RFC 4957

Link-Layer Event Notifications for Detecting Network Attachments

📅 published August 2007, from ietf
  • Group: Network Working Group
  • Authors: S. Krishnan (Ed.) from Ericsson Research, N. Montavont from GET ENST Bretagne, E. Njedjou from France Telecom, S. Veerepalli from Qualcomm, and A. Yegin (Ed.) from Samsung 👑
  • Category: Informational
  • Date: August 2007
  • Obsoletes/Updates: Nothing. This one doesn't list any obsoletes or updates 🌸

Status of This Memo

okay so this memo is just here to give the Internet community some info 💖 It does NOT specify an Internet standard of any kind, so no pressure. Distribution of this memo is unlimited, so share it with your whole group chat 🫶

Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). 🎀

Abstract

bestie, certain network access technologies can send various kinds of link-layer status info up to IP ✨ Link-layer event notifications can help IP detect configuration changes super fast 🔥 This doc is a non-exhaustive catalogue of the info you can get from well-known access technologies, and it's giving very useful vibes 💅

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Link-Layer Event Notifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.1.  GPRS/3GPP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.2.  cdma2000/3GPP2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.3.  IEEE 802.11/WiFi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.4.  IEEE 802.3 CSMA/CD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       3.4.1.  Link Integrity Tests in 802.3 Networks . . . . . . . . 10
       3.4.2.  IEEE 802.1D Bridging and Its Effects on Link-layer
               Event Notifications  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       3.4.3.  802.1AB Link-Layer Discovery Protocol  . . . . . . . . 12
       3.4.4.  Other Heuristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       3.4.5.  Summary  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   4.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   5.  Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   6.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   7.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     7.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     7.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

1. Introduction ✨

It's honestly not rare for a node to switch its point of attachment to the network 🦋 This can happen with mobile usage, like a phone hopping between base stations, or nomadic usage, like the road-warrior situation 🚗

When a node changes its point of attachment, it might end up on a different IP subnet. That means it has to reconfigure IP-layer parameters like its IP address, default gateway info, and DNS server address 😭 Spotting the subnet change can usually rely on network-layer indications, like a change in the advertised prefixes for IPv6. But those indications aren't always available to the node right after it changes its point of attachment, for example with Detecting Network Attachment in IPv6 (DNAv6) 💀

Link-layer event notifications can help IP detect configuration changes super quickly 🔥 This document is a non-exhaustive catalog of the info some access technologies provide, and it talks about how IP should interpret that info 🧚 It is not meant to specify or change how these access technologies behave in any way, so they're not getting rewritten 🙅‍♀️

Extra info can ride along with the event, like the identifier of the network attachment point (for example, the IEEE 802.11 Basic Service Set Identification (BSSID) and Service Set Identifier (SSID)). It can also include network-layer configuration parameters obtained through the link-layer attachment process, if they're available 🎀 The idea is that these event notifications can, in certain circumstances, speed up inter-subnet movement detection and reconfiguration. For example, a notification saying the node has set up a new link-layer connection could be used to immediately probe the network for a possible configuration change 👀 Without that notification from the link layer, IP has to wait for indications that aren't immediately available, like the next scheduled router advertisement or the default gateway becoming unreachable, and that's just painful 😩

Important tea ☕: a link-layer event notification doesn't always mean a subnet change. Even if the node tears down a link-layer connection with one attachment point and sets up a new one with another, it may still be on the same IP subnet 🫠 For example, several IEEE 802.11 access points can belong to the same IP subnet, so moving between them doesn't call for any IP-layer configuration change 🙄

To enable an upgraded scheme for detecting a change of subnet, we need to define link-layer event notifications that can realistically be expected from various access technologies 💜 The goal of this document is to make a catalogue of link-layer events and notifications across various architectures 📚 It mentions why this info is useful for detecting a change of subnet (or detecting network attachment, DNA), but the detailed usage is left to other documents, namely DNA solution specifications 🌈

The document sticks to the minimum set of info needed to solve the DNA problem [RFC4135] 🎯 A broader set of info (like signal strength, packet loss, and so on) and events (like link down) may be used for other problem spaces, such as anticipation-based Mobile IP fast handovers [RFC4881], [RFC4068], and so on ✨

