<- RFC Index (5101..5200)
RFC 5181
Network Working Group M-K. Shin, Ed.
Request for Comments: 5181 ETRI
Category: Informational Y-H. Han
KUT
S-E. Kim
KT
D. Premec
Siemens Mobile
May 2008
IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in 802.16 Networks
Status of This Memo
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this
memo is unlimited.
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
document, we will discuss the 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Deploying IPv6 in IEEE 802.16 Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Elements of IEEE 802.16 Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Scenarios and IPv6 Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2.1. Mobile Access Deployment Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2.2. Fixed/Nomadic Deployment Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3. IPv6 Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.4. IPv6 QoS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.5. IPv6 Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.6. IPv6 Network Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Shin, Ed., et al. Informational [Page 1]
RFC 5181 IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios May 2008
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
Media Access Control (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 the 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 [RFC5154].
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 a mobile environment, SS
represents the Mobile Subscriber Station (MS) introduced in
[IEEE802.16e].
o Base Station (BS): A generalized equipment set 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 a 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.
Shin, Ed., et al. Informational [Page 2]
RFC 5181 IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios May 2008
2. Deploying IPv6 in IEEE 802.16 Networks
2.1. Elements of IEEE 802.16 Networks
[IEEE802.16e] is an air interface for fixed and mobile broadband
wireless access systems. [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
defined in the 16ng WG. The IPv6 over IPv6 CS definition is already
an approved specification [RFC5121]. IP over Ethernet CS in IEEE
802.16 is defined in [IP-ETHERNET].
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 [RFC5154].
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
the 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
Shin, Ed., et al. Informational [Page 3]
RFC 5181 IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios May 2008
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
BS might be deployed with a proprietary backend managed by an
operator.
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
Shin, Ed., et al. Informational [Page 4]
RFC 5181 IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios May 2008
(2) Point-to-Point Link Model
This link model represents IEEE 802.16 mobile access network
deployments where a subnet consists of only a 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 a set of unique prefixes by the AR. The point-to-
point link model follows the recommendations of [RFC3314].
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+
| 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 (Physical Layer) layers without router
functionality and operate as a bridge. The BS should support IPv6
classifiers as specified in [IEEE802.16].
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
Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) operation should be properly
operated over an IEEE 802.16 link.
Shin, Ed., et al. Informational [Page 5]
RFC 5181 IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios May 2008
(2) An IPv6 MS can use Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6
(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 the same AR can be on the same IPv6 link.
As for the prefix assignment, in the case of the shared IPv6 prefix
link model, one or more IPv6 prefixes are assigned to the link and
are hence 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.
IPv6 packets can be sent and received via the IP-specific part of the
packet convergence sublayer. The Packet CS is used for the transport
of packet-based protocols, which include Ethernet and Internet
Protocol (IPv4 and IPv6). Note that in this scenario, IPv6 CS may be
more appropriate than Ethernet CS 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. The details of IPv6 operations over
the IP-specific part of the packet CS are defined in [RFC5121].
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).
Shin, Ed., et al. Informational [Page 6]
RFC 5181 IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios May 2008
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.
The AR can configure multiple links to the ER for network
reliability. The AR should support IPv6 routing protocols such as
OSPFv3 [RFC2740] or Intermediate System to Intermediate System
(IS-IS) for IPv6 when connected to the ER with multiple links.
The ER runs the Interior Gateway Protocol (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
There are two types of handovers for the IEEE 802.16e networks: link
layer handover and IP layer handover. In a link layer handover, BSs
involved in the handover reside in the same IP subnet. An MS only
needs to reestablish a link layer connection with a new BS without
changing its IP configuration, such as its IP address, default
router, on-link prefix, etc. The link layer handover in IEEE 802.16e
is by nature a hard handover since the MS has to cut off the
connection with the current BS at the beginning of the handover
process and cannot resume communication with the new BS until the
handover completes [IEEE802.16e]. In an IP layer handover, the BSs
involved reside in different IP subnets, or in different networks.
Thus, in an IP layer handover, an MS needs to establish both a new
link layer connection, as in a link layer handover, and a new IP
configuration to maintain connectivity.
