flexibility for reporting the
characteristics of frames. The Radiotap Header is prepended by this
particular stack and operating system on the Host machine to the RA
packet received from the network (the Radiotap Header is not present
on the air). The implementation-dependent Radiotap Header is useful
for piggybacking PHY information from the chip's registers as data in
a packet understandable by userland applications using Socket
interfaces (the PHY interface can be, for example: power levels, data
rate, ratio of signal to noise).
The packet present on the air is formed by IEEE 802.11 Data Header,
Logical Link Control Header, IPv6 Base Header and ICMPv6 Header.
Radiotap Header v0
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Header Revision| Header Pad | Header length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Present flags |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Data Rate | Pad |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
IEEE 802.11 Data Header
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type/Subtype and Frame Ctrl | Duration |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Receiver Address...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
... Receiver Address | Transmitter Address...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
... Transmitter Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| BSS Id...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
... BSS Id | Frag Number and Seq Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Logical-Link Control Header
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Petrescu, et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft IPv6-over-80211-OCB February 2018
| DSAP |I| SSAP |C| Control field | Org. code...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
... Organizational Code | Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
IPv6 Base Header
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Version| Traffic Class | Flow Label |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Payload Length | Next Header | Hop Limit |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ Source Address +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ Destination Address +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Router Advertisement
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Code | Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Cur Hop Limit |M|O| Reserved | Router Lifetime |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reachable Time |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Retrans Timer |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Options ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
The value of the Data Rate field in the Radiotap header is set to 6
Mb/s. This indicates the rate at which this RA was received.
The value of the Transmitter address in the IEEE 802.11 Data Header
is set to a 48bit value. The value of the destination address is
33:33:00:00:00:1 (all-nodes multicast address). The value of the BSS
Petrescu, et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft IPv6-over-80211-OCB February 2018
Id field is ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff, which is recognized by the network
protocol analyzer as being "broadcast". The Fragment number and
sequence number fields are together set to 0x90C6.
The value of the Organization Code field in the Logical-Link Control
Header is set to 0x0, recognized as "Encapsulated Ethernet". The
value of the Type field is 0x86DD (hexadecimal 86DD, or otherwise
#86DD), recognized as "IPv6".
A Router Advertisement is periodically sent by the router to
multicast group address ff02::1. It is an icmp packet type 134. The
IPv6 Neighbor Discovery's Router Advertisement message contains an
8-bit field reserved for single-bit flags, as described in [RFC4861].
The IPv6 header contains the link local address of the router
(source) configured via EUI-64 algorithm, and destination address set
to ff02::1. Recent versions of network protocol analyzers (e.g.
Wireshark) provide additional informations for an IP address, if a
geolocalization database is present. In this example, the
geolocalization database is absent, and the "GeoIP" information is
set to unknown for both source and destination addresses (although
the IPv6 source and destination addresses are set to useful values).
This "GeoIP" can be a useful information to look up the city,
country, AS number, and other information for an IP address.
The Ethernet Type field in the logical-link control header is set to
0x86dd which indicates that the frame transports an IPv6 packet. In
the IEEE 802.11 data, the destination address is 33:33:00:00:00:01
which is the corresponding multicast MAC address. The BSS id is a
broadcast address of ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff. Due to the short link
duration between vehicles and the roadside infrastructure, there is
no need in IEEE 802.11-OCB to wait for the completion of association
and authentication procedures before exchanging data. IEEE
802.11-OCB enabled nodes use the wildcard BSSID (a value of all 1s)
and may start communicating as soon as they arrive on the
communication channel.
H.2. Capture in Normal Mode
The same IPv6 Router Advertisement packet described above (monitor
mode) is captured on the Host, in the Normal mode, and depicted
below.
Petrescu, et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft IPv6-over-80211-OCB February 2018
Ethernet II Header
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Destination...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
...Destination | Source...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
...Source |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
IPv6 Base Header
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Version| Traffic Class | Flow Label |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Payload Length | Next Header | Hop Limit |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ Source Address +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ Destination Address +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Router Advertisement
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Code | Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Cur Hop Limit |M|O| Reserved | Router Lifetime |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reachable Time |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Retrans Timer |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Options ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Petrescu, et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft IPv6-over-80211-OCB February 2018
One notices that the Radiotap Header, the IEEE 802.11 Data Header and
the Logical-Link Control Headers are not present. On the other hand,
a new header named Ethernet II Header is present.
