Network Working Group M-K. Shin
Internet-Draft ETRI
Expires: November 25, 2006 Y-H. Han
KUT
May 24, 2006
ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in Wireless Broadband Access Networks
draft-ietf-v6ops-802-16-deployment-scenarios-00
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 November 25, 2006.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract
This document provides detailed description of IPv6 deployment and
integration methods and scenarios in wireless broadband access
networks in coexistence with deployed IPv4 services. In this
document we will discuss main components of IPv6 IEEE 802.16 access
network and its differences from IPv4 IEEE 802.16 networks and how
IPv6 is deployed and integrated in each of the IEEE 802.16
technologies using tunneling mechanisms and native IPv6.
Shin & Han Expires November 25, 2006 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios May 2006
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Wireless Broadband Access Network Technologies - IEEE
802.16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Elements of IEEE 802.16 Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Deploying IPv6 in IEEE 802.16 Networks . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.1. Scenario A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2.2. Scenario B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2.3. Scenario C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.2.4. Scenario D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.3. IPv6 Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.4. IPv6 Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.5. IPv6 QoS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.6. IPv6 Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.7. IPv6 Network Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 22
Shin & Han Expires November 25, 2006 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios May 2006
1. Introduction
Recently, broadband wireless access network is emerging for wireless
communication for user requirements such as high quality data/voice
service, fast mobility, wide coverage, etc. The IEEE 802.16 Working
Group develops standards and recommended practices to support the
development and deployment of broadband wireless metropolitan area
networks.
Whereas the existing IEEE 802.16 standard [IEEE802.16] addresses
fixed wireless applications only, the IEEE 802.16(e) standard
[IEEE802.16e] aims to serve the needs of fixed, nomadic, and fully
mobile networks. It adds mobility support to the original standard
so that mobile subscriber stations can move while receiving services.
IEEE 802.16e is one of the most promising access technologies which
would be applied to the IP-based broadband mobile communication.
WiMAX Forum is an industrial corporation formed to promote and
certify compatibility and interoperability of broadband wireless
products mainly based on IEEE 802.16. The Network Working Group
(NWG) of WiMAX Forum is defining the IEEE 802.16 network architecture
(e.g., IPv4, IPv6, Mobility, interworking with different networks,
AAA, etc). Similarly, WiBro (Wireless Broadband), Korea effort which
focuses on the 2.3 GHz spectrum band, is also based on the IEEE
802.16 and IEEE 802.16e specifications.
As the deployment of wireless broadband access network progresses,
users will be connected to IPv6 networks. While the IEEE 802.16
defines the encapsulation of an IPv4/IPv6 datagram in an IEEE 802.16
MAC payload, a complete description of IPv4/IPv6 operation and
deployment is not present. In this document, we will discuss main
components of IPv6 IEEE 802.16 access network and its differences
from IPv4 IEEE 802.16 networks and how IPv6 is deployed and
integrated in each of the IEEE 802.16 technologies using tunneling
mechanisms and native IPv6.
This document extends works of [I-D.ietf-v6ops-bb-deployment-
scenarios] and follows the structure and common terminology of the
document.
Shin & Han Expires November 25, 2006 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios May 2006
2. Wireless Broadband Access Network Technologies - IEEE 802.16
This section describes the infrastructure that exists today in IEEE
802.16 networks providing wireless broadband services to the
customer. It also describes IPv6 deployment options in these IEEE
802.16 networks.
2.1. Elements of IEEE 802.16 Networks
The IEEE 802.11 access network (WLAN) has driven the revolution of
wireless communication but the more people use it the more its
limitations like short range or lack of mobility support were
revealed. Compared with such IEEE 802.11 network, IEEE 802.16
supports enhanced features like wider range and mobility. So it is
expected that IEEE 802.16 network could be the next step of IEEE
802.11 network.
The mechanism of transporting IP traffic over IEEE 802.16 networks is
outlined in [IEEE802.16], but the details of IPv6 operations over
IEEE 802.16 are being discussed now.
Here are some of the key elements of IEEE 802.16 networks
MS: Mobile Station. A station in the mobile service intended to be
used while in motion or during halts at unspecified points. A mobile
station (MS) is always a subscriber station (SS).
