16ng Working Group S. Madanapalli
Internet-Draft Ordyn Technologies
Intended status: Standards Track Soohong D. Park
Expires: January 15, 2009 Samsung Electronics
S. Chakrabarti
IP Infusion
July 13, 2008
Transmission of IPv4 packets over IEEE 802.16's IP Convergence Sublayer
draft-ietf-16ng-ipv4-over-802-dot-16-ipcs-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 January 15, 2009.
Abstract
IEEE 802.16 is an air interface specification for wireless broadband
access. IEEE 802.16 has specified multiple service specific
convergence sublayers for transmitting upper layer protocols. The
packet CS (Packet Convergence Sublayer) is used for the transport of
all packet-based protocols such as Internet Protocol (IP), IEEE 802.3
(Ethernet) and IEEE 802.1Q (VLAN). The IP-specific part of the
Packet CS enables the transport of IPv4 packets directly over the
IEEE 802.16 MAC.
Madanapalli, et al. Expires January 15, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IPv4 over IEEE 802.16's IP CS July 2008
This document specifies the frame format, the Maximum Transmission
Unit (MTU) and address assignment procedures for transmitting IPv4
packets over the IP-specific part of the Packet Convergence Sublayer
of IEEE 802.16.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Typical Network Architecture for IPv4 over IEEE 802.16 . . . . 3
3.1. IEEE 802.16 IPv4 Convergence sub-layer support . . . . . . 4
4. IPv4-CS link in 802.16 Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. IPv4-CS link establishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Frame Format for IPv4 Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3. Maximum Transmission Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Subnet Model and IPv4 Address Assignment . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. IPv4 Unicast Address Assignment and Router Discovery . . . 8
5.2. Address Resolution Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.3. IP Multicast Address Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Handling Multicast and Broadcast packets in IPv4 CS . . . . . 9
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix A. Multiple Convergence Layers - Impact on Subnet
Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Appendix B. Sending and Receiving IPv4 Packets . . . . . . . . . 12
Appendix C. Wimax IP-CS MTU size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix D. Thoughts on handling multicast-broadcast IP
packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 16
Madanapalli, et al. Expires January 15, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IPv4 over IEEE 802.16's IP CS July 2008
1. Introduction
IEEE 802.16 [_XREF_10] is a connection oriented access technology for
the last mile. The IEEE 802.16 specification includes the PHY and
MAC details. The MAC includes various convergence sublayers (CS) for
transmitting higher layer packets including IPV4 packets [RFC5154].
The scope of this specification is limited to the operation of IPv4
over the IP-specific part of the packet CS (referred to as "IPv4 CS"
or simply "IP CS" in this document).
This document specifies a method for encapsulating and transmitting
IPv4 [RFC0791] packets over the IP CS of IEEE 802.16. This document
also specifies the MTU and address assignment method for the IEEE
802.16 based networks using IP CS.
This document also discusses ARP (Address Resolution Protocol) and
Multicast Address Mapping whose operation is similar to any other
point-to-point link model.
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 [RFC2119].
2. Terminology
The terminology in this document is based on the definitions in
[RFC5154].
3. Typical Network Architecture for IPv4 over IEEE 802.16
The network architecture follows what is described in [RFC5154] and
[RFC5121]. In a nutshell, each MS is attached to an Access Router
(AR) through a Base Station (BS), a layer 2 entity. The AR can be an
integral part of the BS or the AR could be an entity beyond the BS
within the access network. IPv4 packets between the MS and BS are
carried over a point-to-point MAC transport connection which has a
unique connection identifier (CID). The packets between BS and AR
are carried using L2 tunnel (typically GRE tunnel) so that MS and AR
are seen as layer 3 peer entities. At least one L2 tunnel is
required for each MS, so that IP packets can be sent to MSs before
they acquire IP addresses. From the layer 3 perspective, MS and AR
are connected by a point-to-point link. The figure below illustrates
the network architecture for convenience.
Madanapalli, et al. Expires January 15, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IPv4 over IEEE 802.16's IP CS July 2008
+-----+ CID1 +------+ +-----------+
| MS1 |----------+| BS |----------| AR |-----Internet
+-----+ / +------+ +-----------+
. / ____________
. CIDn / ()__________()
+-----+ / L2 Tunnel
| MSn |-----/
+-----+
Figure 1: Typical Network Architecture for IPv4 over IEEE 802.16
The above network model serves as an example and is shown to
illustrate the point to point link between the MS and the AR. The L2
tunnel is not required if BS and AR are integrated into a single box.
