RFC 4968
Analysis of IPv6 Link Models for 802.16 Based Networks
RFC 4968: Analysis of IPv6 Link Models for IEEE 802.16 Based Networks 🦋 (Part 1 of 3)
Network Working Group 💖 by S. Madanapalli, Ed. from Ordyn Technologies ✨ Category: Informational 🎀 Date: August 2007 📅 Obsoletes / Updates: this title block doesn't list anything being obsoleted or updated 🙈
Status of This Memo 📝
bestie, this one is pure info, not a standard 💅 It "provides information for the Internet community" and does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution is unlimited, so share away 🌸
Copyright Notice ©️
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). 🔥
Abstract ✨
okay so this doc lays out different IPv6 link models that work for IEEE 802.16 based networks 🫶 It breaks down the considerations for each model and shows where each one fits in different deployment scenarios 🧚 It came out of a design team (DT) that was formed specifically to analyze IPv6 link models for these networks, and they really did the thing 👑
Table of Contents 🗂️
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. IPv6 Link Models for IEEE 802.16 Based Networks . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Shared IPv6 Prefix Link Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1.1. Prefix Assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.2. Address Autoconfiguration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.3. Duplicate Address Detection . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.4. Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1.5. Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Point-to-Point Link Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2.1. Prefix Assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2.2. Address Autoconfiguration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2.3. Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2.4. Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3. Ethernet-Like Link Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.3.1. Prefix Assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.3.2. Address Autoconfiguration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.3.3. Duplicate Address Detection . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.3.4. Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.3.5. Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. Renumbering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Effect on Dormant Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Effect on Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Conclusions and Relevant Link Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141. Introduction 🌈
okay so IEEE 802.16 [4] [5] is a point-to-multipoint, connection-oriented access technology for the last mile 🛣️ The catch is that it has no bi-directional native multicast support. It has only defined downlink multicast support, which is kind of a vibe-killer 💀 That leads to two ways of running IP protocols that normally expect multicast at the link layer.
Method one is bridging, e.g., IEEE 802.1D [6], to get bi-directional multicast going 🌉 Method two is to treat the IEEE 802.16 MAC (Message Authentication Code) transport connections between an MS (Mobile Station) and BS (Base Station) as point-to-point IP links 🔗 That way, IP protocols like ARP (Address Resolution Protocol) and IPv6 Neighbor Discovery can run without any problems ✨
It gets more complicated 😭 Commercial network models like WiMAX define a WiMAX transport connection that extends the IEEE 802.16 MAC transport connection all the way to an access router, using a tunnel between the base station and the access router [14] 🚇 So there are multiple ways of deploying IP over IEEE 802.16 based networks, and that's a lot of choices bestie 🙃
This document looks at the considerations for picking a link model for IEEE 802.16 based networks and analyzes the various possible link models 🔍 And finally, it recommends one link model that is best suited for the deployment 🏆
2. Terminology 📖
The terminology here is based on the definitions in [6], plus the ones specified in this section 🤓
Access Router (AR): An entity that performs an IP routing function to provide IP connectivity for Mobile Stations. In WiMAX Networks, the AR is an Access Service Network Gateway. 🛰️
Access Service Network (ASN) - The ASN is defined as a complete set of network functions needed to provide radio access to a WiMAX subscriber. The ASN is the access network that the MS attaches to. The IPv6 access router is an entity within the ASN. The term ASN is specific to the WiMAX network architecture. 🏢
Dormant Mode: A state in which a mobile station restricts its ability to receive normal IP traffic by reducing its monitoring of radio channels. This lets the mobile station save power and reduces signaling load on the network 🔋 In dormant mode, the MS only listens to the paging channel at scheduled intervals. The network (e.g., the AR) keeps state about an MS that has moved into dormant mode and can page it when needed 📟
3. IPv6 Link Models for IEEE 802.16 Based Networks 🦋
This section talks through the various IPv6 link models for IEEE 802.16 based networks and their operational considerations in practical deployment scenarios 💅
3.1. Shared IPv6 Prefix Link Model 🎀
Here's the tea ☕ In this model, all MSs attached to an AR share one or more prefixes to build their global IPv6 addresses. The catch is that this model does not provide any multicast capability 😬 The figure below gives a high-level view, where one or more prefixes advertised on the link get used by all the MSs attached to the IPv6 link.