IP layer handover for MSs is handled by Mobile IPv6 [RFC3775].
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.
Mobile IPv6 alone will not solve the handover latency problem for the
IEEE 802.16e networks. To reduce or eliminate packet loss and to
reduce the handover delay in Mobile IPv6, therefore, Fast Handover
for Mobile IPv6 (FMIPv6) [RFC4068] can be deployed together with
MIPv6. To perform predictive packet forwarding, the FMIPv6's IP
layer assumes the presence of handover-related triggers delivered by
Shin, Ed., et al. Informational [Page 7]
RFC 5181 IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios May 2008
the IEEE 802.16 MAC layers. Thus, there is a need for cross-layering
design to support proper behavior of the FMIPv6 solution. This issue
is also discussed in [MIPSHOP-FH80216E].
Also, [IEEE802.16g] defines L2 triggers for link status such as
link-up, link-down, and handoff-start. These L2 triggers may make
the Mobile IPv6 or FMIPv6 procedure more efficient and faster.
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.
2.2.2. Fixed/Nomadic Deployment Scenarios
The IEEE 802.16 access networks can provide plain Ethernet end-to-end
connectivity. This scenario represents a deployment model using
Ethernet CS. A 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 also be implemented with it.
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ 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 Wireless Local
Area Network (WLAN), this case should also be considered. The Hot-
zone deployment model falls within this case.
Shin, Ed., et al. Informational [Page 8]
RFC 5181 IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios May 2008
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.
+-----+ +---+ +-----+ +-----+ 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 the 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].
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).
Shin, Ed., et al. Informational [Page 9]
RFC 5181 IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios May 2008
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.
2.2.2.3. IPv6 Transport
Transmission of IPv6 over Ethernet CS follows [RFC2464] and does not
introduce any changes to [RFC4861] and [RFC4862]. However, there are
a few considerations in the viewpoint of operation, such as
preventing periodic router advertisement messages from an access
router and broadcast transmission, deciding path MTU size, and so on.
The details about the considerations are described in [IP-ETHERNET].
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 of Layer 2 and Layer 3 are supported in the
fixed access scenario. Like WLAN technology, however, nomadicity can
be supported in the radio coverage without any mobility protocol.
So, a user can access Internet nomadically in the coverage.
Sometimes, service users can demand IP session continuity or home
address reusability even in the nomadic environment. In that case,
Mobile IPv6 [RFC3775] may be used in this scenario even in the
absence of Layer 2's mobility support.
2.3. IPv6 Multicast
[IP-ETHERNET] realizes IPv6 multicast support by Internet Group
Management Protocol/Multicast Listener Discovery (IGMP/MLD) proxying
[RFC4605] and IGMP/MLD snooping [RFC4541]. Additionally, it may be
possible to efficiently implement multicast packet transmission among
the multicast subscribers by means of IEEE 802.16 Multicast CIDs.
However, such a protocol is not yet available and under development
in WiMAX Forum.
Shin, Ed., et al. Informational [Page 10]
RFC 5181 IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios May 2008
2.4. IPv6 QoS
In IEEE 802.16 networks, a connection is unidirectional and has a
Quality of Service (QoS) specification. Each connection is
associated with a single data service flow, and each service flow is
associated with a set of QoS parameters in [IEEE802.16]. The QoS-
related parameters are managed using the Dynamic Service Addition
(DSA) and Dynamic Service Change (DSC) MAC management messages
specified in [IEEE802.16]. The [IEEE802.16] provides QoS
differentiation for the different types of applications by five
scheduling services. Four scheduling services are defined in 802.16:
Unsolicited Grant Service (UGS), real-time Polling Service (rtPS),
non-real-time Polling Service (nrtPS), and Best Effort (BE). A fifth
scheduling service is Extended Real-time Polling Service (ertPS),
defined in [IEEE802.16e]. It is required to define IP layer quality
of service mapping to MAC layer QoS types [IEEE802.16],
[IEEE802.16e].