BS: Base Station. A generalized equipment set providing
connectivity, management and control of MS connections. There is a
unidirectional mapping between BS and MS medium access control (MAC)
peers for the purpose of transporting a service flow's traffic.
Connections are identified by a connection identifier (CID) and all
traffic is carried on a connection. Sometimes there can be
alternative IEEE 802.16 network deployment where a BS is integrated
with an access router, composing one box in view of implementation.
Figure 1 illustrates the key elements of IEEE 802.16 networks.
Shin & Han Expires November 25, 2006 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios May 2006
Customer | Access Provider | Service Provider
Premise | | (Backend Network)
+-----+ +-----+ +------+ +--------+
| MSs |--(802.16)--| BS |-----+Access+---+ Edge | ISP
+-----+ +-----+ |Router| | Router +==>Network
+--+---+ +--------+
+-----+ +-----+ | | +------+
| Mss |--(802.16)--| BS |--------+ +--|AAA |
+-----+ +-----+ |Server|
+------+
Figure 1: Key Elements of IEEE 802.16(e) Networks
2.2. Deploying IPv6 in IEEE 802.16 Networks
IEEE 802.16 supports two modes such as 2-way PMP (Point-to-
Multipoint) and Mesh topology wireless networks. In this document,
we focus on 2-way PMP topology wireless networks.
There are two different deployment options in current IEEE 802.16
networks: Cellular-like and Hot-zone deployment scenarios. IPv6 can
be deployed in both of these deployment models.
A. Cellular-like Deployment Model
IEEE 802.16 BS can offer both fixed communications and mobile
functions unlike IEEE 802.11. In particular, IEEE 802.16e working
group standardized such mobility features and the specification of
IEEE 802.16e provides some competition to the existing cellular
systems. This use case will be implemented only with the licensed
spectrum. IEEE 802.16 BS might be deployed with a proprietary
backend managed by an operator. All original IPv6 functionalities
will not survive and some of them might be compromised to efficiently
serve IPv6 to this 'Cellular-like' use case.
Under the use case, however, IEEE 802.16 standards are still IP-
centric, providing packet-switched approach, while cellular standards
like GSM have a more circuit-switched approach.
B. Hot Zone Deployment Model
The success of a Hotspot service with IEEE 802.11 has been prominent.
The new IEEE 802.16 standards basically support such Hotspot services
with large coverage area and high data rate. An area served by one
base station is usually termed 'Hot Zone' because it is considerably
larger than an IEEE 802.11 access point service area called Hotspot.
Shin & Han Expires November 25, 2006 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios May 2006
Many wireless Internet service providers (Wireless ISPs) have planned
to use IEEE 802.16 for the purpose of high quality service. A
company can use IEEE 802.16 to build up mobile office. Wireless
Internet spreading through a campus or a cafe can be also implemented
with it. The distinct point of this use case is that it can use
unlicensed (2.4 & 5 GHz) band as well as licensed (2.6 & 3.5GHz)
band. By using the unlicensed band, a IEEE 802.16 BS might be used
just as a wireless hub which a user purchases to build a private
wireless network in his/her home or laboratory.
Under 'Hot Zone' use case, a IEEE 802.16 BS will be deployed using an
Ethernet (IP) backbone rather than a proprietary backend like
cellular systems. Thus, many IPv6 functionalities will be preserved
when adopting IPv6 to IEEE 802.16 networks, which brings out many
research issues [I-D.jee-16ng-problem-statement] [I-D.madanapalli-nd-
over-802.16-problems].
Some of the factors that hinder deployment of native IPv6 core
protocols include:
1. Lacking of Facility for IPv6 Native Multicasting
IEEE 802.16 is a PMP connection oriented technology without bi-
directional native multicast support. IPv6 neighbor discovery
[RFC2461] supports various functions for the interaction between
nodes attached on the same subnet, such as on-link determination and
address resolution. It is designed with no dependence on a specific
link layer technology, but requires that the link layer technology
support native multicast. The specification of IEEE 802.16 provides
multicast and broadcast services. However, the aim of such services
is to transmit IEEE 802.16 MAC management messages, not IP messages.
This lacking of facility for IPv6 native multicast results in
inappropriateness to apply the standard neighbor discover protocol
specially regarding, address resolution, router discovery, stateless
auto-configuration and duplicated address detection.