These event notifications are considered with hosts in mind, though they may also be available on the network side, for example on access points and routers 🍓 An API or protocol-based standard interface may be defined between the link layer and IP for conveying this info, but that work is out of scope for this document 💅

2. Terminology 🧚

Here's the vocab you need, bestie 🫶

  • Link: a communication facility or medium that network nodes can communicate over. Each link is associated with a minimum of two endpoints. An "attachment point" is the link endpoint on the link that the node is currently connected to, such as an access point, a base station, or a wired switch 🔗
  • Link up: an event provided by the link layer that signals a state change where the interface becomes capable of communicating data packets 🔥 This event is tied to a link-layer connection between the node and an attachment point 💖

Acronyms, bestie 📖:

  • BSSID: Basic Service Set Identification
  • DNA: Detecting Network Attachment
  • GPRS: General Packet Radio Service
  • PDP: Packet Data Protocol
  • SSID: Service Set Identifier

okay so the link layer is one of the inputs to the DNA process 🫶 The DNA process probably wants other stuff too, like whether advertised prefixes are showing up or whether the default gateways are reachable, before it decides if the IP config needs updating. The DNA process can totally use link-layer notifications once they're handed up to IP. By itself a notification isn't the whole story, but it's a great nudge to go collect more info 💅 For example, a node might send a router solicitation the second it learns a new link-layer connection exists. Main character energy 🦋

The link up event is the one DNA cares about most 👑 Its notifications get passed to the IP layer once the event wraps up successfully. Link up events and notifications belong to a specific network interface on the node, so the IP module might get simultaneous, independent notifications from every interface it has 🌈

The link layer runs the actual event through its own protocols and mechanisms. Once that succeeds inside the link layer, the notification gets delivered to IP. By the time it arrives, the link layer has to be ready to accept IP packets from IP and the physical layers. And every time an interface changes its point of attachment, a link up event should be generated ✨

Now here's the tricky bit 🙈 There's a non-deterministic usage of link up, made for implementations that want to say "the link is up!" even though data might be getting blocked somewhere in the network (see the IEEE 802.3 discussion). A link up notification can be generated with an appropriate attribute that says "hey, this one's non-deterministic," or the link layer can just wait to send the link up until the risky conditions are gone 🫠

If a non-deterministic link up got sent, another link up has to follow as soon as the link layer can produce a deterministic one 🎀 The event attributes might tell you whether the packets sent since the last notification were presumed blocked or allowed by the network, but only if the link layer could figure out the exact conditions.

A deterministic link up that follows a non-deterministic one can be treated differently by whoever's consuming it. Like, the second link up doesn't need to kick off a confirmation process if the first one already did 💜

A node might have to change its IP-layer config even when the link-layer connection hasn't changed at all 😭 The IPv6 subnet renumbering [RFC2461] is a perfect example. So there are cases where the IP config has to change without the IP layer ever getting a link up notification. Which means a link-layer notification is not a mandatory indication of a subnet change. Not me being shady about it, just how it is 🙃

A link up notification may optionally carry info about the attachment point 🧚 That auxiliary info could be the identity of the attachment point (like a base station identifier), or the IP-layer config params for the attached subnet (like the subnet prefix, default gateway address, and so on). Just knowing a new connection exists might get DNA hunting for clues right away, but the auxiliary info can be further clues, and sometimes even the final answers 🔥 If there's a one-to-one mapping between attachment point identifiers and IP-layer configs, learning the first one can reveal the second. And IP-layer config params picked up during the link-layer connection might be exactly what DNA is trying to figure out, so it's a whole vibe.