3.1. IEEE 802.16 IPv4 Convergence sub-layer support
As described in [RFC5154] section 3.3., an IP specific subpart
classifier carries either IPv4 or IPv6 payloads. In this document,
we are focussing on IPv4 over IP Convergence sublayer.
The convergence sublayer maintains an ordered "classifier table".
Each entry in the classifier table includes a classifier and a target
CID. In case of IP convergence sub-layer, the base-station performs
the mapping between CID or service-flow ID and a corresponding GRE
key for a particular IP-CS session. Also the classification takes
place in Access Router based on the GRE key per service-flow and/or
IP-address of the MS.
The other classifiers in Packet CS are IPv6 CS and Ethernet CS
[RFC5154]. The classifiers used by IP CS, enable the differentiation
of IPv4 and IPv6 packets and their mapping to specific transport
connections over the air interface.
The figure below shows the IPv4 user payload over IP transport over
the packet CS of IEEE 802.16:
Madanapalli, et al. Expires January 15, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IPv4 over IEEE 802.16's IP CS July 2008
+-------------------+
| IPv4 Payload |
+-------------------+
| GRE |
+-------------------+ +-------------------+
| IPv4 Payload | | IP |
+-------------------+ +-------------------+
| IP-specific | | BS-AR Layer 2 |
| part of Packet CS | | specific link |
|...................| | (Ex: Ethernet) |
| 802.16 MAC | | |
+-------------------+ +-------------------+
| PHY | | PHY |
+-------------------+ +-------------------+
(1) IPv4 over IP-CS (2) IPv4 in L3 GRE encapsulation
between MS and BS between Base-station and AR
Figure 2: IEEE 802.16 transport of IPv4 Packets from MS to AR
4. IPv4-CS link in 802.16 Networks
In this document we have defined IPv4 CS link as a point-to-point
link between the MS and the AR using a set of service flows
consisting of MAC transport connections between a MS and BS, and L2
tunnel(s) between between a BS and AR. It is recommended that a
tunnel be established between the AR and a BS based on 'per MS' or
'per service flow' (An MS can have multiple service flows which are
identified by a service flow ID). Then the tunnel(s) for an MS, in
combination with the MS's MAC transport connections, forms a single
point-to-point link. Each MS belongs to a different link and is
assigned an unique IPv4 address per recommendations in [RFC4968]. In
summary:
o IPv4-CS uses the IPv4 header fields to classify the packets and
map to appropriate CID.
o Point-to-point link between MS and AR is established.
4.1. IPv4-CS link establishment
In order to enable the sending and receiving of IPv4 packets between
the MS and the AR, the link between the MS and the AR via the BS
needs to be established. This section explains the link
establishment procedures following section 6.2 of [RFC5121]. Steps
1-4 are same as indicated in 6.2 of [RFC5121]. In step 5, support
for IPv4 is indicated. In step 6, an initial service flow is created
Madanapalli, et al. Expires January 15, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IPv4 over IEEE 802.16's IP CS July 2008
that can be used for exchanging IP layer signaling messages, e.g.
address assignment procedures using DHCP.
The address assignment procedure depends on the MS mode - i,e.
whether it is acting as a Mobile IPv4 client or a Proxy Mobile IP
client or a Simple IP client. In the most common case, the MS
requests an IP address using DHCP.
4.2. Frame Format for IPv4 Packets
IPv4 packets are transmitted in Generic IEEE 802.16 MAC frames in the
data payloads of the 802.16 PDU ( see section 3.2 of [RFC5154] ).
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|H|E| TYPE |R|C|EKS|R|LEN |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LEN LSB | CID MSB |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| CID LSB | HCS |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 |
+- -+
| header |
+- -+
| and |
+- -+
/ payload /
+- -+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|CRC (optional) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: IEEE 802.16 MAC Frame Format for IPv4 Packets
H: Header Type (1 bit). Shall be set to zero indicating that it
is a Generic MAC PDU.
