Network Working Group M-K. Shin
Internet-Draft ETRI
Expires: August 27, 2006 Y-H. Han
Samsung AIT
February 23, 2006
ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in Wireless Broadband Access Networks
draft-shin-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 August 27, 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 August 27, 2006 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios February 2006
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Wireless Broadband Access Network Technologies - IEEE
802.16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. IEEE 802.16 Networks Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.3. IPv6 Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.4. IPv6 Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.5. IPv6 QoS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.6. IPv6 Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
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 August 27, 2006 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios February 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 on broadband wireless access standards 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] will 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 during services.
Currently, the standardization of IEEE 802.16e is underway, which
plans to support mobility up to speeds of 70~80 mile/h that will
enable the subscribers to carry mobile devices such as PDAs, phones,
or laptops. 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 specifications.
As the deployment of wireless broadband access network progresses,
users will be connected to IPv6 networks. 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] follows the structure and common terminology of the draft.
Shin & Han Expires August 27, 2006 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios February 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. IEEE 802.16 Networks Elements
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 an IEEE 802.16 network:
SS: Subscriber Station. A general equipment set providing
connectivity between subscriber equipment and a BS.
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. 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). All
traffic is carried on a connection.
Figure 1 illustrates the key elements of IEEE 802.16(e) networks.
Shin & Han Expires August 27, 2006 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios February 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 Model
IEEE 802.16 BS can offer both fixed communications and mobile
functions unlike IEEE 802.11. In particular, IEEE 802.16e working
group has been standardizing the mobility features. The final
specification of IEEE 802.16e will provide 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 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 August 27, 2006 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios February 2006
Large numbers of 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, the 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, the 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 devices.
Some of the factors that hinder deployment of native IPv6 core
protocols include: [I-D.jee-16ng-problem-statement] [I-D.madanapalli-
nd-over-802.16-problems].
1. Lacking of Facility for Native Multicasting
IEEE 802.16 is a PMP connection oriented technology without bi-
directional native multicast support. IPv6 Neighbor discovery
supports various functions for on-link determination and requires
native multicast support. The consequence of the lack of optimal
multicast supports in IEEE 802.16 is that any IP protocol (e.g. IPv4
ARP, DHCPv4, IPv6 NDP, DHCPv6 etc.) that depends on the lower layer
multicast support may not be able to function normally. Especially,
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,
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.
Also, we should consider which type of Convergence Sublayers can be
efficiently used on each subnet models. IEEE 802.16 Convergence
Sublayer (CS) provides the tunneling of IP(v6) packets over IEEE
Shin & Han Expires August 27, 2006 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios February 2006
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. [IEEE802.16] defines
several CSs for carrying IP packets, but does not provide a detailed
description of how to carry them. The several CSs are classified
into two types of CS: IP 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 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.
+-----+
| MS1 |<-------------+
+-----+ v
+-----+ +-------+ +--------+
| MS2 |<---------->|BS/AR1 |---------| Edge | ISP
+-----+ +-------+ | Router +==>Network
+--------+
+-----+ +-------+ |
| Ms3 |<---------->|BS/AR2 |-----------+
+-----+ +-------+
<---> 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/AR and Edge Router.
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 Celluar-like IPv6 addressing scheme [RFC 3314] can be
Shin & Han Expires August 27, 2006 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios February 2006
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. 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.
2.2.1.3. 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-
16ng-ipv6-transmission].
Note that in this scenario IP(v6) Convergence Sublayer (CS) type may
be more suitable to transport IPv6 packets rather than Ethernet CS
type.
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 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 is can be equally applied to other scenarios - B, C, D.
2.2.1.4. Routing
In general, MS/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.
Shin & Han Expires August 27, 2006 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios February 2006
Prefix summarization should be done at the Edge Router.
2.2.2. Scenario B
Scenario B 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.
+-----+
| MS1 |<------+
+-----+ |
+-----+ | +-------+ +--------+
| MS2 |<------+--->|BS/AR1 |---------| Edge | ISP
+-----+ +-------+ | Router +==>Network
+--------+
+-----+ +-------+ |
| Ms3 |<---------->|BS/AR2 |-----------+
+-----+ +-------+
<---> 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/AR and Edge Router.
2.2.2.2. 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.
2.2.2.3. 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, AR/BS must support IPv6 basic protocols such
as ND using multicast emulation functions.
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 IP CS may be used to
transport IPv6 packets.
2.2.2.4. Routing
In general, MS/Router is configured with a default route that points
Shin & Han Expires August 27, 2006 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios February 2006
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.
2.2.3. Scenario C
Scenario C represents IEEE 802.16 access network deployment where a
BS is separated from a router, and a subnet consists of only single
BS, single router and multiple MSs.
+-----+
| MS1 |<------+
+-----+ |
+-----+ | +-----+ +-----+ +--------+
| MSs |<------+----| BS1 |---->| AR |----| Edge | ISP
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ | Router +==>Network
^ +--------+
+-----+ +-----+ |
| Mss |<-----------| BS2 |--------+
+-----+ +-----+
<---> 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 (if possible), AR and Edge Router.
In this scenario the BS is Layer 3 unaware, so no changes are needed
to support IPv6, but actually, BS should have functionalities for
emulation of IPv6 NDP, multicast, etc. In addition, for management
and configuration purpose, IPv4 stack is loaded to them, BS should be
upgraded to IPv6, too.
