16ng Working Group S. Madanapalli
Internet-Draft Ordyn Technologies
Intended status: Standards Track Soohong D. Park
Expires: December 5, 2009 Samsung Electronics
S. Chakrabarti
IP Infusion
G. Montenegro
Microsoft Corporation
June 3, 2009
Transmission of IPv4 packets over IEEE 802.16's IP Convergence Sublayer
draft-ietf-16ng-ipv4-over-802-dot-16-ipcs-05
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may contain material
from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly
available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the
copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF
Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the
IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from
the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this
document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and
derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards
Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to
translate it into languages other than English.
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 December 5, 2009.
Copyright Notice
Madanapalli, et al. Expires December 5, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IPv4 over IEEE 802.16's IP CS June 2009
Copyright (c) 2009 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 in effect on the date of
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
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.
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.
Madanapalli, et al. Expires December 5, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IPv4 over IEEE 802.16's IP CS June 2009
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Typical Network Architecture for IPv4 over IEEE 802.16 . . . . 4
3.1. IEEE 802.16 IPv4 Convergence Sublayer 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.3. Maximum Transmission Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
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. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Appendix A. Multiple Convergence Layers - Impact on Subnet
Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix B. Sending and Receiving IPv4 Packets . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix C. WiMAX IPCS MTU size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Appendix D. Thoughts on handling multicast-broadcast IP
packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Madanapalli, et al. Expires December 5, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IPv4 over IEEE 802.16's IP CS June 2009
1. Introduction
IEEE 802.16 [IEEE802_16] is a connection oriented access technology
for the last mile. The IEEE 802.16 specification includes the PHY
and MAC layers. The MAC includes various Convergence Sublayers (CS)
for transmitting higher layer packets including IPv4 packets
[IEEE802_16].
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 operations are 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 (from the
perspective of the IPv6 link between the MS and access router (AR)).
For further information on the typical network architecture, see
[RFC5121] section 5.
3.1. IEEE 802.16 IPv4 Convergence Sublayer Support
As described in [IEEE802_16], the IP-specific part of the packet CS
allows the transmission of either IPv4 or IPv6 payloads. In this
document, we are focusing on the IPv4 over Packet Convergence
Sublayer.
Madanapalli, et al. Expires December 5, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IPv4 over IEEE 802.16's IP CS June 2009
For further information on the IEEE 802.16 Convergence Sublayer and
encapsulation of IP packets, see [RFC5121] section 4 and [RFC5154]
section 3.3.
4. IPv4 CS link in 802.16 Networks
This document defines the 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 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 each of which are identified by a
unique 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].
To summarize:
o IPv4 CS uses the IPv4 header fields to classify the packets and
map to the appropriate CID.
o A 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
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] ).
Madanapalli, et al. Expires December 5, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IPv4 over IEEE 802.16's IP CS June 2009
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 1: 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
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 SHOULD be 1500 octets.
Madanapalli, et al. Expires December 5, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IPv4 over IEEE 802.16's IP CS June 2009
Per [RFC5121] section 6.3, the IP MTU can vary to be larger or
smaller than 1500 octets.
if an MS transmits 1500-octet packets in a deployment with a smaller
MTU, packets from the MS may be dropped at the link-layer silently.
Unlike IPv6, in which departures from the default MTU are readily
advertised via the MTU option in Neighbor Discovery, there is no
similarly reliable mechanism in IPv4, as the legacy IPv4 client
implementations do not determine the link MTU by default before
sending packets. Even though there is a DHCP option to accomplish
this, DHCP servers are required to provide the MTU information only
when requested.
Discovery and configuration of the proper link MTU value ensures
adequate usage of the network bandwidth and resources. Accordingly,
deployments should avoid packet loss due to a mismatch between the
default MTU and the configured link MTUs.
Some of the mechanisms available for the IPv4 CS host to find out
the link's MTU value and mitigate MTU-related issues are:
o The IEEE is currently revising 802.16 (see 802.16Rev2
[802_16REV2]) to (among other things) allow providing 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 infer and
configure the negotiated MTU size for the IPv4 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 only
when MS is directly connected to the BS.
o Configuration and negotiation of MTU size at the network layer by
using the DHCP interface MTU option [RFC2132].
This document recommends that all future implementations of IPv4 and
IPv4 CS clients SHOULD implement the DHCP interface MTU option
[RFC2132] in order to configure its interface MTU accordingly.
In the absence of DHCP MTU configuration, the client node (MS) has
two alternatives: 1) use the default MTU (1500 bytes) or 2) determine
the MTU by the methods described in [802_16REV2].
Additionally, the clients are encouraged to run PMTU [RFC1191] or
PPMTUD [RFC4821]. However, the 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 the 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 access networks.
Madanapalli, et al. Expires December 5, 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IPv4 over IEEE 802.16's IP CS June 2009
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
an L2 tunnel (e.g., 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 the IEEE 802.16 MAC connection to
and from the BS and relayed to the AR. In case the DHCP server does
not reside in the AR, the AR SHOULD implement DHCP relay Agent
[RFC1542].
Although DHCP is the recommended method of address assignment, it is
possible that the MS could be a pure Mobile IPv4 [RFC3344] device
which will be offered an IP address from its home network after
successful Mobile IP [RFC3344] registration. In such situations, the
mobile host 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.