2. Impact of BS on Subnet Model
IEEE 802.16 is different from existing wireless access technologies
such as IEEE 802.11 or 3G, and, while IEEE 802.16 defines the
encapsulation of an IP datagram in an IEEE 802.16 MAC payload, a
complete description of IPv6 operation is not present. IEEE 802.16
can rather benefit from IETF input and specification to support IPv6
operation. Especially, BS should look at the classifiers and decide
where to send the packet, since IEEE 802.16 connection always ends at
BS, while IPv6 connection terminates at a default router. This
operation and limitation may be dependent on the given subnet model.
Shin & Han Expires November 25, 2006 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios May 2006
Also, we should consider which type of Convergence Sublayer (CS) can
be efficiently used on each subnet models. IEEE 802.16 CS provides
the tunneling of IP(v6) packets over IEEE 802.16 air-link. The
tunnels are identified by the Connection Identifier (CID).
Generally, CS performs the following functions in terms of IP packet
transmission: 1) Receipt of protocol data units (PDUs) from the
higher layer, 2) Performing classification and CID mapping of the
PDUs, 3) Delivering the PDUs to the appropriate MAC SAP, 4) Receipt
of PDUs from the peer MAC SAP. The specification of IEEE 802.16
defines several CSs for carrying IP packets, but does not provide a
detailed description of how to carry them. The several CSs are
generally classified into two types of CS: IPv6 CS and Ethernet CS.
While deploying IPv6 in the above mentioned approach, there are four
possible typical scenarios as discussed below.
2.2.1. Scenario A
Scenario A represents IEEE 802.16 access network deployment where a
BS is separated from a router, and a subnet consists of only single
router and multiple BSs and MSs. Current celluar-like deployment
models, WiMax and WiBro, fall within this scenario A.
+-----+
| MS1 |<------+
+-----+ |
+-----+ | +-----+ +-----+ +--------+
| MSs |<------+----| BS1 |---->| AR |----| Edge | ISP
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ | Router +==>Network
^ +--------+
+-----+ +-----+ |
| Mss |<-----------| BS2 |--------+
+-----+ +-----+
<---> IP termination
Figure 2: Scenario A
2.2.1.1. IPv6 Related Infrastructure Changes
IPv6 will be deployed in this scenario by upgrading the following
devices to dual-stack: MS, BS (if possible), AR and Edge Router. In
this scenario the BS is Layer 3 unaware, so no changes are needed to
support IPv6. However, if IPv4 stack is loaded to them for
management and configuration purpose, it is expected that BS should
be upgraded by implementing IPv6 stack, too.
Shin & Han Expires November 25, 2006 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios May 2006
2.2.1.2. Addressing
IPv6 MS has two possible options to get an IPv6 address. These
options will be equally applied to the other three scenarios below.
1. IPv6 MS can get the IPv6 address from an access router using
stateless auto-configuration. In this case, router discovery and DAD
operation using multicast should be properly operated over IEEE
802.16 link.
2. IPv6 MS can use DHCPv6 to get an IPv6 address from the DHCPv6
server. In this case, the DHCPv6 server would be located in the
service provider core network and Edge Router would simply act as a
DHCP Relay Agent. This option is similar to what we do today in case
of DHCPv4.
In this scenario, a router and multiple BSs form an IPv6 subnet and a
single prefix is allocated to all the attached MS. All MSs attached
to same AR can be on same IPv6 link.
2.2.1.3. IPv6 Control and Data Transport
In a subnet, there are always two underlying links: one is the IEEE
802.16 wireless link between MS and BS, and the other is a wired link
between BS and AR. Also, there are multiple BSs on the same link.
If stateless auto-configuration is used to get an IPv6 address,
router discovery and DAD operation should be properly operated over
IEEE 802.16 link. So, BS may support IPv6 basic protocols such as ND
using multicast functions, or provide some schemes to facilitate the
stateless auto-configuration. Especially, IEEE 802.16 connection
terminates at BS, not a router. So, BS should look at the
classifiers and decide where to send the packet. In addition, one BS
can send the packet to other BSs, since multiple BSs are on the same
link.
The operation and transmission methods are being intensively
discussed in other documents [I-D.shin-16ng-ipv6-transmission]. Note
that in this scenario Ethernet CS as well as IPv6 CS may be used to
transport IPv6 packets.