2.2.3.2. Addressing
In Figure 4, routers are located separated with IEEE 802.16 BSs. In
this case, IEEE 802.16 BSs have only MAC and PHY layers without
router function. A router and one BS form an IPv6 subnet. Like
scenario B, all Mss attached to same BS can be on same IPv6 link.
2.2.3.3. IPv6 Control and Data Transport
In a subnet, therefore, there are always two underlying links
Shin & Han Expires August 27, 2006 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios February 2006
including IEEE 802.16 wireless link between MS and BS.
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, AR/BS must support IPv6 basic protocols such
as ND using multicast emulation functions. 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.
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 IP CS may be used to
transport IPv6 packets.
Simple or complex network equipments may constitute the underlying
wired network between BS and router. 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.
2.2.3.4. Routing
In general, MS/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.
2.2.4. Scenario D
Scenario D represents IEEE 802.16 network deployment where a BS is
separated from a router, and a subnet consists of multiple BS and
multiple MSs.
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ ISP 1
| MS1 |<-----+ +->| AR1 |----| ER1 |===>Network
+-----+ | | +-----+ +-----+
+-----+ | +-----+ |
| MS2 |<-----+-----| BS1 |--|
+-----+ +-----+ | +-----+ +-----+ ISP 2
+->| AR2 |----| ER2 |===>Network
+-----+ +-----+ | +-----+ +-----+
| Ms3 |<-----------| BS2 |--+
+-----+ +-----+
<---> IP termination
Shin & Han Expires August 27, 2006 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios February 2006
Figure 5: Scenario C
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 (if possible), AR and Edge Router.
In this scenario the BS is Layer 3 unaware, so no changes are needed
to support IPv6, but actually, BS should have functionalities for
emulation of IPv6 NDP, multicast, etc. In addition, for management
and configuration purpose, IPv4 stack is loaded to them, BS should be
upgraded to IPv6, too.
2.2.4.2. Addressing
In Figure 5, routers are located separated with IEEE 802.16 BSs. In
this case, IEEE 802.16 BSs have only MAC and PHY layers without
router function. A router and multiple BSs and MSs form an IPv6
subnet. All MSs attached to different BSs, as well as same BS can be
on same IPv6 link.
2.2.4.3. IPv6 Control and Data Transport
Like scenario C, in a subnet, therefore, there are always two
underlying links including IEEE 802.16 wireless link between MS and
BS. Moreover, there are multiple BSs on the same link.
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, AR/BS must support IPv6 basic protocols such
as ND using multicast emulation functions. 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 may be more suitable to transport
IPv6 packets, rather than IP CS.
Simple or complex network equipments may constitute the underlying
wired network between BS and router. 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.
Shin & Han Expires August 27, 2006 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios February 2006
2.2.4.4. Routing
In this scenario, IPv6 multi-homing considerations exist. For
example, there are two routers, so 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.
2.3. 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 environment 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.
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
Shin & Han Expires August 27, 2006 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios February 2006
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.
In addition, IEEE 802.16 defines L2 triggers whether 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 be occurred
by the L2 trigger in case of inter-subnet handoff.
Also, IEEE 802.16g which is under-developed defines L2 triggers for
link status such as link-up, link-down, handoff-start. These L2
triggers may make 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.jang-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 should be provided.
2.6. IPv6 Security
When initiating the connection, the MS is authenticated by the AAA
server located at the 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 once authenticated and associated successfully with BS, 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
Shin & Han Expires August 27, 2006 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios February 2006
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 with IPv6 and IPv6
transition threat models [I-D.ietf-v6ops-security-overview]. It will
be discussed later.
2.7. IPv6 Network Management
The necessary instrumentation (such as MIBs, NetFlow Records, etc)
should be available for IPv6.
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 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 August 27, 2006 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios February 2006
3. IANA Considerations
This document requests no action by IANA.
Shin & Han Expires August 27, 2006 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios February 2006
4. Security Considerations
Please refer to sec 2.5 "IPv6 Security" technology sections for
details.
Shin & Han Expires August 27, 2006 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios February 2006
5. Acknowledgements
This work extends v6ops works on [I-D.ietf-v6ops-bb-deployment-
scenarios]. We thank all the authors of the draft.
Shin & Han Expires August 27, 2006 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios February 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.
[I-D.ietf-mipshop-fast-mipv6]
Koodli, R., "Fast Handovers for Mobile IPv6",
draft-ietf-mipshop-fast-mipv6-03 (work in progress),
October 2004.
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.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.jang-mipshop-fh80216e]
Shin & Han Expires August 27, 2006 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios February 2006
Jang, H., "Mobile IPv6 Fast Handovers over IEEE 802.16e
Networks", draft-jang-mipshop-fh80216e-01 (work in
progress), December 2005.
[I-D.ietf-v6ops-security-overview]
Davies, E., "IPv6 Transition/Co-existence Security
Considerations", draft-ietf-v6ops-security-overview-03
(work in progress), October 2005.
[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.
[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 802.16e/D10 Draft, IEEE Standard for Local and
metropolitan area networks, Part 16: Air Interface for
Fixed and Mobile Broadband Wireless Access Systems
Amendment for Physical and Medium Access Control Layers
for Combined Fixed and Mobile Operation in Licensed
Bands", August 2005.
Shin & Han Expires August 27, 2006 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios February 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
Samsung AIT
P.O. Box 111
Suwon 440-600
Korea
Email: yh21.han@gmail.com
Shin & Han Expires August 27, 2006 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios February 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 August 27, 2006 [Page 22]