Network Working Group M-K. Shin, Ed.
Internet-Draft ETRI
Intended status: Informational Y-H. Han
Expires: June 22, 2008 KUT
S-E. Kim
KT
D. Premec
Siemens Mobile
December 20, 2007
IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in 802.16 Networks
draft-ietf-v6ops-802-16-deployment-scenarios-06
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 June 22, 2008.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Abstract
This document provides a detailed description of IPv6 deployment and
integration methods and scenarios in wireless broadband access
networks in coexistence with deployed IPv4 services. In this
Shin, Ed., et al. Expires June 22, 2008 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios December 2007
document we will discuss main components of IPv6 IEEE 802.16 access
networks and their differences from IPv4 IEEE 802.16 networks and how
IPv6 is deployed and integrated in each of the IEEE 802.16
technologies.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Deploying IPv6 in IEEE 802.16 Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Elements of IEEE 802.16 Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Scenarios and IPv6 Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2.1. Mobile Access Deployment Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2.2. Fixed/Nomadic Deployment Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3. IPv6 Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.4. IPv6 QoS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.5. IPv6 Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.6. IPv6 Network Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 17
Shin, Ed., et al. Expires June 22, 2008 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios December 2007
1. Introduction
As the deployment of IEEE 802.16 access networks progresses, users
will be connected to IPv6 networks. While the IEEE 802.16 standard
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. The IEEE 802.16 standards are limited to
L1 and L2, so they may be used within any number of IP network
architectures and scenarios. In this document, we will discuss main
components of IPv6 IEEE 802.16 access networks and their differences
from IPv4 IEEE 802.16 networks and how IPv6 is deployed and
integrated in each of the IEEE 802.16 technologies.
This document extends the work of [RFC4779] and follows the structure
and common terminology of that document.
1.1. Terminology
The IEEE 802.16 related terminologies in this document are to be
interpreted as described in [I-D.ietf-16ng-ps-goals].
o Subscriber Station (SS): An end-user equipment that provides
connectivity to the 802.16 networks. It can be either fixed/
nomadic or mobile equipment. In mobile environment, SS represents
the Mobile Subscriber Station (MS) introduced in [IEEE802.16e].
o Base Station (BS): A generalized equipment sets providing
connectivity, management, and control between the subscriber
station and the 802.16 networks.
o Access Router (AR): An entity that performs an IP routing function
to provide IP connectivity for subscriber station (SS or MS).
o Connection Identifier (CID): A 16-bit value that identifies a
connection to equivalent peers in the 802.16 MAC of the SS(MS) and
BS.
o Ethernet CS (Convergence Sublayer): 802.3/Ethernet CS specific
part of the Packet CS defined in 802.16 STD.
o IPv6 CS (Convergence Sublayer): IPv6 specific subpart of the
Packet CS, Classifier 2 (Packet, IPv6) defined in 802.16 STD.
2. Deploying IPv6 in IEEE 802.16 Networks
2.1. Elements of IEEE 802.16 Networks
The mechanism of transporting IP traffic over IEEE 802.16 networks is
outlined in [IEEE802.16]. [IEEE802.16] only specifies the
convergence sublayers and the ability to transport IP over the air
interface. The details of IPv6 (and IPv4) operations over IEEE
802.16 are being discussed now in the 16ng WG.
Shin, Ed., et al. Expires June 22, 2008 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios December 2007
Figure 1 illustrates the key elements of typical mobile 802.16
deployments.
Customer | Access Provider | Service Provider
Premise | | (Backend Network)
+-----+ +----+ +----+ +--------+
| SSs |--(802.16)--| BS |-----| | | Edge | ISP
+-----+ +----+ | AR |---| Router |==>Network
+--| | | (ER) |
| +----+ +--------+
+-----+ +----+ | | +------+
| SSs |--(802.16)--| BS |--+ +--|AAA |
+-----+ +----+ |Server|
+------+
Figure 1: Key Elements of IEEE 802.16(e) Networks
2.2. Scenarios and IPv6 Deployment
[IEEE802.16] specifies two modes for sharing the wireless medium:
point-to-multipoint (PMP) and mesh (optional). This document only
focuses on the PMP mode.