The Destination and Source addresses in the Ethernet II header
contain the same values as the fields Receiver Address and
Transmitter Address present in the IEEE 802.11 Data Header in the
"monitor" mode capture.
The value of the Type field in the Ethernet II header is 0x86DD
(recognized as "IPv6"); this value is the same value as the value of
the field Type in the Logical-Link Control Header in the "monitor"
mode capture.
The knowledgeable experimenter will no doubt notice the similarity of
this Ethernet II Header with a capture in normal mode on a pure
Ethernet cable interface.
An Adaptation layer is inserted on top of a pure IEEE 802.11 MAC
layer, in order to adapt packets, before delivering the payload data
to the applications. It adapts 802.11 LLC/MAC headers to Ethernet II
headers. In further detail, this adaptation consists in the
elimination of the Radiotap, 802.11 and LLC headers, and in the
insertion of the Ethernet II header. In this way, IPv6 runs straight
over LLC over the 802.11-OCB MAC layer; this is further confirmed by
the use of the unique Type 0x86DD.
Appendix I. Extra Terminology
The following terms are defined outside the IETF. They are used to
define the main terms in the main terminology section Section 2.
DSRC (Dedicated Short Range Communication): a term defined outside
the IETF. The US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Dedicated
Short Range Communication (DSRC) is defined in the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) 47, Parts 90 and 95. This Code is referred in the
definitions below. At the time of the writing of this Internet
Draft, the last update of this Code was dated October 1st, 2010.
DSRCS (Dedicated Short-Range Communications Services): a term defined
outside the IETF. The use of radio techniques to transfer data over
short distances between roadside and mobile units, between mobile
units, and between portable and mobile units to perform operations
related to the improvement of traffic flow, traffic safety, and other
intelligent transportation service applications in a variety of
environments. DSRCS systems may also transmit status and
instructional messages related to the units involve. [Ref. 47 CFR
90.7 - Definitions]
Petrescu, et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft IPv6-over-80211-OCB February 2018
OBU (On-Board Unit): a term defined outside the IETF. An On-Board
Unit is a DSRCS transceiver that is normally mounted in or on a
vehicle, or which in some instances may be a portable unit. An OBU
can be operational while a vehicle or person is either mobile or
stationary. The OBUs receive and contend for time to transmit on one
or more radio frequency (RF) channels. Except where specifically
excluded, OBU operation is permitted wherever vehicle operation or
human passage is permitted. The OBUs mounted in vehicles are
licensed by rule under part 95 of the respective chapter and
communicate with Roadside Units (RSUs) and other OBUs. Portable OBUs
are also licensed by rule under part 95 of the respective chapter.
OBU operations in the Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure
(UNII) Bands follow the rules in those bands. - [CFR 90.7 -
Definitions].
RSU (Road-Side Unit): a term defined outside of IETF. A Roadside
Unit is a DSRC transceiver that is mounted along a road or pedestrian
passageway. An RSU may also be mounted on a vehicle or is hand
carried, but it may only operate when the vehicle or hand- carried
unit is stationary. Furthermore, an RSU operating under the
respectgive part is restricted to the location where it is licensed
to operate. However, portable or hand-held RSUs are permitted to
operate where they do not interfere with a site-licensed operation.
A RSU broadcasts data to OBUs or exchanges data with OBUs in its
communications zone. An RSU also provides channel assignments and
operating instructions to OBUs in its communications zone, when
required. - [CFR 90.7 - Definitions].
Authors' Addresses
Alexandre Petrescu
CEA, LIST
CEA Saclay
Gif-sur-Yvette , Ile-de-France 91190
France
Phone: +33169089223
Email: Alexandre.Petrescu@cea.fr
Nabil Benamar
Moulay Ismail University
Morocco
Phone: +212670832236
Email: n.benamar@est.umi.ac.ma
Petrescu, et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft IPv6-over-80211-OCB February 2018
Jerome Haerri
Eurecom
Sophia-Antipolis 06904
France
Phone: +33493008134
Email: Jerome.Haerri@eurecom.fr
Jong-Hyouk Lee
Sangmyung University
31, Sangmyeongdae-gil, Dongnam-gu
Cheonan 31066
Republic of Korea
Email: jonghyouk@smu.ac.kr
Thierry Ernst
YoGoKo
France
Email: thierry.ernst@yogoko.fr
Petrescu, et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 39]