Simple or complex network equipments may constitute the underlying
wired network between BS and AR. If the IP aware equipments do not
support IPv6, the service providers are deploying IPv6-in-IPv4
tunneling mechanisms to transport IPv6 packets between an AR and an
Edge router.
The service providers are deploying tunneling mechanisms to transport
Shin & Han Expires November 25, 2006 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios May 2006
IPv6 over their existing IPv4 networks as well as deploying native
IPv6 where possible. Native IPv6 should be preferred over tunneling
mechanisms as native IPv6 deployment option might be more scalable
and provide required service performance. Tunneling mechanisms
should only be used when native IPv6 deployment is not an option.
This can be equally applied to other three scenarios below.
2.2.1.4. Routing
In general, the AR is configured with a default route that points to
the Edge router. No routing protocols are needed on these devices
which generally have limited resources.
The Edge Router runs the IGP used in the ISP network such as OSPFv3
or IS-IS for IPv6. The connected prefixes have to be redistributed.
Prefix summarization should be done at the Edge Router.
2.2.2. Scenario B
Scenario B represents IEEE 802.16 network deployment where a BS is
separated from a router, there are multiple access routers, and a
subnet consists of multiple BS and MSs. If 802.16 access networks
are widely deployed like WLAN, this scenario should be also
considered. Hot-zone deployment model falls within this scenario B.
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ ISP 1
| MS1 |<-----+ +->| AR1 |----| ER1 |===>Network
+-----+ | | +-----+ +-----+
+-----+ | +-----+ |
| MS2 |<-----+-----| BS1 |--|
+-----+ +-----+ | +-----+ +-----+ ISP 2
+->| AR2 |----| ER2 |===>Network
+-----+ +-----+ | +-----+ +-----+
| Ms3 |<-----------| BS2 |--+
+-----+ +-----+
<---> IP termination
Figure 3: Scenario B
2.2.2.1. IPv6 Related Infrastructure Changes
IPv6 will be deployed in this scenario by upgrading the following
devices to dual-stack: MS, BS (if possible), AR and Edge Router. In
this scenario the BS is Layer 3 unaware, so no changes are needed to
support IPv6. However, if IPv4 stack is loaded to them for
management and configuration purpose, it is expected that BS should
be upgraded by implementing IPv6 stack, too.
Shin & Han Expires November 25, 2006 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios May 2006
2.2.2.2. Addressing
In this scenario, multiple BSs and MSs form an IPv6 subnet and
multiple prefixes are allocated to all the attached MS. All MSs
attached to different BSs under the same AR, can be on same IPv6
link.
2.2.2.3. IPv6 Control and Data Transport
In a subnet, like scenario A, there are always two underlying links:
one is the IEEE 802.16 wireless link between MS and BS, and the other
is a wired link between BS and AR. Also, there are multiple BSs on
the same link.
If stateless auto-configuration is used to get an IPv6 address,
considerations on router discovery and DAD operation are the same as
scenario A.
The operation and transmission methods are being intensively
discussed in other documents [I-D.shin-16ng-ipv6-transmission]. Note
that in this scenario Ethernet CS may be more suitable to transport
IPv6 packets, rather than IPv6 CS, since this scenario requires
broadcast-like functions (e.g., multi-homing).
Simple or complex network equipments may constitute the underlying
wired network between BS and AR. If the IP aware equipments do not
support IPv6, the service providers are deploying IPv6-in-IPv4
tunneling mechanisms to transport IPv6 packets between an AR and an
Edge router.
2.2.2.4. Routing
In this scenario, IPv6 multi-homing considerations exist. For
example, if there exist two routers to support MSs, default router
must be selected.
The Edge Router runs the IGP used in the SP network such as OSPFv3 or
IS-IS for IPv6. The connected prefixes have to be redistributed.
Prefix summarization should be done at the Edge Router.
2.2.3. Scenario C
Scenario C represents IEEE 802.16 access network deployment where a
BS is integrated with a router, composing one box in view of
implementation, and a subnet consists of only single BS/router and
multiple MSs.