Some of the factors that hinder deployment of native IPv6 core
protocols are already introduced by [I-D.ietf-16ng-ps-goals].
There are two different deployment scenarios: fixed and mobile access
deployment scenarios. A fixed access scenario substitutes for
existing wired-based access technologies such as digital subscriber
lines (xDSL) and cable networks. This fixed access scenario can
provide nomadic access within the radio coverages, which is called
Hot-zone model. A mobile access scenario exists for the new paradigm
of transmitting voice, data and video over mobile networks. This
scenario can provide high speed data rates equivalent to the wire-
based Internet as well as mobility functions equivalent to cellular
systems. There are the different IPv6 impacts on convergence
sublayer type, link model, addressing, mobility, etc. between fixed
and mobile access deployment scenarios. The details will be
discussed below. The mobile access scenario can be classified into
two different IPv6 link models: shared IPv6 prefix link model and
point-to-point link model.
2.2.1. Mobile Access Deployment Scenarios
Unlike IEEE 802.11, the IEEE 802.16 BS can provide mobility functions
and fixed communications. [IEEE802.16e] has been standardized to
provide mobility features on IEEE 802.16 environments. IEEE 802.16
Shin, Ed., et al. Expires June 22, 2008 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios December 2007
BS might be deployed with a proprietary backend managed by an
operator. Some architectural characteristics of IEEE 802.16 networks
may affect the detailed operations of NDP (Neighbor Discovery
Protocol) [RFC4861], [RFC4862].
There are two possible IPv6 link models for mobile access deployment
scenarios: shared IPv6 prefix link model and point-to-point link
model [RFC4968]. There is always a default access router in the
scenarios. There can exist multiple hosts behind an MS (networks
behind an MS may exist). The mobile access deployment models, Mobile
WiMax and WiBro, fall within this deployment model.
1. Shared IPv6 Prefix Link Model
This link model represents the IEEE 802.16 mobile access network
deployment where a subnet consists of only single AR interfaces and
multiple MSs. Therefore, all MSs and corresponding AR interfaces
share the same IPv6 prefix as shown in Figure 2. The IPv6 prefix
will be different from the interface of the AR.
+-----+
| MS1 |<-(16)-+
+-----+ | +-----+
+-----+ +----| BS1 |--+
| MS2 |<-(16)-+ +-----+ |
+-----+ | +-----+ +--------+
+->| AR |----| Edge | ISP
+-----+ | +-----+ | Router +==>Network
| MS3 |<-(16)-+ +-----+ | +--------+
+-----+ +----| BS2 |--+
+-----+ | +-----+
| MS4 |<-(16)-+
+-----+
Figure 2: Shared IPv6 Prefix Link Model
2. Point-to-Point Link Model
This link model represents IEEE 802.16 mobile access network
deployments where a subnet consists of only single AR, BS and MS.
That is, each connection to a mobile node is treated as a single
link. Each link between the MS and the AR is allocated a separate,
unique prefix or unique set of prefixes by the AR. The point-to-
point link model follows the recommendations of [RFC3314].
Shin, Ed., et al. Expires June 22, 2008 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios December 2007
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+
| MS1 |<-(16)------| |---->| |
+-----+ | BS1 | | |
+-----+ | | | | +--------+
| MS2 |<-(16)------| |---->| |----| Edge | ISP
+-----+ +-----+ | | | Router +==>Network
| AR | +--------+
+-----+ +-----+ | |
| MS3 |<-(16)------| |---->| |
+-----+ | BS2 | | |
+-----+ | | | |
| MS4 |<-(16)------| |---->| |
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+
Figure 3: Point-to-Point Link Model
2.2.1.1. IPv6 Related Infrastructure Changes
IPv6 will be deployed in this scenario by upgrading the following
devices to dual-stack: MS, AR and ER. In this scenario, IEEE 802.16
BSs have only MAC and PHY layers without router functionality and
operate as a bridge. The BS should support IPv6 classifiers as
specified in [IEEE802.16]. However, if IPv4 stack is loaded to them
for management and configuration purposes, it is expected that BS
should be upgraded by implementing IPv6 stack, too.