E: Encryption Control. 0 = Payload is not encrypted; 1 = Payload
is encrypted.
R: Reserved. Shall be set to zero.
C: CRC Indicator. 1 = CRC is included, 0 = 1 No CRC is included
Madanapalli, et al. Expires January 15, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IPv4 over IEEE 802.16's IP CS July 2008
EKS: Encryption Key Sequence
LEN: The Length in bytes of the MAC PDU including the MAC header
and the CRC if present (11 bits)
CID: Connection Identifier (16 bits)
HCS: Header Check Sequence (8 bits)
CRC: An optional 8-bit field. CRC appended to the PDU after
encryption.
TYPE: This field indicates the subheaders (Mesh subheader,
Fragmentation Subheader, Packing subheader etc and special payload
types (ARQ) present in the message payload
4.3. Maximum Transmission Unit
The MTU value for IPv4 packets on an IEEE 802.16 link is
configurable. The default MTU for IPv4 packets over an IEEE 802.16
link is 1400 bytes. This default value accommodates for the overhead
of the GRE tunnel used to transport IPv4 packets between the BS and
AR and the IP-transport header. The choice of default MTU value in
IPv4-CS link is determined by the present deployment of IEEE 802.16
network specifications and the legacy IPv4 client implementations
where they do not typically ask for MTU configuration of the link,
while DHCP servers are required to provide the MTU information only
when requested. The default MTU value ensures that no packet loss
happens at the L2 level due to the low-capacity IP CS link-MTU in
order to accommodate the GRE encapsulation over IP-transport between
the AR and BS.
However, if the deployment offers higher link MTU (1500 bytes or
more), the IPv4 CS client host SHOULD configure the link-MTU before
starting the IP-level communication. The following paragraph
discusses different approaches through which the IPv4 CS client finds
out the available link-MTU value. The discovery and configuration of
a proper link MTU value ensures adequate usage of the network
bandwidth and resource.
o The IEEE is currently revising 802.16 (see 802.16Rev2 [802_16REV2]
) to reproduce capabilities to inform the Service Data Unit or MAC
MTU in the IEEE 802.16 SBC-REQ/SBC-RSP phase, such that future
IEEE 802.16 compliant clients can configure the negotiated MTU
size for IP-CS link. However, the implementation must communicate
the negotiated MTU value to the IP layer to adjust the IP Maximum
payload size for proper handling of fragmentation. Note that this
method is useful when MS is directly connected to the BS. If
there is a bridge between the MS and the BS, then the negotiated
MTU value will only be valid for the link between the MS and the
bridge. In the bridged scenario, the default MTU (1400 bytes) is
safe to use.
Madanapalli, et al. Expires January 15, 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IPv4 over IEEE 802.16's IP CS July 2008
o Configuration and negotiation of MTU size at the network-layer by
using DHCP interface MTU option [RFC2132].
This document recommends that all future implementations of IPv4 and
IPv4-CS clients SHOULD implement DHCP interface MTU option [RFC2132]
in order to configure its interface MTU according to the access
network in order to maximize the capacity of the bandwidth of the
network.
Consequently, the clients are encouraged to run PMTU[RFC 1191] or
PPMTUD[RFC 4821. However, PMTU mechanism has inherent problems of
packet loss due to ICMP messages not reaching the sender and IPv4
routers not fragmenting the packets due to DF bit being set in the IP
packet. The above mentioned path MTU mechanisms will take care of
the MTU size between the MS and its correspondent node across
different flavors of convergence layers in the WiMAX networks, IEEE
802.16 networks and other types of networks such as Wi-Fi, Ethernet
or 3G networks.
5. Subnet Model and IPv4 Address Assignment
The Subnet Model recommended for IPv4 over IEEE 802.16 using IP CS is
based on the point-to-point link between MS and AR [RFC4968], hence
each MS shall be assigned an address with 32bit prefix-length or
subnet-mask. The point-to-point link between MS and AR is achieved
using a set of IEEE 802.16 MAC connections (identified by CIDs) and a
L2 tunnel (usually a GRE tunnel) per MS between BS and AR. If the AR
is co-located with the BS then the set of IEEE 802.16 MAC connections
between the MS and BS/AR represent the point-to- point connection.