The link-layer process that leads to a link up event depends on the link technology 🌸 A link-layer notification always has to say the link up event happened, but what auxiliary info you get about the attachment point depends on the technology too. The subsections below look at four link-layer technologies and describe when a notification is generated and what it includes. Let's go 💖

3.1. GPRS/3GPP

Okay bestie, GSM Packet Radio System (GPRS) gives you packet-switched data over a cellular network [GPRS][GPRS-LINK] 📱 The GPRS architecture has a Radio Access Network and a packet domain Core Network, and here's who's who:

  • The GPRS Radio Access Network is made up of Mobile Terminals (MTs), a Base Station Subsystem, and Serving GPRS Support Nodes (SGSNs).
  • An IP Core Network acts as the transport backbone for user datagrams between SGSNs and Gateway GPRS Support Nodes (GGSNs). The GGSN keeps the GPRS IP core connected to external networks, like the Internet or Local Area Networks 🌐 It's also the default IP gateway for the MT 🎀

So a GPRS MT that wants IP connectivity first sets up a connection to the GPRS network, plus one or more PDP Context associations between the MT and the GGSN. Only after the PDP Context is established, plus address autoconfiguration and tunneling have happened, can the MT's IP packets get forwarded to and from its remote IP peers 🫶 PDP Context establishment also exists to provide IP-level config on top of the GPRS link-layer attachment. Iconic. 👑

When a PDP Context gets established on a GPRS link, it means IP service is available to the MT. So that link-layer event generates a link up event notification sent to the IP layer ✨

An MT can also set up a secondary PDP Context while reusing the IP config from a previously established, active PDP Context 💅 A secondary PDP Context doesn't give the IP layer any new information. It just lets you use a different quality-of-service (QoS) profile. Activating a secondary PDP context usually doesn't generate a link up event, since it doesn't need new IP parameters. But other additional PDP Context activations should be handled the way we talked about earlier 🌈

With IPv4, the auxiliary info sent with this notification is the IPv4 address of the MT, which comes from the PDP Context 💜 With IPv6, though, the PDP Context activation response doesn't come with a usable IPv6 address 😭 The IPv6 address the GGSN sends in the PDP address field doesn't contain a valid prefix. The MN only uses the interface identifier pulled out of that field to form a link-local address, and it uses that afterwards to get a valid prefix (through stateless [RFC2462][GPRS-CN] or stateful [RFC3315] [GPRS-GSSA] address configuration). So no IPv6-related auxiliary info gets handed to the IP layer. Not the vibe, but that's the plot 🙈

3.2. cdma2000/3GPP2

cdma2000-based 3GPP2 packet data services give mobile users wide-area, high-speed access to packet-switched networks [CDMA2K] 🚀 The big pieces of the 3GPP2 packet network architecture are:

  • Mobile Station (MS), which gives mobile access to packet-switched networks over a wireless connection.
  • Radio Access Network, which is made up of the Base Station Transceivers, Base Station Controllers, and the Packet Control Function.
  • Network Access Server, known as the Packet Data Switching Node (PDSN). The PDSN also acts as the default IP gateway for the IP MS 🍓

3GPP2 networks use the Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP [RFC1661]) as the link-layer protocol between the MS and the PDSN 🦋 Before any IP packets can be sent or received, PPP must reach the Network-Layer Protocol phase, and the IP Control Protocol (IPCP [RFC1332], IPV6CP [RFC2472]) must reach the Opened state. Once PPP gets to those states, a link up event notification is delivered to the IP layer ✨

When PPP is used for 3GPP2 Simple (that is, non-Mobile) IPv4 Service, IPCP sets up an IPv4 address on the MS 💖 That IPv4 address comes along as the auxiliary info with the link up notification. IPV6CP, used for Simple IPv6 service, doesn't give you an IPv6 address. It gives you the interface identifiers for the local and remote endpoints of the PPP link. Since there's no standards-mandated correlation between the interface identifier and other IP-layer config parameters, this info is deemed not useful for DNA. It may still be passed along as auxiliary info for other uses though 🫶

3.3. IEEE 802.11/WiFi

Okay bestie, IEEE 802.11-based WiFi is basically the wireless version of Local Area Networks 📶✨ The standards you'll see right now are IEEE 802.11b [IEEE-802.11b], IEEE 802.11g [IEEE-802.11g], and IEEE 802.11a [IEEE-802.11a]. They spec out both the MAC layer and the physical layer, and the MAC layer is the same across all of them 💅

The 802.11 series has two operating modes, infrastructure mode or ad-hoc mode 🎀 In infrastructure mode, every link-layer frame gets sent to an access point (AP), and the AP forwards it on to the final receiver. A station (STA) makes an IEEE 802.11 association with an AP so it can send and receive IP packets. On a WiFi network that uses Robust Secure Network (RSN [IEEE-802.11i]), finishing the 4-way handshake between the STA and AP is what kicks off IP service. The link up event notification gets generated right then 🔥 On non-RSN-based networks, a successful association or re-association on the link layer causes a link up notification to go up to the IP layer.