2.2.1.2. Addressing
An IPv6 MS has two possible options to get an IPv6 address. These
options will be equally applied to the other scenario below (Section
2.2.2).
1. An IPv6 MS can get the IPv6 address from an access router using
stateless auto-configuration. In this case, router discovery and DAD
operation should be properly operated over an IEEE 802.16 link.
2. An 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 the AR should provide a DHCPv6
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 MSs. All MSs attached
to same AR can be on the same IPv6 link.
As for the prefix assignment, in case of the shared IPv6 prefix link
model, one or more IPv6 prefixes are assigned to the link and hence
Shin, Ed., et al. Expires June 22, 2008 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios December 2007
shared by all the nodes that are attached to the link. In the point-
to-point link model, the AR assigns a unique prefix or a set of
unique prefixes for each MS. Prefix delegation can be required if
networks exist behind an MS.
2.2.1.3. IPv6 Transport
In an IPv6 subnet, there are always two underlying links: one is the
IEEE 802.16 wireless link between the MS and BS, and the other is a
wired link between the BS and AR.
If stateless auto-configuration is used to get an IPv6 address,
router discovery and DAD operation should be properly operated over
IEEE 802.16 links. In case of the shared IPv6 prefix link model, the
DAD (Duplicate Address Detection) [RFC4861] does not adapt well to
the 802.16 air interface as there is no native multicast support. An
optimization, called Relay DAD, may be required to perform DAD.
However, in case of the point-to-point link model, DAD is easy since
each connection to a MN is treated as a unique IPv6 link.
Note that in this scenario IPv6 CS [I-D.ietf-16ng-ipv6-over-ipv6cs]
may be more appropriate than Ethernet CS [I-D.ietf-16ng-ip-over-
ethernet-over-802.16] to transport IPv6 packets, since there is some
overhead of Ethernet CS (e.g., Ethernet header) under mobile access
environments. However, when PHS (Payload Header Suppression) is
deployed it mitigates this overhead through the compression of packet
headers.
Simple or complex network equipment may constitute the underlying
wired network between the AR and the ER. If the IP-aware equipment
between the AR and the ER does not support IPv6, the service
providers can deploy IPv6-in-IPv4 tunneling mechanisms to transport
IPv6 packets between the AR and the ER.
The service providers are deploying tunneling mechanisms to transport
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 options might be more scalable
and provide the required service performance. Tunneling mechanisms
should only be used when native IPv6 deployment is not an option.
This can be equally applied to other scenarios below (Section 2.2.2).
2.2.1.4. Routing
In general, the MS is configured with a default route that points to
the AR. Therefore, no routing protocols are needed on the MS. The
MS just sends to the AR using the default route.
Shin, Ed., et al. Expires June 22, 2008 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios December 2007
The AR can configure multiple links to ER for network reliability.
The AR should support IPv6 routing protocols such as OSPFv3 [RFC2740]
or IS-IS for IPv6 when connected to the ER with multiple links.
The ER runs the IGP such as OSPFv3 or IS-IS for IPv6 in the service
provider network. The routing information of the ER can be
redistributed to the AR. Prefix summarization should be done at the
ER.
2.2.1.5. 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) the link mobility information
must be available for facilitating the layer 3 handoff procedure.
Mobile IPv6 defines that movement detection uses Neighbor
Unreachability Detection to detect when the default router is no
longer bidirectionally 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 the
IEEE 802.16 MAC provides the reachability by its Ranging procedure
and the movement detection by the Handoff procedure.
IEEE 802.16 defines L2 triggers in case the refresh of an IP address
is required during the handoff. Though a handoff has occurred, an
additional router discovery procedure is not required in case of
intra-subnet handoff. Also, faster handoff may occur by the L2
trigger in case of inter-subnet handoff.
Also, [IEEE802.16g] defines L2 triggers for link status such as
link-up, link-down, handoff-start. These L2 triggers may make the
Mobile IPv6 procedure more efficient and faster. In addition, 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. This issue is also being discussed in
[I-D.ietf-mipshop-fh80216e].