+-----+
| MS1 |-----+
+-----+ |
|
|
+-----+ | +-----+ +--------+
| MS2 |-----+-----| BS1 |----------| AR |-------Internet
+-----+ | +-----+ +--------+
. | ____________
. | ()__________()
+-----+ | L2 Tunnel
| MSn |-----+
+-----+
Figure 1. Shared IPv6 Prefix Link ModelThis figure shows the case where the BS and AR exist as separate entities. In this case, there's a tunnel between the BS and AR on a per-MS basis 🚇
In this link model, the link between the MS and the AR at the IPv6 layer is viewed as a shared link 🤝 The lower-layer link between the MS and BS is a point-to-point link. That point-to-point link gets extended all the way to the AR when the tunnel between the BS and AR is set up on a per-MS basis 🔗 Check out the layered view below:
MS
+----+ +----+
| | IPv6 (Shared link) | |
| L3 |=====================================| |
| | | |
|----| PTP conn. +----+ L2 Tunnel | AR |---Internet
| L2 |-------------| BS |==================| |
| | | | | |
+----+ +----+ | |
| |
+----+ L2 Tunnel | |
| BS |==================| |
| | | |
+----+ +----+
Figure 2. Shared IPv6 Prefix Link Model - Layered ViewIn this link model, an AR can serve one or more BSs. All MSs connected to BSs that an AR serves are on the same IPv6 link 🫶 This is different from the Ethernet Like Link model. That later model gives the IPv6 layer an Ethernet link abstraction and multicast capability, whereas the Shared IPv6 Prefix Link Model defined here does not provide native link-layer multicast and broadcast capabilities 🙅♀️
3.1.1. Prefix Assignment 🏷️
One or more IPv6 prefixes are assigned to the link, so every node attached to the link shares them 💖 The prefixes are advertised with the autonomous flag (A-Flag) set and the On-link flag (L-flag) reset for address autoconfiguration. That way, nodes may not make an on-link assumption for the addresses in those prefixes 👀
3.1.2. Address Autoconfiguration ⚙️
The standard IPv6 address autoconfiguration mechanisms, specified in [2] [3], are used here ✅
3.1.3. Duplicate Address Detection 🕵️♀️
The DAD procedure, as specified in [2], doesn't adapt well to the IEEE 802.16 air interface, because there's no native multicast support 😭 DAD can be done with MLD (Multicast Listener Discovery) snooping [7], and the AR relays the DAD probe to the address owners if the address is a duplicate. This is called Relay DAD ✨ With this method, the MS behaves the same as specified in [2], and the optimization comes from the AR. The AR maintains the MLD table, which lists the multicast addresses and the nodes that joined each one 📋 Here's how relay DAD works, step by step:
- An MS constructs a Link Local Address as specified in [2].
- The MS constructs a solicited node multicast address for the corresponding Link Local Address, and sends an MLD Join request for the solicited node multicast address 📣
- The MS starts verifying address uniqueness by sending a DAD NS on the initial MAC transport connection 🔎
- The AR consults the MLD table for who joined the multicast address. If the AR doesn't find any entry in the MLD table, the AR silently discards the DAD NS 🫥 If the AR finds a match, the AR relays the DAD NS to the address owner 🏃♀️
- The address owner defends the address by sending a DAD NA, which gets relayed to the DAD originating MS via the AR 🛡️
- If the DAD originating MS doesn't receive any response (DAD NA) to its DAD NS, the MS assigns the address to its interface 🎉 If the MS does receive the DAD NA, the MS discards the tentative address and behaves as specified in [2] 🙈
3.1.4. Considerations 🧠
3.1.4.1. Reuse of Existing Specifications ♻️
The shared IPv6 prefix model uses the existing specification and doesn't need any protocol changes or new protocols 🙌 However, this model does require implementation changes for DAD optimization on the AR.