As part of link setup, the STA learns the BSSID and SSID of the AP 🦋 The BSSID is a unique identifier for the AP, and it's usually set to the MAC address of the AP's wireless interface. The SSID carries the identifier of the Extended Service Set (ESS) -- the group of APs and their associated STAs that share a common distribution system. The BSSID and SSID may be passed along as auxiliary info with the link up notification. Unfortunately, that info doesn't tell you for sure whether the IP-layer config has to change when you move 🙈 Nothing in the standards forces a one-to-one relationship between BSSID/SSID pairs and IP subnets. An AP with a given BSSID can connect a STA to any one of several IP subnets. An ESS with a given SSID can also span multiple IP subnets. And the SSIDs aren't globally unique, so the same SSID can be used by multiple independent ESSs. Even so, the DNA process can use BSSID/SSID info in a probabilistic way, which is why it comes along with the link up event notification 🌸

In ad-hoc mode, mobile stations (STA) in range can talk to each other directly, with no infrastructure or intermediate hop 🧚 The group of communicating STAs is called an IBSS, short for Independent Basic Service Set. An IBSS only has STA services available, meaning authentication, deauthentication, privacy, and MAC Service Data Unit (MSDU) delivery. STAs don't associate with each other, so they may exchange data frames in state 2 (authenticated and not associated), or even in state 1 (unauthenticated and unassociated), as long as the Distribution System isn't used (i.e., "To DS" and "From DS" bits are clear). If authentication is performed, a link up indication can be generated upon authentication. For link-layer identification, both the BSSID (a random MAC address chosen by a STA of the IBSS) and the SSID may be used to identify a link, but you can't make any assumptions about the IP network configuration from them 🫶

3.4. IEEE 802.3 CSMA/CD

IEEE 802.3 CSMA/CD, aka Ethernet, is the most commonly deployed Local Area Network technology in use today 👑 As it's deployed now, it's specified by a physical layer/medium access control (MAC) layer specification [IEEE-802.3]. To connect different LANs into a bigger network, 802.3 LANs are often bridged together [IEEE-802.1D].

In this section, the terms 802.3 and Ethernet are used interchangeably 💖 It covers some issues with providing link-layer indications on Ethernet networks, and shows how bridging affects those indications.

On Ethernet networks, hosts are connected by wires or by optic fibre to a switch (bridge), a bus (e.g., coaxial cable), a repeater (hub), or directly to another Ethernet device 🌈 Interfaces are symmetric. Lots of different physical layers may be present, but medium access control is uniform for all devices.

To figure out whether the physical medium is ready for frame transfer, IEEE 802.3 Ethernet has its own link monitoring mechanism 🍓 It's defined for some classes of media, but not all. Where it's available, this Link Integrity Test operation is used to identify when packets can be received on an Ethernet segment. It applies to both wired and optical physical layers, though the details vary between technologies (link pulses in twisted pair copper, light levels in fibre) ⭐

Link Integrity Tests in 802.3 networks typically happen at initial physical connection time (for example, at the auto-negotiation stage) and periodically after that 🔥 They use physical-layer specific operations to determine whether a medium can support link-layer frames [IEEE-802.3].