Shin & Han Expires November 25, 2006 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios May 2006
+-----+
| MS1 |<------+
+-----+ |
+-----+ | +-------+ +--------+
| MS2 |<------+--->|BS/AR1 |---------| Edge | ISP
+-----+ +-------+ | Router +==>Network
+--------+
+-----+ +-------+ |
| Ms3 |<---------->|BS/AR2 |-----------+
+-----+ +-------+
<---> IP termination
Figure 4: Scenario C
2.2.3.1. IPv6 Related Infrastructure Changes
IPv6 will be deployed in this scenario by upgrading the following
devices to dual-stack: MS, BS/AR and Edge Router.
2.2.3.2. Addressing
In this scenario, a single prefix is allocated to all the attached
MS. All MSs attached to same BS can be on same IPv6 link.
2.2.3.3. IPv6 Control and Data Transport
If stateless auto-configuration is used to get an IPv6 address,
router discovery and DAD operations should be properly operated over
IEEE 802.16 link. So, BS/AR should support IPv6 basic protocols such
as ND using multicast functions, or provide some schemes to
facilitate the stateless auto-configuration.
The operation and transmission methods are being intensively
discussed in other documents [I-D.shin-16ng-ipv6-transmission]. Note
that in this scenario Ethernet CS as well as IPv6 CS may be used to
transport IPv6 packets.
2.2.3.4. Routing
In general, BS/Router is configured with a default route that points
to the Edge router. No routing protocols are needed on these devices
which generally have limited resources.
The Edge Router runs the IGP used in the SP network such as OSPFv3 or
IS-IS for IPv6. The connected prefixes have to be redistributed.
Prefix summarization should be done at the Edge Router.
Shin & Han Expires November 25, 2006 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios May 2006
2.2.4. Scenario D
Scenario D represents IEEE 802.16 access network deployment where a
BS is integrated with a router, composing one box in view of
implementation. In this scenario, a subnet consists of only single
BS/router and single MS. This scenario mimics the current 3GPP-like
IPv6 deployment model.
+-----+
| MS1 |<-------------+
+-----+ v
+-----+ +-------+ +--------+
| MS2 |<---------->|BS/AR1 |---------| Edge | ISP
+-----+ +-------+ | Router +==>Network
+--------+
+-----+ +-------+ |
| Ms3 |<---------->|BS/AR2 |-----------+
+-----+ +-------+
<---> IP termination
Figure 5: Scenario D
2.2.4.1. IPv6 Related Infrastructure Changes
IPv6 will be deployed in this scenario by upgrading the following
devices to dual-stack: MS, BS/AR and Edge Router.
2.2.4.2. Addressing
In this case, if stateless auto-configuration is used, 3GPP-like IPv6
addressing scheme [RFC 3314] can be used. That is, a unique prefix
can be allocated to each MS. [RFC 3314] recommends that a given
prefix should be assigned to only one primary PDP context so that
3GPP terminals are allowed to generate multiple IPv6 address using
the prefix without the concerns of address confliction (DAD).
2.2.4.3. IPv6 Control and Data Transport
In this scenario, IEEE 802.16 connection and IPv6 termination point
are the same, since a BS is integrated with a router. In addition,
each MS can be on different IPv6 link. So, many IPv6 protocols can
be operated without much consideration about the underlying network
implementation.
Only IEEE 802.16 link will be taken into consideration for IPv6
adoption. For example, DAD operation is not needed since each MS has
only a well-known neighbor, a router. The operation and transmission
methods are being intensively discussed in other documents [I-D.shin-
Shin & Han Expires November 25, 2006 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios May 2006
16ng-ipv6-transmission].
Note that in this scenario IPv6 CS type may be more suitable to
transport IPv6 packets rather than Ethernet CS type since broadcast-
like functions are not required.
2.2.4.4. Routing
In general, the access router is configured with a default route that
points to the Edge Router. No routing protocols are needed on these
devices which generally have limited resources.
The Edge Router runs the IGP used in the service provider network
such as OSPFv3 or IS-IS for IPv6. The connected prefixes have to be
redistributed. Prefix summarization should be done at the Edge
Router.
2.3. IPv6 Multicast
In order to support multicast services in IEEE 802.16, Multicast
Listener Discovery (MLD) [RFC2710] must be supported between the MS
and BS/Router. Also, the inter-working with IP multicast protocols
and Multicast and Broadcast Service (MBS) should be considered.