In addition, due to the problems caused by the existence of multiple
convergence sublayers [RFC4840], the mobile access scenarios need
solutions about how roaming will work when forced to move from one CS
to another (e.g., IPv6 CS to Ethernet CS). Note that, at this phase
this issue is the out of scope of this document. It should be also
discussed in the 16ng WG.
Shin, Ed., et al. Expires June 22, 2008 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios December 2007
2.2.2. Fixed/Nomadic Deployment Scenarios
The IEEE 802.16 access networks can provide plain Ethernet end-to-end
connectivity. Wireless DSL deployment model is an example of a
fixed/nomadic IPv6 deployment of IEEE 802.16. Many wireless Internet
service providers (Wireless ISPs) have planned to use IEEE 802.16 for
the purpose of high quality broadband wireless services. A company
can use IEEE 802.16 to build up a 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 the unlicensed
(2.4 & 5 GHz) band as well as the licensed (2.6 & 3.5GHz) band. By
using the unlicensed band, an IEEE 802.16 BS might be used just as a
wireless switch/hub which a user purchases to build a private
wireless network in his/her home or laboratory.
Under fixed access model, the IEEE 802.16 BS will be deployed using
an IP backbone rather than a proprietary backend like cellular
systems. Thus, many IPv6 functionalities such as [RFC4861],
[RFC4862] will be preserved when adopting IPv6 to IEEE 802.16
devices.
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ ISP 1
| SS1 |<-(16)+ +->| AR1 |----| ER1 |===>Network
+-----+ | | +-----+ +-----+
+-----+ | +-----+ |
| SS2 |<-(16)+-----| BS1 |--|
+-----+ +-----+ | +-----+ +-----+ ISP 2
+->| AR2 |----| ER2 |===>Network
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ | +-----+ +-----+
|Hosts|<-->|SS/GW|<-(16)------| BS2 |--+
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+
This network
behind SS may exist
Figure 4: Fixed/Nomadic Deployment Scenario
This scenario also represents IEEE 802.16 network deployment where a
subnet consists of multiple MSs and multiple interfaces of the
multiple BSs. Multiple access routers can exist. There exist
multiple hosts behind an SS (networks behind an SS may exist). When
802.16 access networks are widely deployed as in a WLAN, this case
should be also considered. The Hot-zone deployment model falls
within this case.
While Figure 4 illustrates a generic deployment scenario, the
following Figure 5 shows in more detail how an existing DSL ISP would
integrate the 802.16 access network into its existing infrastructure.
Shin, Ed., et al. Expires June 22, 2008 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios December 2007
+-----+ +---+ +-----+ +-----+ ISP 1
| SS1 |<-(16)+ | | +-->|BRAS |----| ER1 |===>Network
+-----+ | | b| | +-----+ +-----+
+-----+ | +-----+ |E r| |
| SS2 |<-(16)+-----| BS1 |-----|t i| |
+-----+ +-----+ |h d|--+
| g| | +-----+ +-----+ ISP 2
+-----+ +-----+ | e| +-->|BRAS |----| ER2 |===>Network
| SS3 |<-(16)------| BS2 |-----| | | +-----+ +-----+
+-----+ +-----+ +---+ |
|
+-----+ +-----+ |
| TE |<-(DSL)-----|DSLAM|------------+
+-----+ +-----+
Figure 5: Integration of 802.16 access into DSL infrastructure
In this approach the 802.16 BS is acting as a DSLAM (Digital
Subscriber Line Access Multiplexer). On the network side, the BS is
connected to an Ethernet bridge which can be separate equipment or
integrated into the BRAS (Broadband Remote Access Server).
2.2.2.1. IPv6 Related Infrastructure Changes
IPv6 will be deployed in this scenario by upgrading the following
devices to dual-stack: MS, AR, ER, and the Ethernet Bridge. The BS
should support IPv6 classifiers as specified in [IEEE802.16].
However, if a IPv4 stack is loaded to them for management and
configuration purpose, it is expected that the BS should be upgraded
by implementing an IPv6 stack, too.