The status of the link, as determined by the Link Integrity Test, is stored in the variable link_status 💅 Changes to the value of link_status (for example, due to a Link Integrity Test failure) will generate link indications if the technology-dependent interface is implemented on an Ethernet device [IEEE-802.3].

link_status can be FAIL, READY, or OK ✨ In FAIL state, the Link Integrity Tests have failed. In READY state, the link segment has passed integrity tests, but auto-negotiation hasn't completed yet. In OK state, the medium can send and receive packets 🦋

When the link transitions to a particular state, the Physical Medium Attachment subsystems generate a PMA_LINK.indicate(link_status) 🧚 Indications of OK state may be used to generate a link up event notification. But those indications don't definitively guarantee that packets will be received through the bridge domain (see the next section), and that's governed by bridging 🙈

Ethernet networks commonly consist of LANs joined together by transparent bridges (usually implemented as switches) 🌸 Transparent bridges need the active topology to be loop free. That's achieved through the Spanning Tree Protocol (STP) or the Rapid Spanning Tree Protocol (RSTP). These protocols exchange Bridge Protocol Data Units (BPDUs), as defined in [IEEE-802.1D], and this leads to ports being blocked (i.e., not forwarding) where required 💜

By default, the spanning tree protocol doesn't know whether a newly connected piece of Ethernet will cause a loop 😭 So it blocks all traffic from and to newly connected ports, except for some unbridged management frames. STP will figure out whether the port can be connected to the network in a loop-free way.

Here's the tea: even though the link layer looks available, no data packet forwarding happens until it's determined that the port can connect to the network in a loop-free environment 💀

For hosts that provide indications to upper-layer protocols, packet delivery across the network can be affected by bridges, even if the host itself doesn't implement bridging or STP 🎀

A host connected to a bridge port doesn't get any explicit indication that the bridge has started forwarding packets 🍓 So a host may not know when STP operations have finished, or when it's safe to tell upper layers to transmit packets.

Where it isn't known that forwarding operations are available, a host should assume that RSTP or STP is being performed. Hosts may listen to STP/RSTP and 802.1AB messages to learn more about the timing of full connectivity on the link, for example, to override an existing indication 🫶

Notably, though, it's not easy for a host to tell the difference between disabled bridge ports and non-bridge ports with no active transmitters on them. Disabled ports have no traffic on them and incur 100% sender loss 😭

If no bridge configuration messages are received within the Bridge_Max_Age interval (default 20s), then it's likely there's no visible bridge whose port is enabled for bridging (S8.4.5 of [IEEE-802.1D]), since at least two BPDU hello messages would have been lost. When this timeout hits, a link up notification is generated, if one hasn't been already 🔥

If a BPDU is received and the adjacent bridge is running the original Spanning Tree Protocol, then a host can't successfully send packets until at least twice the ForwardDelay value in the received BPDU has elapsed 🦋 After that time, a link up notification is generated. If the previous link up notification was non-deterministic, this notification includes an attribute signifying that the packets sent within the prior interval were lost 🙈

If the bridge is identified as performing Rapid Spanning Tree Protocol (RSTP), it instead waits Bridge_Max_Age after packet reception (advertised in the BPDU's Max Age field) before forwarding 💖 For ports known to be point-to-point through auto-negotiation, this delay is shortened to 3 seconds after auto-negotiation completes [IEEE-802.1D] ✨

The recently defined 802.1AB Link-Layer Discovery Protocol (LLDP) gives info to devices that are directly adjacent on the local LAN [IEEE-802.1ab] 🧚

LLDP sends information periodically and at link status change time, to indicate the configuration parameters of the device. Devices may send or receive these messages, or do both 🌈

The LLDP message may contain a System Capabilities TLV, which describes the MAC- and IP-layer functions a device is currently using 👑 When a host receives a System Capabilities TLV indicating that no Bridging is occurring on the LLDP transmitter, no delays for STP calculation will be applied to packets sent through that transmitter. That allows the link up notification to be generated 🔥

Also, if a host receives a System Capabilities TLV indicating that the LLDP transmitter is a bridge, the host's advertisement that it's an (end-host) Station-Only may tell the bridge not to run STP, and it may immediately allow forwarding 🎀

Proprietary extensions may also indicate that data forwarding is already available on such a port. Discussing those optimizations is out of scope for this document 🙈

Because the protocol is new and not widely deployed, it's unclear how it will eventually affect DNA in IPv4 or IPv6 networks 🫶

