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, . [2] "Architecture Taxonomy for Control and Provisioning of Wireless Access Points(CAPWAP)", August 2004, . [3] "Configuration and Provisioning for Wireless Access Points (CAPWAP) Problem Statement", February 2005, . [4] "Generic Routing Encapsulation", March 2000, . [5] "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Communication Layers", October 1989, . [6] Govindan, S., "Objectives for Control and Provisioning of Wireless Access Points (CAPWAP)", November 2004, . 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]