3.1.4.2. On-link Multicast Support 📡
No native on-link multicast is possible with this method. Multicast can still be supported using a backend process in the AR. That process maintains the multicast members list and forwards the multicast packets to the MSs belonging to a particular multicast group in a unicast manner 🎯 MLD snooping [7] should be used for maintaining the multicast members list.
3.1.4.3. Consistency in IP Link Definition 💜
The definition of an IPv6 link is consistent for all procedures and functionalities, except for support of native on-link multicast 🌸
3.1.4.4. Packet Forwarding ✨
okay so every packet has to go through the AR before it reaches its final destination, because the layer 2 transport connection only exists between the MS and the AR 🛣️ the AR normally handles the packets with external IPv6 addresses 🌐 but packets with link local destination addresses get relayed by the AR to the destination without decrementing the hop-limit 🫶
3.1.4.5. Changes to Host Implementation 💻
this link model doesn't need any implementation changes on the host side 🎀 hosts are chillin 😌
3.1.4.6. Changes to Router Implementation 🛠️
this link model does require MLD snooping in the AR so that Relay DAD can be supported 🔥 the AR is the one doing the heavy lifting here 💪
3.1.5. Applicability 🌸
this model is good for providing shared on-link services alongside the IP convergence sublayer with IPv6 classifiers ✨ BUT in public access networks like cellular networks, it can't be used for end users to share any of their personal devices or services with the public 🙈 not the vibe for that 💅
this link model was also under consideration by the WiMAX Forum Network Working Group for use with IPv6 CS (Convergence Sublayer) access 🦋
3.2. Point-to-Point Link Model 💜
okay this one's my fave, it's so clean 🧼 a set of MAC transport connections between an MS and an AR gets treated as a single link ✨ the point-to-point link model follows the recommendations of [8] 📖 each link between an MS and an AR gets its own separate, unique prefix (or a set of unique prefixes) from the AR 🎀 and no other node under the AR has the same prefixes on the link between it and the AR 🙅♀️ here's the diagram, it's giving very organized energy:
+----+ +----+
+-----+ | | Tunnel | |
| MS1 |-------------|....|===================| |
+-----+ | | | |
| | | |
+-----+ | | Tunnel | |
| MS2 |-------------|....|===================| |---Internet
+-----+ | | | AR |
| BS | | |
+-----+ | | Tunnel | |
| MS3 |-------------|....|===================| |
+-----+ | | | |
+----+ +----+
Figure 3. Point-to-Point Link Modelthere are multiple possible ways the point-to-point link between the AR and the MS can be implemented 🧩
- one way is to run PPP on the link [8] 🔌 running PPP requires that the IEEE 802.16 link use the Ethernet CS and PPP over Ethernet [9] 🫧 since the IPv6 CS doesn't support PPP, whether PPP can run depends on the network architecture 🤷♀️
- if the actual physical medium is shared, like Ethernet, but PPP isn't run, the link can be made point to point between the MS and AR by having each MS on a separate VLAN [11] 🏷️
- if neither PPP nor VLAN is used, the set of IEEE 802.16 connections can be viewed as a virtual point-to-point link 🦋
3.2.1. Prefix Assignment 🎀
prefixes get assigned to the link using the standard [1] Router Advertisement mechanism 📣 the AR assigns a unique prefix or a set of unique prefixes for each MS 💖 in the prefix information options, both the A-flag and L-flag are set to 1, because they can be used for address autoconfiguration and the prefixes are on the link 🌈
3.2.2. Address Autoconfiguration 🪄
MSs do link local as well as global address autoconfiguration exactly as specified in [2], including duplicate address detection 🔍 because there's only one other node on the link (the AR), the only chance of an address conflict is with the AR 👯 so collisions are statistically very unlikely, and easy to fix if they do happen 🫶
if DHCP is used for address configuration ('M=1' in the Router Advertisement), the DHCP server must provide addresses with a separate prefix per MS 📬 the prefix must of course match a prefix that the ASN Gateway has advertised to the MS (if any) 💅
3.2.3. Considerations 🧠
3.2.3.1. Reuse of Existing Specifications ♻️