3.4.4. Other Heuristics

In 802.3 networks, Network Interface Cards (NICs) are often capable of returning a speed and duplex indication to the host 🍓 Changes in those characteristics may indicate a connection to a new layer 2 network 💅

3.4.5. Summary

Link-layer indications in Ethernet-like networks get complicated by additional unadvertised delays from spanning tree calculations 😭 That can cause re-indication or retraction of indications that were previously sent to upper layer protocols 💀

4. Security Considerations ✨

okay bestie, this section is SERIOUS but also kind of iconic 💀 so let's get into it 🫶

Attackers can totally spoof stuff at the link layer, or mess with the physical medium directly, to confuse the host about what's going on with the link 🙈 For example, they can fake error messages, or jam the wireless medium so the host moves its connection somewhere else or even drops it entirely 😭 Attackers can also fake information so the host thinks it's connected when it actually isn't 💀 And wireless networks like 802.11 have this whole thing called the "Evil Twin" attack 👀 where an attacker sets up an Access Point with the same SSID as a legit one and gets the user to connect to the fake one instead of the real one 🦋 Not me being so unbothered about this 💅 These attacks can lead to use of non-preferred networks or even denial of service, so yikes 🥀

BUT this specification does NOT provide any protection of its own for indications coming from the lower layers 🫠 The vulnerabilities can be mitigated with techniques in other parts of the protocol stack though 🛡️ Specifically, it is RECOMMENDED that authentication, replay, and integrity protection of link-layer management messages are enabled when available 🔐 For example, the IEEE 802.1ae standard [IEEE-802.1ae] defines these mechanisms for IEEE 802-compliant MAC layers ✨ The protocol stack can also use some network-layer mechanisms for partial protection 🌸 For instance, SEND [RFC3971] could be used to confirm secure reachability with a router 🧚 However, network-layer mechanisms can't handle everything, like insecure lower-layer notifications that leave the link not functioning properly 😭 that's the tea ☕

5. Contributors 🎀

Okay so besides the people in the author list, text for the link-layer technologies in this doc was contributed by Thomas Noel (IEEE 802.11b) and Greg Daley (IEEE 802.3) 💜 The authors wanna thank them for all their hard work bringing this document to life 🫶

6. Acknowledgements 🌈

The authors want to acknowledge Bernard Aboba, Sanjeev Athalye, JinHyeock Choi, John Loughney, Pekka Nikander, Brett Pentland, Tom Petch, Dan Romascanu, Pekka Savola, Steve Bellovin, Thomas Narten, Matt Mathis, Alfred Hoenes, and Muhammad Mukarram bin Tariq for their useful comments and suggestions 💖 the whole squad 👑

7. References 📚

7.1. Normative References

[CDMA2K]        "cdma2000 Wireless IP Network Standard",  ,
                December 2000.

[GPRS]          "Digital cellular telecommunications system (Phase
                2+); General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) Service
                description; Stage 2", 3GPP TS 03.60 version 7.9.0
                Release 98.

[GPRS-LINK]     "Digital cellular telecommunications system (Phase
                2+); Radio subsystem link control", 3GPP GSM 03.05
                version 7.0.0 Release 98.

[IEEE-802.11a]  Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,
                "IEEE Std 802.11a-1999, supplement to IEEE Std
                802.11-1999, Part 11: Wireless MAN Medium Access
                Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY)
                specifications: High-speed Physical Layer in the 5
                GHZ band", IEEE Standard 802.11a, September 1999.

[IEEE-802.11b]  Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,
                "IEEE Std 802 Part 11, Information technology -
                Telecomunications and information exchange between
                systems - Local and metropolitan area networks -
                Specific requirements - Part 11: Wireless Lan Medium
                Access Control (MAC) And Physical Layer (PHY)
                Specifications", IEEE Standard 802.11b, August 1999.

[IEEE-802.11g]  Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,
                "IEEE Std 802.11g-2003, Amendment to IEEE Std 802.11,
                1999 edition, Part 11: Wireless MAN Medium Access
                Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY)
                specifications.  Amendment 4: Further Higher Data
                Rate Extension in the 2.4 GHz Band", IEEE Standard
                802.11g, June 2003.