Router discovery messages [RFC1256] contain router solicitation and
router advertisements. The Router solicitation messages (multicast
or broadcast) from the MS are delivered to the AR via the BS through
the point-to-point link. The BS SHOULD map the all-routers multicast
nodes or broadcast nodes for router discovery to the AR's IP address
and deliver directly to the AR. Similarly a router advertisement to
the all-nodes multicast nodes will be either unicast 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 disaggregate the messages to
and from the MS hosts, then the AR implementation must ensure that
unicast messages are sent to the corresponding individual MS hosts
within the set of broadcast or multicast recipients. This
specification simply assumes that the multicast service is provided.
How the multicast service is implemented in an IEEE 802.16 Packet CS
deployment 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 via a point-to-point link.
Madanapalli, et al. Expires December 5, 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IPv4 over IEEE 802.16's IP CS June 2009
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 set up with a multicast IP address as a
classification parameter for the destination IP address. The IPv4
multicast address may be mapped into a multicast CID as defined in
the IEEE 802.16 specification. The mapping mechanism at the BS or
the relative efficiency of using a multicast CID as opposed to
simulating multicast by generating multiple unicast messages are out
of scope of this document. For further considerations on the use of
multicast CIDs see [I-D.ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16].
6. 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
[IEEE802_16]. 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 [WMF].
7. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA.
8. 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, Wesley George, 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.
Madanapalli, et al. Expires December 5, 2009 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IPv4 over IEEE 802.16's IP CS June 2009
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
September 1981.
[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.
[RFC1542] Wimer, W., "Clarifications and Extensions for the
Bootstrap Protocol", RFC 1542, October 1993.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2131] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol",
RFC 2131, March 1997.
9.2. Informative References
[RFC1191] Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU discovery", RFC 1191,
November 1990.
[RFC1256] Deering, S., "ICMP Router Discovery Messages", RFC 1256,
September 1991.
[RFC2132] Alexander, S. and R. Droms, "DHCP Options and BOOTP Vendor
Extensions", RFC 2132, March 1997.
[RFC3344] Perkins, C., "IP Mobility Support for IPv4", RFC 3344,
August 2002.
[RFC4821] Mathis, M. and J. Heffner, "Packetization Layer Path MTU
Discovery", RFC 4821, March 2007.
[RFC4840] Aboba, B., Davies, E., and D. Thaler, "Multiple
Encapsulation Methods Considered Harmful", RFC 4840,
April 2007.
[RFC4968] Madanapalli, S., "Analysis of IPv6 Link Models for 802.16
Based Networks", RFC 4968, August 2007.
[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,
Madanapalli, et al. Expires December 5, 2009 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IPv4 over IEEE 802.16's IP CS June 2009
February 2008.
[RFC5154] Jee, J., Madanapalli, S., and J. Mandin, "IP over IEEE
802.16 Problem Statement and Goals", RFC 5154, April 2008.
[I-D.ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16]
Riegel, M., Jeong, S., and H. Jeon, "Transmission of IP
over Ethernet over IEEE 802.16 Networks",
draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802-dot-16-08 (work
in progress), January 2009.
[802_16REV2]
Johnston, D., "SDU MTU Capability Declaration",
March 2008, <http://www.ieee.org/16>.
[IEEE802_16]
"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.
[WMF] "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 to [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 are transmitted, a 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 (if these two are not co-located). This IEEE
802.16 transport connection provides a point-to-point link between
the MS and AR. All the packets originated at the MS always reach the
Madanapalli, et al. Expires December 5, 2009 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IPv4 over IEEE 802.16's IP CS June 2009
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 place 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.
The BS optionally reconstructs the payload header if PHS is in use.
It then tunnels the packet that has been received on a particular MAC
connection to the AR. Similarly the packets received on a tunnel
interface from the AR, would be mapped to a particular CID using the
IPv4 classification mechanism.
AR performs normal routing for the packets that it receives,
processing them per 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 IPCS MTU size
WiMAX (Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access) forum has
defined a network architecture[WMF]. Furthermore, WiMAX has
specified IPv4 CS support for transmission of IPv4 packets between MS
and BS over the IEEE 802.16 link. The WiMAX IPv4 CS and this
specification are similar. One significant difference, however, is
that the WiMAX Forum [WMF] has specified the IP MTU as 1400 octets
[WMF] as opposed to 1500 in this specification.
Hence if an IPv4 CS MS configured with an MTU of 1500 octet enters a
WiMAX network, some of the issues mentioned in this specification may
arise. As mentioned in section 4.3, the possible mechanisms are not
guaranteed to work. Furthermore, an IPv4 CS client is not capable of
doing ARP probing to find out the link MTU. On the other hand, it is
imperative for an MS to know the link MTU size. In practice, MS
should be able to sense or deduce the fact that they are operating
within a WiMAX network (e.g., given the WiMAX-specific
particularities of the authentication and network entry procedures),
and adjust their MTU size accordingly. This document makes no
further assumptions in this respect.
Madanapalli, et al. Expires December 5, 2009 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IPv4 over IEEE 802.16's IP CS June 2009
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:
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 December 5, 2009 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IPv4 over IEEE 802.16's IP CS June 2009
Samita Chakrabarti
IP Infusion
1188 Arques Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA
USA
Email: samitac@ipinfusion.com
Gabriel Montenegro
Microsoft Corporation
Redmond, Washington
USA
Email: gabriel.montenegro@microsoft.com
Madanapalli, et al. Expires December 5, 2009 [Page 14]