5.1. IPv4 Unicast Address Assignment and Router Discovery
DHCP [RFC2131] SHOULD be used for assigning IPv4 address for the MS.
DHCP messages are transported over IEEE 802.16 MAC connection to and
from the BS and relayed to the AR. In case DHCP server does not
reside in the AR, the AR SHOULD implement DHCP relay Agent [RFC1542].
Please refer to the MTU section of this document for requirements of
DHCP interface-MTU option for the new IPv4 CS MS implementation.
Although DHCP is the recommended method of address assignment, it is
possible that the MS could be a pure Mobile-IPv4 [RFC3344] device or
Wimax Mobile-IPv4 client which will be offered an IP-address from its
home-network after success-ful Mobile-IP [RFC3344] registration. In
such situation, the mobile-client implementation SHOULD use the
default link MTU in order to avoid any link-layer packet loss due to
larger than supported packet size in the IP CS link.
Madanapalli, et al. Expires January 15, 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IPv4 over IEEE 802.16's IP CS July 2008
Router discovery messages [RFC1256] contain router solicitation and
router advertisements. The Router solicitation messages (multicast
or broadcast) are directly delivered to AR via BS from the MS through
the point-to-point link. The BS SHOULD map the all-router multicast
nodes or broadcast nodes for router discovery to the AR's IP-address
and delivered directly to the AR. Similarly for router-advertisement
to the all-node multicast nodes will be either unicasted to each MS
by the BS separately or put onto a multicast connection to which all
MSs are listening to. If no multicast connection exists, and the BS
does not have the capability to aggregate and de-aggregate the
messages from and to the MS hosts, then the AR implementation must
take care of sending unicast messages to the corresponding individual
MS hosts within the set of broadcast or multicast recipients.
However, this specification simply assumes that the multicast service
is provided. How the multicast service is implemented in IEEE 802.16
Packet CS network, is out of scope of this document.
The 'Next-hop' IP-address of the IP CS MS is always the IP-address of
the AR, because MS and AR are attached with a point-to-point link.
5.2. Address Resolution Protocol
The IP CS does not allow for transmission of ARP [RFC0826] packets.
Furthermore, in a point-to-point link model, address resolution is
not needed.
5.3. IP Multicast Address Mapping
IPv4 multicast packets are carried over the point-to-point link
between the AR and the MS (via the BS). The IPv4 multicast packets
are classified normally at the IP CS if the IEEE 802.16 MAC
connection has been setup with a multicast IP address as a
classification parameter for the destination IP address. The IPv4
multicast address may be mapped into multicast CID defined in IEEE
802.16 specification, but the mapping mechanism at the BS or
efficiency of using multicast CID as opposed to simulating multicast
by generating multiple unicast messages are out of scope of this
document. However, it has been studied that the use of multicast CID
for realizing multicast transmissions reduces transmission efficiency
when the multicast group is small, due to the nature of wireless
network(IEEE 802.16) [ETHCS].
6. Handling Multicast and Broadcast packets in IPv4 CS
In the IP-CS link model, two different approaches can work - 1) BS
maps the multicast or Broadcast IP-addresses into different multicast
CIDs of the MSs or 2) AR maps the multicast IP-addresses to different
Madanapalli, et al. Expires January 15, 2009 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IPv4 over IEEE 802.16's IP CS July 2008
unicast IP-addresses and send the packets directly to each MS
separately.
However as mentioned earlier, handling a mechanism of multicast or
broadcast IP CS packets are out of scope of this document. Please
refer to Appendix section for some thoughts and suggestions.
7. Security Considerations
This document specifies transmission of IPv4 packets over IEEE 802.16
networks with IPv4 Convergence Sublayer and does not introduce any
new vulnerabilities to IPv4 specifications or operation. The
security of the IEEE 802.16 air interface is the subject of
[_XREF_10]. In addition, the security issues of the network
architecture spanning beyond the IEEE 802.16 base stations is the
subject of the documents defining such architectures, such as WiMAX
Network Architecture [_XREF_11].
8. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA.
9. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of Bernard
Aboba, Dave Thaler, Jari Arkko, Bachet Sarikaya, Basavaraj Patil,
Paolo Narvaez, and Bruno Sousa for their review and comments. The
working group members Burcak Beser, George Weseley, Max Riegel and DJ
Johnston helped shape the MTU discussion for IPv4-CS link. Thanks to
many other members of the 16ng working group who commented on this
document to make it better. The authors of this document offer
special thanks to Gabriel Montenegro for the review of the document
and providing alternative texts to many sections of this document.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
September 1981.