this solution reuses RFC 2461, 2462, and, if PPP is used, RFC 2472 and RFC 2516 🧸 no changes to these protocols are required; they just have to be configured properly ⚙️
if PPP is not used, any VLAN solution, such as IEEE 802.1Q [9] or any L2 tunnel, can be used 🫧
3.2.3.2. On-link Multicast Support 📢
since the link between the MS and the AR is point to point, any multicast can only be sent by one of the two nodes 🙋♀️ link local multicast between other nodes and the AR won't be seen 👀
3.2.3.3. Consistency in IP Link Definition 💎
the IP link is fully consistent with a standard IP point-to-point link, no exceptions 🫡
3.2.3.4. Packet Forwarding 📦
the MS always sends all packets to the AR because it's the only other node on the link 💌 link local unicast and multicast packets are also forwarded only between the two 🥹
3.2.3.5. Changes to Host Implementation 🖥️
host implementations follow standard IPv6 stack procedures, so no changes are needed ✨
3.2.3.6. Changes to Router Implementation 🏗️
if PPP is used, no changes in router implementations are needed 🎉 if PPP is not used, the AR must be capable of doing the following:
- each MS is assigned a separate VLAN when IEEE 802.1X [12] or each MS must have an L2 tunnel to the AR to aggregate all the connections to the MS and present this set of connections as an interface to the IPv6 layer 🧁
- the AR must be configured to include a unique prefix or a set of prefixes for each MS 🍓 this unique prefix or set of prefixes must be included in Router Advertisements every time they are sent, and if DHCP is used, the addresses leased to the MS must include only the uniquely advertised prefixes 📣
note that, depending on the router implementation, these functions may or may not be possible with simple configuration 🤓 no protocol changes are required, though 💖
3.2.4. Applicability 🏢
in enterprise networks, shared services like printers, fax machines, and other online services are often available on the local link 🖨️ these services are typically discovered using some kind of link local service discovery protocol 🔎 the unique prefix per MS model isn't appropriate for these deployments, since it's not possible to have shared link services in the ASN 🙃
the p2p link model is applicable to deployments where there are no shared services in the ASN 🌍 those deployments are typical of service provider networks like cellular networks, which provide public access to wireless networks 📱
3.3. Ethernet-Like Link Model 🌷
this model describes a scheme for configuring and provisioning an IEEE 802.16 network so that it emulates a broadcast link in a manner similar to Ethernet 🫧 figure 4 shows an example of the Ethernet model 👇 it basically works like an Ethernet link, which means the model works as described in [1], [2] 🥰
one way to build an Ethernet-like link is to implement bridging [13] between BSs and an AR, like a switched Ethernet 🔀 in Figure 4, bridging performs link aggregation between BSs and an AR 🧺 bridging also supports multicast packet filtering 🎯
+-----+ +---+ +----+
| MS1 |---+ | | +---|AR1 |---Internet
+-----+ | | S| | +----+
+-----+ | +-----+ |E w| |
| MS2 |---+---| BS1 |---|t i| |
+-----+ +-----+ |h t|---+
| c| | +----+
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ | h| +---|AR2 |---Internet
|Hosts|--|MS/GW|-------| BS2 |---| | +----+
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +---+
A network
may exist behind
MS/GW
Figure 4: Ethernet Like Link Model3.3.1. Prefix Assignment 🎀
prefixes are assigned as specified in [1], [2] 📋
3.3.2. Address Autoconfiguration 🪄
it's the same as described in [2] ✨
3.3.3. Duplicate Address Detection 🔍
it's the same as described in [2] 💯
3.3.4. Considerations 🧠
3.3.4.1. Reuse of Existing Specifications ♻️
all the IPv6 standards can be preserved or reused in this model 🙌
3.3.4.2. On-link Multicast Support 📢
on-link multicast can be emulated in a unicast manner by efficiently bridging between all BSs, with IEEE 802.16 providing the links between the MSs and the bridge on top of the BS 🌉 MLD snooping should be used for efficient forwarding of multicast packets as specified in [7] 🎯 nevertheless, in case of bridging, direct inter-MSs communication may not be not allowed due to restrictions from the service providers 🚫
3.3.4.3. Consistency in IP Link Definition 💎