Within IEEE 802.16 networks, an MS connects to its BS/router via
point-to-point links. MLD allows an MS to send link-local multicast
destination queries and reports. The packets are transmitted as
normal IEEE 802.16 MAC frames, as the same as regular unicast
packets. Especially, multicast CIDs can be used to transmit
efficiently query packets on the downlink.
There are exactly two IP devices connected to the point-to-point
link, and no attempt is made (at the link-layer) to suppress the
forwarding of multicast traffic. Consequently, sending MLD reports
for link-local addresses in IEEE 802.16 network may not always be
necessary. MLD is needed for multicast group knowledge that is not
link-local.
MBS defines Multicast and Broadcast Services, but actually, MBS seems
to be a broadcast service, not multicasting. MBS adheres to
broadcast services, while traditional IP multicast schemes define
multicast routing using a shared tree or source-specific tree to
deliver packets efficiently.
In IEEE 802.16 networks, two types of access to MBS may be supported:
single-BS access and multi-BS access. Therefore, these two types of
services may be roughly mapped into Source-Specific Multicast.
Shin & Han Expires November 25, 2006 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios May 2006
Note that it should be intensively researched later, since MBS will
be one of the killer services in IEEE 802.16 networks.
2.4. IPv6 Mobility
As for mobility management, the movement between BSs is handled by
Mobile IPv6 [RFC3775], if it requires a subnet change. Also, in
certain cases (e.g., fast handover [I-D.ietf-mipshop-fast-mipv6]) the
link mobility information must be available for facilitating layer 3
handoff procedure.
Mobile IPv6 defines that movement detection uses Neighbor
Unreachability Detection to detect when the default router is no
longer bi-directionally reachable, in which case the mobile node must
discover a new default router. Periodic Router Advertisements for
reachability and movement detection may be unnecessary because IEEE
802.16 MAC provides the reachability by its Ranging procedure and the
movement detection by the Handoff procedure, if a BS is integrated
with a AR.
In addition, IEEE 802.16e has facilities in determining whether the
change of MS's IP address is required during the handoff. Therefore,
Mobile IPv6 can get a hint from such low-layer facilities, and
conduct its Layer 3 mobility protocol only when it is needed. Though
a handoff has occurred, an additional router discovery procedure is
not required in case of intra-subnet handoff. Also, faster handoff
may be occurred by the L2 trigger in case of inter-subnet handoff.
Mobile IPv6 Fast Handover assumes the support from link-layer
technology, but the particular link-layer information being
available, as well as the timing of its availability (before, during
or after a handover has occurred), differs according to the
particular link-layer technology in use. IEEE 802.16g which is
under-developed defines L2 triggers for IEEE 802.16 link status such
as link-up, link-down, handoff-start. These L2 triggers may make
Mobile IPv6 procedure more efficient and faster.
This issue is also being discussed in [I-D.ietf-mipshop-fh80216e].
2.5. IPv6 QoS
In IEEE 802.16 networks, a connection is unidirectional and has a QoS
specification. The QoS has different semantics with IP QoS (e.g.,
diffserv). Mapping CID to Service Flow IDentifier (SFID) defines QoS
parameters of the service flow associated with that connection. In
order to interwork with IP QoS, IP QoS (e.g., diffserv, or flow label
for IPv6) mapping to IEEE 802.16 link specifics should be provided.
Shin & Han Expires November 25, 2006 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios May 2006
2.6. IPv6 Security
When initiating the connection, an MS is authenticated by the AAA
server located at its service provider network. All the parameters
related to authentication (username, password and etc.) are forwarded
by the BS to the AAA server. The AAA server authenticates MSs. If
an MS is once authenticated and associated successfully with BS, an
IPv6 address will be acquired by the MS. Note the initiation and
authentication process is the same as used in IPv4.
IPsec is a fundamental part of IPv6. Unlike IPv4, IPsec for IPv6 may
be used within the global end-to-end architecture. But, we don't
have PKIs across organizations and IPsec isn't integrated with IEEE
802.16 network mobility management.
IEEE 802.16 network threats may be different from IPv6 and IPv6
transition threat models [I-D.ietf-v6ops-security-overview]. It
should be also discussed.
2.7. IPv6 Network Management
For IPv6 network management, the necessary instrumentation (such as
MIBs, NetFlow Records, etc) should be available.