Madanapalli, et al. Expires January 15, 2009 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IPv4 over IEEE 802.16's IP CS July 2008
[RFC0826] Plummer, D., "Ethernet Address Resolution Protocol: Or
converting network protocol addresses to 48.bit Ethernet
address for transmission on Ethernet hardware", STD 37,
RFC 826, November 1982.
[RFC2131] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol",
RFC 2131, March 1997.
[RFC1542] Wimer, W., "Clarifications and Extensions for the
Bootstrap Protocol", RFC 1542, October 1993.
[RFC5121] Patil, B., Xia, F., Sarikaya, B., Choi, JH., and S.
Madanapalli, "Transmission of IPv6 via the IPv6
Convergence Sublayer over IEEE 802.16 Networks", RFC 5121,
February 2008.
[RFC5154] Jee, J., Madanapalli, S., and J. Mandin, "IP over IEEE
802.16 Problem Statement and Goals", RFC 5154, April 2008.
[RFC4968] Madanapalli, S., "Analysis of IPv6 Link Models for 802.16
Based Networks", RFC 4968, August 2007.
10.2. Informative References
[RFC1191] Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU discovery", RFC 1191,
November 1990.
[RFC4821] Mathis, M. and J. Heffner, "Packetization Layer Path MTU
Discovery", RFC 4821, March 2007.
[RFC2132] Alexander, S. and R. Droms, "DHCP Options and BOOTP Vendor
Extensions", RFC 2132, March 1997.
[RFC4840] Aboba, B., Davies, E., and D. Thaler, "Multiple
Encapsulation Methods Considered Harmful", RFC 4840,
April 2007.
[RFC3344] Perkins, C., "IP Mobility Support for IPv4", RFC 3344,
August 2002.
[RFC1256] Deering, S., "ICMP Router Discovery Messages", RFC 1256,
September 1991.
[ETHCS] Jeon, H., Riegel, M., and S. Jeong, "Transmission of IP
over Ethernet over IEEE 802.16 Networks", April 2008,
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802.16-06.txt>.
Madanapalli, et al. Expires January 15, 2009 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IPv4 over IEEE 802.16's IP CS July 2008
[802_16REV2]
Johnston, D., "SDU MTU Capability Declaration",
March 2008, <http://www.ieee.org/16>.
[_XREF_10]
"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.
[_XREF_11]
"WiMAX End-to-End Network Systems Architecture Stage 2-3
Release 1.2,
http://www.wimaxforum.org/technology/documents",
January 2008.
Appendix A. Multiple Convergence Layers - Impact on Subnet Model
Two different MSs using two different convergence sublayers (e.g. an
MS using Ethernet CS only and another MS using IP CS only) cannot
communicate at data link layer and requires interworking at IP layer.
For this reason, these two nodes must be configured to be on two
different subnets. For more information refer [RFC4840].
Appendix B. Sending and Receiving IPv4 Packets
IEEE 802.16 MAC is a point-to-multipoint connection oriented air-
interface, and the process of sending and receiving of IPv4 packets
is different from multicast capable shared medium technologies like
Ethernet.
Before any packets being transmitted, IEEE 802.16 transport
connection must be established. This connection consists of IEEE
802.16 MAC transport connection between MS and BS and an L2 tunnel
between BS and AR. This IEEE 802.16 transport connection provides a
point-to-point link between MS and AR. All the packets originated at
the MS always reach AR before being transmitted to the final
destination.
IPv4 packets are carried directly in the payload of IEEE 802.16
frames when the IPv4 CS is used. IPv4 CS classifies the packet based
on upper layer (IP and transport layers)header fields to put the
packet on one of the available connections identified by the CID.
The classifiers for the IPv4 CS are source and destination IPv4
addresses, source and destinations ports, Type-of-Service and IP
protocol field. The CS may employ Packet Header Suppression (PHS)
after the classification.