2.5. IPv6 Security
When initiating the connection, an MS is authenticated by the
Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) server located at
its service provider network. To achieve that, the MS and the BS use
Privacy Key Management [IEEE802.16],[IEEE802.16e], while the BS
communicates with the AAA server using a AAA protocol. Once the MS
is authenticated with the AAA server, it can associate successfully
with the BS and acquire an IPv6 address through stateless auto-
configuration or DHCPv6. Note that the initiation and authentication
process is the same as the one used in IPv4.
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
Shin, Ed., et al. Informational [Page 11]
RFC 5181 IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios May 2008
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. SNMP messages can be
carried by either IPv4 or IPv6.
3. Security Considerations
This document provides a detailed description of various IPv6
deployment scenarios and link models for IEEE 802.16-based networks,
and as such does not introduce any new security threats. No matter
what the scenario applied is, the networks should employ the same
link layer security mechanisms defined in [IEEE802.16e] and IPv6
transition security considerations defined in [RFC4942]. However, as
already described in [RFC4968], a shared prefix model-based mobile
access deployment scenario may have security implications for
protocols that are designed to work within the scope. This is the
concern for a shared prefix link model wherein private resources
cannot be put onto a public 802.16-based network. This may restrict
the usage of a shared prefix model to enterprise environments.
4. 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.
5. References
5.1. 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.
Shin, Ed., et al. Informational [Page 12]
RFC 5181 IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios May 2008
5.2. Informative References
[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.
[IEEE802.16f] "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.
[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.
[IP-ETHERNET] Jeon, H., Riegel, M., and S. Jeong, "Transmission
of IP over Ethernet over IEEE 802.16 Networks",
Work in Progress, April 2008.
[MIPSHOP-FH80216E] Jang, H., Jee, J., Han, Y., Park, S., and J. Cha,
"Mobile IPv6 Fast Handovers over IEEE 802.16e
Networks", Work in Progress, March 2008.
[RFC2464] Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over
Ethernet Networks", RFC 2464, December 1998.
[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.
Shin, Ed., et al. Informational [Page 13]
RFC 5181 IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios May 2008
[RFC4068] Koodli, R., "Fast Handovers for Mobile IPv6",
RFC 4068, July 2005.
[RFC4541] Christensen, M., Kimball, K., and F. Solensky,
"Considerations for Internet Group Management
Protocol (IGMP) and Multicast Listener Discovery
(MLD) Snooping Switches", RFC 4541, May 2006.
[RFC4605] Fenner, B., He, H., Haberman, B., and H. Sandick,
"Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) /
Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD)-Based
Multicast Forwarding ("IGMP/MLD Proxying")",
RFC 4605, August 2006.
[RFC4779] Asadullah, S., Ahmed, A., Popoviciu, C., Savola,
P., and J. Palet, "ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios
in Broadband Access Networks", RFC 4779,
January 2007.
[RFC4840] Aboba, B., Davies, E., and D. Thaler, "Multiple
Encapsulation Methods Considered Harmful",
RFC 4840, April 2007.
[RFC4942] Davies, E., Krishnan, S., and P. Savola, "IPv6
Transition/Co-existence Security Considerations",
RFC 4942, September 2007.
[RFC4968] Madanapalli, S., "Analysis of IPv6 Link Models
for 802.16 Based Networks", RFC 4968,
August 2007.
[RFC5121] Patil, B., Xia, F., Sarikaya, B., Choi, JH., and
S. Madanapalli, "Transmission of IPv6 via the
IPv6 Convergence Sublayer over IEEE 802.16
Networks", RFC 5121, February 2008.
[RFC5154] Jee, J., Madanapalli, S., and J. Mandin, "IP over
IEEE 802.16 Problem Statement and Goals",
RFC 5154, April 2008.
Shin, Ed., et al. Informational [Page 14]
RFC 5181 IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios May 2008
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.com
Domagoj Premec
Siemens Mobile
Heinzelova 70a
10010 Zagreb
Croatia
EMail: domagoj.premec@siemens.com
Shin, Ed., et al. Informational [Page 15]
RFC 5181 IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios May 2008
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
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.
Shin, Ed., et al. Informational [Page 16]