this model is consistent with the IP link definition 🫡
3.3.4.4. Packet Forwarding 📦
when properly configured and assisted by simple bridging, IEEE 802.16 can emulate a simple broadcast network like Ethernet 🎉
3.3.4.5. Changes to Host Implementation 🖥️
no special impact on host implementation 😌
3.3.4.6. Changes to Router Implementation 🛠️
no special impact on router implementation under a separated AR-BS model, if the bridging is implemented in the BS 🫶 some networks, e.g., WiMAX networks, may require bridging to be implemented in the AR (ASN Gateway) 🧐
3.3.5. Applicability 🌸
this model works with the Ethernet CS and is chosen for fixed/nomadic WiMAX networks by the WiMAX Forum Network Working Group 💖
4. Renumbering 🔁
if the downstream prefixes managed by the AR are involved in renumbering, it may be necessary to renumber each link under the AR 😬 [10] discusses recommended procedures for renumbering 📚
if the prefixes are advertised in RAs, the AR must withdraw the existing prefixes and advertise the new ones 📣 since each MS, irrespective of the link model, is on a separate point-to-point link at the MAC level because of the IEEE 802.16 connection oriented architecture, the AR must send an RA withdrawing the old prefix and advertising the new one to each link 💅 in a point-to-point link model, the number of RAs sent equals the number of nodes the AR serves 🔢 whereas in the other two models, the AR sends a single RA to BS that is sent to all the MSs as separate RAs 🦋
if DHCP is used to assign addresses, either the DHCP address lease lifetime may be reduced prior to the renumbering event to encourage MSs to renew their addresses quickly, or a DHCP Reconfigure message may be sent to each of the MSs by the server to cause them to renew their addresses ⏰
in conclusion, the amount of traffic on the air-interface is the same for all link models 📶 however, the number of RAs sent by the AR to BS can be better compared to the other two models 🌈
5. Effect on Dormant Mode ✨
okay so if the network needs to deliver packets to an MS that's in dormant mode, the AR pages the MS 📟. The MS monitoring the paging channel catches the page and transitions out of dormant mode into active mode 🔥. It then establishes connectivity with the network by requesting and obtaining the radio resources, and only then can the network deliver the packets 💖. In many networks, packets headed for an MS in dormant mode get buffered at the AR until connectivity is established 🧚.
Dormant MS support is critical in mobile networks, so it's a necessary feature, no cap 👑. Paging capability and the optimizations possible for paging an MS are neither enhanced nor handicapped by the link model itself 💅. However, multicast within a link may cause an MS to wake up for a packet it never wanted 💀. This can be avoided by filtering the multicast packets and delivering them only to MSs that are listening for particular multicast packets 🙈. The Shared IPv6 Prefix model doesn't have multicast capability, and the point-to-point link model has only one node on the link, so neither one has any effect on dormant mode 🌸. The Ethernet-like link model may have multicast capability, which requires filtering at the BS to support dormant mode for the MSs 🦋.
6. Effect on Routing 🌈
The model used in an IEEE 802.16 network can have a major impact on how routing protocols run over it 👀. The deployment model presented in this document is the least impacting model on routing, because connectivity on the provider edge is intentionally limited to point-to-point connectivity from one BS to any one of multiple MSs 🎀. Any other deployment model may significantly impact routing protocols, but those are outside the scope of this document 🫶.
7. Conclusions and Relevant Link Models 🍓
Ethernet-like link models would be used when the deployment requires Ethernet CS, since this is the only model being proposed for Ethernet CS, and running IPv6 over Ethernet is well understood 💜.
For IP CS with IPv6 classifiers, the point-to-point link model seems like the choice, bestie, because it's simple for performing DAD and it doesn't break any existing applications or require defining any new protocol ✨. That said, the IPv6 shared prefix model would be defined if the service provider community is interested 👑.