Upon entering the network, an MS is assigned three management
connections in each direction. These three connections reflect the
three different QoS requirements used by different management levels.
The first of these is the basic connection, which is used for the
transfer of short, time-critical MAC management message and radio
link control (RLC) messages. The primary management connection is
used to transfer longer, more delay-tolerant messages such as those
used for authentication and connection setup. The secondary
management connection is used for the transfer of standards-based
management messages such as Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
(DHCP), Trivial File Transfer Protocol (TFTP), and Simple Network
Management Protocol (SNMP).
Shin & Han Expires November 25, 2006 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios May 2006
3. IANA Considerations
This document requests no action by IANA.
Shin & Han Expires November 25, 2006 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios May 2006
4. Security Considerations
Please refer to sec 2.6 "IPv6 Security" technology sections for
details.
Shin & Han Expires November 25, 2006 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios May 2006
5. Acknowledgements
This work extends v6ops works on [I-D.ietf-v6ops-bb-deployment-
scenarios]. We thank all the authors of the document.
Shin & Han Expires November 25, 2006 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios May 2006
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3775] Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support
in IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004.
[RFC2461] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., and W. Simpson, "Neighbor
Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461,
December 1998.
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
[RFC2462] Thomson, S. and T. Narten, "IPv6 Stateless Address
Autoconfiguration", RFC 2462, December 1998.
[RFC2710] Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, "Multicast
Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710,
October 1999.
6.2. Informative References
[RFC3316] Arkko, J., Kuijpers, G., Soliman, H., Loughney, J., and J.
Wiljakka, "Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) for Some
Second and Third Generation Cellular Hosts", RFC 3316,
April 2003.
[I-D.ietf-mipshop-fast-mipv6]
Koodli, R., "Fast Handovers for Mobile IPv6",
draft-ietf-mipshop-fast-mipv6-03 (work in progress),
October 2004.
[I-D.madanapalli-nd-over-802.16-problems]
Madanapalli, S., "IPv6 Neighbor Discovery over 802.16:
Problems and Goals",
draft-madanapalli-nd-over-802.16-problems-00 (work in
progress), December 2005.
[I-D.mandin-ip-over-80216-ethcs]
Mandin, J., "Transport of IP over 802.16",
draft-mandin-ip-over-80216-ethcs-00 (work in progress),
October 2005.
[I-D.ietf-v6ops-security-overview]
Shin & Han Expires November 25, 2006 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios May 2006
Davies, E., "IPv6 Transition/Co-existence Security
Considerations", draft-ietf-v6ops-security-overview-04
(work in progress), March 2006.
[I-D.ietf-v6ops-bb-deployment-scenarios]
Asadullah, S., "ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in Broadband
Access Networks",
draft-ietf-v6ops-bb-deployment-scenarios-04 (work in
progress), October 2005.
[I-D.shin-16ng-ipv6-transmission]
Shin, M. and H. Jang, "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over
IEEE 802.16", draft-shin-16ng-ipv6-transmission-00 (work
in progress), February 2006.
[IEEE802.16]
"IEEE 802.16-2004, IEEE standard for Local and
metropolitan area networks, Part 16: Air Interface for
fixed broadband wireless access systems", October 2004.
[IEEE802.16e]
"IEEE Std. for Local and metropolitan area networks Part
16: Air Interface for Fixed and Mobile Broadband Wireless
Access Systems Amendment 2: Physical and Medium Access
Control Layers for Combined Fixed and Mobile Operation in
Licensed Bands and Corrigendum 1", February 2006.
Shin & Han Expires November 25, 2006 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios May 2006
Authors' Addresses
Myung-Ki Shin
ETRI
161 Gajeong-dong Yuseng-gu
Daejeon, 305-350
Korea
Phone: +82 42 860 4847
Email: myungki.shin@gmail.com
Youn-Hee Han
KUT
Gajeon-Ri 307 Byeongcheon-Myeon
Cheonan-Si Chungnam Province, 330-708
Korea
Email: yhhan@kut.ac.kr
Shin & Han Expires November 25, 2006 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios May 2006
Intellectual Property Statement
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.
Disclaimer of Validity
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 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.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). 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.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Shin & Han Expires November 25, 2006 [Page 22]
