Internet DRAFT - draft-hares-rnp
draft-hares-rnp
CAPWAP S. Hares
Internet-Draft N. Bhandaru
Expires: April 20, 2006 NextHop Technologies
October 17, 2005
Radio Network Protocol
draft-hares-rnp-00.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 20, 2006.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
Abstract
The CAPWAP problem statement describes a problem that needs to be
addressed before a wireless LAN (WLAN) network designer can construct
a solution composed of Wireless Termination Points (WTP) and Access
Controllers (AC) from multiple, different vendors. One of the
primary goals is to find a solution that solves the interoperability
between the two classes of devices (WTPs and ACs) which then enables
an AC from one vendor to control and manage a WTP from another. RNP
is a protocol that supports the management of WTP's Radio
Hares & Bhandaru Expires April 20, 2006 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RNP October 2005
information, Session Parameters, Data Forwarding and interaction with
the Wireless Portal. The RNP protocol consists of five sub-
protocols: RNP-DT (Data Tunneling), RNP-SM (Session Management),
RNP-RC (Radio Control), RNP-DF (Data Forwarding), and RNP-WP
(Wireless Portal). The RTP protocol with it's family of protocol
provides a complete control situation for the CAPWAP environment. In
many ways, RNP provides a super set of the RNP requiremetns.
Table of Contents
1. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Protocol Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 8
Hares & Bhandaru Expires April 20, 2006 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RNP October 2005
1. Definitions
1.1. Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [1].
Hares & Bhandaru Expires April 20, 2006 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RNP October 2005
2. Introduction
The need for a protocol by which wireless LAN (WLAN) Access
Controllers (AC) can control and manage Wireless Termination Points
(WTP) from a different vendor has been presented in the CAPWAP
problem statement [3].
A Key to solve the CAPWAP problem is to define a complete control
protocol that enables an AC from one vendor to control and manage a
WTP from a different vendor. This protocol needs to be extensible
and scalable in a variety of deployments.
A second requirement of an CAPWAP protocol the ability to switch
support a variety of underlying wireless technologies (802.11,
802.15, or 802.16). Different underlying technologies may differ on
the set of configurable options, and different architectural choices
that are specific to that underlying technology (similar to the local
MAC vs. split MAC architectures in 802.11). The architectural
choices that are good for one underlying technology may not
necessarily work for another. Not to forget that there may be
multiple architectural choices [2] even for the same underlying
technology. A monolithic control protocol that strives to solve this
problem for multiple technologies runs the risk of adding too much
complexity and not realizing the desired goals, or it runs the risk
of being too rigid and hampering technological innovation.
RNP provides a single protocol with multiple sub-protocols that
control functional portions of the problem: Radio control, Station
Management, Data Forwarding/Data Transfer, and Captured Web portal
handling.
This approach also lends itself easily to extend the solution as new
technologies arise or as new innovative methods to solve the same
problem for an existing technology present themselves later in the
future.
In this draft, we present a short summary of the RNP protocol and its
family. It is intented as an introductionto this work.
Hares & Bhandaru Expires April 20, 2006 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RNP October 2005
3. Protocol Architecture
The RNP protocol consists of five sub-protocols: RNP-DT (Data
Tunneling), RNP-SM (Session Management), RNP-RC (Radio Control),
RNP-DF (Data Forwarding), and RNP-WP (Wireless Portal).
RNP-DT delivers 802.11 data frames between the WTP and the AC.
RNP-SM is used to convey 802.11 management frames and 802.1x packets
and station context between the WTP and the AC. This includes
authentications, associations, and reassociations.
RNP-RC is used to convey requests and responses between the WTP and
the AC. This includes WTP configuration, statistics, health, and
events or measurements.
RNP-WP conveys management and data to the captured portal.
RNP sits on top of IP and UDP, so all RNP messages are routed layer 3
communications. Since RNP is routable, an RP and SP need not reside
on the same layer 2 subnet. When an RP and SP are on separate
subnets attached by a router, the RP and SP are said to be using
"Remote RNP".
RNP tunnels secure, encrypted Layer 2 in Layer 3
RNP supports both local MAC and remote MAC.
Hares & Bhandaru Expires April 20, 2006 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RNP October 2005
4. Security Considerations
Since RNP runs over a layer 3 protocol, the use of IP-sec on a link
can provide link-by-link encryption at the IP layer.
5. References
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", March 1997, <ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2119>.
[2] "Architecture Taxonomy for Control and Provisioning of Wireless
Access Points(CAPWAP)", August 2004, <ftp://ftp.isi.edu/
internet-drafts/draft-ietf-capwap-arch-06.txt>.
[3] "Configuration and Provisioning for Wireless Access Points
(CAPWAP) Problem Statement", February 2005,
<http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3990.txt>.
[4] "Generic Routing Encapsulation", March 2000,
<http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2784.txt>.
[5] "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Communication Layers",
October 1989, <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1122.txt>.
[6] Govindan, S., "Objectives for Control and Provisioning of
Wireless Access Points (CAPWAP)", November 2004, <http://
www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
draft-ietf-capwap-objectives-00.txt>.
Hares & Bhandaru Expires April 20, 2006 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RNP October 2005
Authors' Addresses
Susan Hars
NextHop Technologies
825 Victors Way
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
Phone: +1-734-222-1610
Email: shares@nexthop.com
Nehru Bhandaru
NextHop Technologies
42 NANOG park
Acton, MA 01720
Phone: +1-978-849-2731
Email: shares@nexthop.com
Hares & Bhandaru Expires April 20, 2006 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RNP October 2005
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 (2005). 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.
Hares & Bhandaru Expires April 20, 2006 [Page 8]