8. Security Considerations 💀
This document analyzes various IPv6 link models for IEEE 802.16 based networks, so it does not introduce any new security threats 🛡️. No matter which link model is used, the networks employ the same link-layer security mechanisms defined in [5] 🔐. However, the chosen link model affects the scope of link-local communication, and that can have security implications for protocols designed to work within link scope 😭. This is the concern with a shared link model compared to other models, where private resources (e.g., a personal printer) cannot be put onto a public WiMAX network 🖨️. This may restrict the use of a shared prefix model to enterprise environments 🏢. The Neighbor Discovery related security issues are documented in [1] [2], and they apply to all the models described in this document 🚨. The model-specific security considerations are documented in their respective protocol specifications 📜.
9. Acknowledgements 🫶
This document is the result of discussions in the v6subnet design team for IPv6 Prefix Model Analysis 🎉. The members of this design team are (in alphabetical order): Dave Thaler, David Johnston, Junghoon Jee, Max Riegel, Myungki Shin and Syam Madanapalli 💖. The discussion in the DT benefited from the active participation of James Kempf, Behcet Sarikaya, Basavaraj Patil and JinHyeock Choi on the DT mailing list 🙌. The DT thanks the chairs (Gabriel Montenegro and Soohong Daniel Park) and the Shepherding AD (Jari Arkko) for their active participation and motivation 👑.
10. Contributors 🦋
The members who provided the text based on the DT discussion are:
Myung-Ki Shin
ETRI
EMail: myungki.shin@gmail.com
James Kempf
DoCoMo Communications Labs USA
EMail: kempf@docomolabs-usa.com
Soohong Daniel Park
Samsung Electronics
EMail: soohong.park@samsung.com
Dave Thaler
Microsoft
EMail: dthaler@microsoft.com
JinHyeock Choi
Samsung Advanced Institute of Technology
EMail: jinchoe@samsung.com
Behcet Sarikaya
Huawei USA
EMail: sarikaya@ieee.org11. References 📚
11.1. Normative References
- [1] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., and W. Simpson, "Neighbor Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461, December 1998.
- [2] Thomson, S. and T. Narten, "IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 2462, December 1998.
- [3] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C., and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003.
11.2. Informative References
- [4] "IEEE 802.16-2004, IEEE standard for Local and metropolitan area networks, Part 16: Air Interface for fixed broadband wireless access systems", October 2004.
- [5] "IEEE 802.16e, IEEE standard for Local and metropolitan area networks, Part 16: Air Interface for fixed and Mobile broadband wireless access systems", October 2005.
- [6] Jee, J., "IP over IEEE 802.16 Problem Statement and Goals", Work in Progress, October 2006.
- [7] 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.
- [8] Wasserman, M., "Recommendations for IPv6 in Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Standards", RFC 3314, September 2002.
- [9] Mamakos, L., Lidl, K., Evarts, J., Carrel, D., Simone, D., and R. Wheeler, "A Method for Transmitting PPP Over Ethernet (PPPoE)", RFC 2516, February 1999.
- [10] Baker, F., Lear, E., and R. Droms, "Procedures for Renumbering an IPv6 Network without a Flag Day", RFC 4192, September 2005.
- [11] "IEEE, Virtual Bridged Local Area Networks, IEEE 802.1Q", May 2003.
- [12] "IEEE, Port-based Network Access Control, IEEE 802.1X", December 2004.
- [13] "IEEE Std 802.1D-2004, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks, Media Access Control (MAC) Bridges"", June 2004.
- [14] "WiMAX End-to-End Network Systems Architecture", March 2007,
<http://www.wimaxforum.org/technology/documents>.
Author's Address 🎀
Syam Madanapalli (editor)
Ordyn Technologies
1st Floor, Creator Building, ITPL
Bangalore - 560066
India
EMail: smadanapalli@gmail.comFull Copyright Statement 📜
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. It also does not 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, 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 online 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
- ietf: rfc4968 2007-08
- 💖 girlified by claude-haiku-5-5 on : a language model's rewrite of the original, under its terms