[IEEE-802.11i]  Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,
                "Supplement to STANDARD FOR Telecommunications and
                Information Exchange between Systems - LAN/MAN
                Specific Requirements - Part 11: Wireless Medium
                Access Control (MAC) and physical layer (PHY)
                specifications: Specification for Enhanced Security",
                IEEE 802.11i, December 2004.

[IEEE-802.1D]   Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,
                "IEEE standard for local and metropolitan area
                networks - common  specifications - Media access
                control (MAC) Bridges", ISO/IEC IEEE Std 802.1D,
                2004.

[IEEE-802.1ab]  Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,
                "Draft Standard for Local and Metropolitan Networks:
                Station and Media Access Control Connectivity
                Discovery (Draft 13)", IEEE draft Std 802.1AB, 2004.

[IEEE-802.1ae]  Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,
                "IEEE Std 802.1AE, Local and Metropolitan Area
                Networks - Media Access Control (MAC) Security",
                IEEE Standard 802.1ae, June 2006.

[IEEE-802.3]    Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,
                "IEEE standard for local and metropolitan area
                networks -  Specific Requirements, Part 3: Carrier
                Sense Multiple Access with Collision Detection
                (CSMA/CD) Access Method and Physical Layer
                Specifications", ISO/IEC IEEE Std 802.3, 2002.

[RFC1332]       McGregor, G., "The PPP Internet Protocol Control
                Protocol (IPCP)", RFC 1332, May 1992.

[RFC1661]       Simpson, W., "The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)",
                STD 51, RFC 1661, July 1994.

[RFC2462]       Thomson, S. and T. Narten, "IPv6 Stateless Address
                Autoconfiguration", RFC 2462, December 1998.

[RFC2472]       Haskin, D. and E. Allen, "IP Version 6 over PPP",
                RFC 2472, December 1998.

[RFC3315]       Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins,
                C., and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration
                Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003.

[RFC3971]       Arkko, J., Kempf, J., Zill, B., and P. Nikander,
                "SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", RFC 3971,
                March 2005.

[RFC4135]       Choi, JH. and G. Daley, "Goals of Detecting Network
                Attachment in IPv6", RFC 4135, August 2005.

7.2. Informative References

[GPRS-CN]       "Technical Specification Group Core Network;
                Internetworking between the Public Land Mobile
                Network (PLMN) supporting packet based services and
                Packet Data Networks (PDN) (Release 6)", 3GPP TS
                29.061 version 6.1.0 2004-06.

[GPRS-GSSA]     "Technical Specification Group Services and System
                Aspect; General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) Service
                description; Stage 2 (Release 6)", 3GPP TS 23.060
                version 6.5.0 2004-06.

[RFC2461]       Narten, T., Nordmark, E., and W. Simpson, "Neighbor
                Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461,
                December 1998.

[RFC4068]       Koodli, R., "Fast Handovers for Mobile IPv6",
                RFC 4068, July 2005.

[RFC4881]       El Malki, K., "Low-Latency Handoffs in Mobile IPv4",
                RFC 4881, June 2007.

Authors' Addresses 💌

Suresh Krishnan (editor)
Ericsson Research
8400 Decarie Blvd.
Town of Mount Royal, QC
Canada

EMail: suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com
Nicolas Montavont
GET ENST Bretagne
2, rue de la chataigneraie
Cesson-Sevigne  35576
France

Phone: (33) 2 99 12 70 23
EMail: nicolas.montavont@enst-bretagne.fr
Eric Njedjou
France Telecom
4, Rue du Clos Courtel BP 91226
Cesson Sevigne  35512
France

Phone: +33 299124878
EMail: eric.njedjou@orange-ftgroup.com
Siva Veerepalli
Qualcomm
5775 Morehouse Drive
San Diego, CA  92131
USA

Phone: +1 858 658 4628
EMail: sivav@qualcomm.com
Alper E. Yegin (editor)
Samsung
Istanbul
Turkey

Phone: +90 533 348 2402
EMail: a.yegin@partner.samsung.com

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.

Acknowledgement 💖

Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society.

📦 where this page comes from