The BRAS in Figure 5 is providing the functionality of the AR. An
Ethernet bridge is necessary for protecting the BRAS from 802.16 link
layer peculiarities. The Ethernet bridge relays all traffic received
through the BS to its network side port(s) connected to the BRAS.
Any traffic received from the BRAS is relayed to the appropriate BS.
Since the 802.16 MAC layer has no native support for multicast (and
broadcast) in the uplink direction, the Ethernet bridge will
implement multicast (and broadcast) by relaying the multicast frame
received from the MS to all of its ports. The Ethernet bridge may
also provide some IPv6 specific functions to increase link efficiency
of the 802.16 radio link (see Section 2.2.2.3).
2.2.2.2. Addressing
One or more IPv6 prefixes can be shared to all the attached MSs.
Prefix delegation can be required if networks exist behind the SS.
Shin, Ed., et al. Expires June 22, 2008 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios December 2007
2.2.2.3. IPv6 Transport
Note that in this scenario Ethernet CS
[I-D.ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802.16] may be more appropriate
than IPv6 CS [I-D.ietf-16ng-ipv6-over-ipv6cs] to transport IPv6
packets, since the scenario needs to support plain Ethernet end-to-
end connectivity. However, the IPv6 CS can also be supported. The
MS and BS will consider the connections between the peer IP CSs at
the MS and BS to form a point to point link. In the Ethernet CS
case, an Ethernet bridge may provide implementation of an
authoritative address cache and Relay DAD. An Authoritative address
cache is a mapping between the IPv6 address and the MAC addresses of
all attached MSs.
The bridge builds its authoritative address cache by parsing the IPv6
Neighbor Discovery messages used during address configuration (DAD).
Relay DAD means that the Neighbor Solicitation message used in the
DAD process will be relayed only to the MS which already has
configured the solicited address as its own address (if such an MS
exist at all).
2.2.2.4. Routing
In this scenario, IPv6 multi-homing considerations exist. For
example, if there exist two routers to support MSs, a default router
must be selected.
The Edge Router runs the IGP used in the SP network such as OSPFv3
[RFC2740] or IS-IS for IPv6. The connected prefixes have to be
redistributed. Prefix summarization should be done at the Edge
Router.
2.2.2.5. Mobility
No mobility functions are supported in the fixed access scenario.
However, mobility can be supported in the radio coverage without any
mobility protocol like WLAN technology. Therefore, a user can access
Internet nomadically in the coverage.
2.3. IPv6 Multicast
In IEEE 802.16 air link, downlink connections can be shared among
multiple MSs, enabling multicast channels with multiple MSs receiving
the same information from the BS. Multicast and Broadcast Service
(MBS) may be used to efficiently implement multicast. However, it is
not clear how to do this, as currently CID is assigned by BS, but in
MBS it should be done at an AR and it's network scope. It is not
clear how this mapping will happen for MBS, so MBS discussions have
Shin, Ed., et al. Expires June 22, 2008 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios December 2007
been postponed in WiMax for now. Note that it should be intensively
researched later, since MBS will be one of the killer services in
IEEE 802.16 networks.
In order to support multicast services in IEEE 802.16, Multicast
Listener Discovery (MLD) [RFC2710] must be supported between the MS
and AR. Also, the inter-working with IP multicast protocols and MBS
should be considered.
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.
2.4. IPv6 QoS
In IEEE 802.16 networks, a connection is unidirectional and has a QoS
specification. The 802.16 supported QoS has different semantics from
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.
2.5. 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 the MSs
and when an MS is once authenticated and associated successfully with
BS, IPv6 an address will be acquired by the MS through stateless
autoconfiguration or DHCPv6. 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 do not
have PKIs across organizations and IPsec is not integrated with IEEE
802.16 network mobility management.
IEEE 802.16 network threats may be different from IPv6 and IPv6
transition threat models [RFC4942]. It should be also discussed.
Shin, Ed., et al. Expires June 22, 2008 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios December 2007
2.6. IPv6 Network Management
[IEEE802.16f] includes the management information base for IEEE
802.16 networks. 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 messages 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).