Madanapalli, et al. Expires January 15, 2009 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IPv4 over IEEE 802.16's IP CS July 2008
The BS tunnels the packet that has been received on a particular MAC
connection to the AR. BS reconstructs the payload header if the PHS
is in use before the packet is tunneled to the AR. Similarly the
packets received on a tunnel interface from the AR, would be mapped
to a particular CID using IPv4 classification mechanism.
AR performs normal routing for the packets that it receives and
forwards the packet based on its forwarding table. However the DHCP
relay agent in the AR, MUST maintain the tunnel interface on which it
receives DHCP requests, so that it can relay the DHCP responses to
the correct MS. One way of doing this is to have a mapping between
MAC address and Tunnel Identifier.
Appendix C. Wimax IP-CS MTU size
The current architecture of IPv4CS in IEEE 802.16 networks is defined
in the WiMAX (Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access) forum
[WMF]. The addressing and operation of IPV4-CS described in this
document are applicable to the WiMAX networks as well. The WiMAX
forum [WMF] has specified the Max SDU size as 1522 octets. However,
it specifies that IP-payload in WiMAX architecture [WMF] specified
network is 1400 bytes.
Hence if a IPV4-CS MS is configured for 1500 bytes it will have to be
communicated by the access router(AR) about the default link MTU
(1400 bytes) in WiMAX network. However, currently in IPv4 client
architecture a node is not required to ask for MTU option in its DHCP
messages nor the IPv4 router-advertisements are required to advertise
link MTU option when the link does not support 1500 byte de-facto MTU
size. An IPV4-CS client is not capable of doing ARP probing either
to find out the link MTU. Thus current specifications of WiMAX
network access routers cannot communicate its link MTU to the IPV4-CS
MS. On the other hand, it is imperative for an MS to know the link
MTU size if it is not the default MTU value for de-facto standard in
order to successfully send packets in the network towards the first
hop. This document can not also assume that the legacy IPv4 client
implementation with IEEE 802.16 layer 2 support, would be able to
dynamically sense IPV4-CS WiMAX network and adjust their MTU size
accordingly.
Thus for IPV4-CS over IEEE 802.16 the default MTU size is 1400 bytes.
Appendix D. Thoughts on handling multicast-broadcast IP packets
Although this document does not directly specify details of multicast
or broadcast packet handling, here are some suggestions:
Madanapalli, et al. Expires January 15, 2009 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IPv4 over IEEE 802.16's IP CS July 2008
While uplink connections from the MSs to the BS provide only unicast
transmission capabilities, downlink connections can be used for
multicast transmission to a group of MSs as well as unicast
transmission from the BS to a single MS. For all-node IP-addresses,
the AR or BS should have special mapping and the packets should be
distributed to all active point-to-point connections by the AR or by
the BS. All-router multicast packets and any broadcast packets from
a MS will be forwarded to the AR by the BS. If BS and MS are co-
located, then the first approach is more useful. If the AR and BS
are located separately then the second approach SHOULD be
implemented. An initial capability exchange message should be
performed between BS and AR (if they are not co-located) to determine
who would perform the distribution of multicast/broadcast packets.
Such mechansim should be part of L2 exchange during the connection
setup and is out of scope of this document. In order to save energy
of the wireless end-devices in the IEEE 802.16 wireless network, it
is recommened that the multicast and broadcast from network side to
device side should be reduced. Only DHCP, IGMP, Router-advertisemnet
packets are allowed on the downlink for multicast and broadcast IP-
addresses. Other protocols using multicast and broadcast IP-
addresses should be permitted through local AR/BS configuration.
Authors' Addresses
Syam Madanapalli
Ordyn Technologies
1st Floor, Creator Building, ITPL
Bangalore - 560066
India
Email: smadanapalli@gmail.com
Soohong Daniel Park
Samsung Electronics
416 Maetan-3dong, Yeongtong-gu
Suwon 442-742
Korea
Email: soohong.park@samsung.com
Madanapalli, et al. Expires January 15, 2009 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft IPv4 over IEEE 802.16's IP CS July 2008
Samita Chakrabarti
IP Infusion
1188 Arques Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA
USA
Email: samitac@ipinfusion.com
Madanapalli, et al. Expires January 15, 2009 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft IPv4 over IEEE 802.16's IP CS July 2008
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
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.
Madanapalli, et al. Expires January 15, 2009 [Page 16]