IPv6 based IEEE 802.16 networks can be managed by IPv4 or IPv6 when
network elements are implemented dual stack. For example, network
management systems (NMS) can send SNMP messages by IPv4 with IPv6
related object identifiers. Also, an NMS can use IPv6 for SNMP
requests and responses including IPv4 related OID.
3. IANA Considerations
This document requests no action by IANA.
4. Security Considerations
Please refer to Section 2.5 "IPv6 Security" technology sections for
details.
5. Acknowledgements
This work extends v6ops work on [RFC4779]. We thank all the authors
of the document. Special thanks are due to Maximilian Riegel, Jonne
Soininen, Brian E Carpenter, Jim Bound, David Johnston, Basavaraj
Patil, Byoung-Jo Kim, Eric Klein, Bruno Sousa, Jung-Mo Moon, Sangjin
Jeong, and Jinhyeock Choi for extensive review of this document. We
acknowledge Dominik Kaspar for proofreading the document.
Shin, Ed., et al. Expires June 22, 2008 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios December 2007
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
September 2007.
[RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, September 2007.
[RFC2710] Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, "Multicast
Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710,
October 1999.
6.2. Informative References
[RFC4779] Asadullah, S., Ahmed, A., Popoviciu, C., Savola, P., and
J. Palet, "ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in Broadband
Access Networks", RFC 4779, January 2007.
[RFC4968] Madanapalli, S., "Analysis of IPv6 Link Models for 802.16
Based Networks", RFC 4968, August 2007.
[RFC4942] Davies, E., Krishnan, S., and P. Savola, "IPv6 Transition/
Co-existence Security Considerations", RFC 4942,
September 2007.
[RFC2740] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., and J. Moy, "OSPF for IPv6",
RFC 2740, December 1999.
[RFC3314] Wasserman, M., "Recommendations for IPv6 in Third
Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Standards",
RFC 3314, September 2002.
[RFC3775] Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support
in IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004.
[RFC4840] Aboba, B., Davies, E., and D. Thaler, "Multiple
Encapsulation Methods Considered Harmful", RFC 4840,
April 2007.
[I-D.ietf-16ng-ps-goals]
Jee, J., Madanapalli, S., Mandin, J., and S. Park, "IP
over 802.16 Problem Statement and Goals",
draft-ietf-16ng-ps-goals-03 (work in progress),
November 2007.
Shin, Ed., et al. Expires June 22, 2008 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios December 2007
[I-D.ietf-16ng-ipv6-over-ipv6cs]
Patil, B., Xia, F., Sarikaya, B., Choi, J., and S.
Madanapalli, "Transmission of IPv6 via the IPv6 CS over
IEEE 802.16 Networks", draft-ietf-16ng-ipv6-over-ipv6cs-11
(work in progress), November 2007.
[I-D.ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802.16]
Jeon, H., "Transmission of IP over Ethernet over IEEE
802.16 Networks",
draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802.16-03 (work in
progress), November 2007.
[I-D.ietf-mipshop-fh80216e]
Jang, H., Jee, J., Han, Y., Park, S., and J. Cha, "Mobile
IPv6 Fast Handovers over IEEE 802.16e Networks",
draft-ietf-mipshop-fh80216e-05 (work in progress),
November 2007.
[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 Standard 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.
[IEEE802.16g]
"Draft Amendment to IEEE Standard for Local and
Metropolitan Area Networks, Part 16: Air Interface for
Fixed Broadband Wireless Access Systems - Management Plane
Procedures and Services", January 2007.
[IEEE802.16f]
"Amendment to IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan
Area Networks, Part 16: Air Interface for Fixed Broadband
Wireless Access Systems - Management Information Base",
December 2005.
Shin, Ed., et al. Expires June 22, 2008 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios December 2007
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
Sang-Eon Kim
KT
17 Woomyeon-dong, Seocho-gu
Seoul, 137-791
Korea
Email: sekim@kt.co.kr
Domagoj Premec
Siemens Mobile
Heinzelova 70a
10010 Zagreb
Croatia
Email: domagoj.premec@siemens.com
Shin, Ed., et al. Expires June 22, 2008 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios December 2007
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Shin, Ed., et al. Expires June 22, 2008 [Page 17]
