Analysis of IPv6 Link Models for 802.16 Based Networks
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: IETF-Announce <email@example.com> Cc: Internet Architecture Board <firstname.lastname@example.org>, RFC Editor <email@example.com>, 16ng mailing list <firstname.lastname@example.org>, 16ng chair <email@example.com> Subject: Document Action: 'Analysis of IPv6 Link Models for 802.16 based Networks' to Informational RFC The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Analysis of IPv6 Link Models for 802.16 based Networks ' <draft-ietf-16ng-ipv6-link-model-analysis-04.txt> as an Informational RFC This document is the product of the IP over IEEE 802.16 Networks Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Jari Arkko and Mark Townsley. A URL of this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-16ng-ipv6-link-model-analysis-04.txt
Technical Summary This document provides different IPv6 link models that are suitable for 802.16 based networks and provides analysis of various considerations for each link model and the applicability of each link model under different deployment scenarios. Working Group Summary This document is result of a Design Team that was formed to analyze the IPv6 link models for 802.16 based networks. Based on the recommendations of the design team and this document, the working group has chosen the unique-prefix-per- link/mn model over the previously assumed shared prefix model. The new model is in use in the IPv6 over 802.16 IPCS document (draft-ietf-16ng-ipv6-over-ipv6cs), and has also been adopted by the Wimax Forum. Protocol Quality Jari Arkko has revied this document for the IESG. Note to RFC Editor Please insert "IEEE" in front of references to 802.16 or other IEEE specification numbers throughout the document, including the title. Please expand "MS" to "MS (Mobile Station)" on first occurence in Section 1. Similarly, expand "BS" to "BS (Base Station)". And later in the document, "CS" to "CS (Convergence Sublayer)". Please expand "MLD" to "MLD (Multicast Listener Discovery)" in Section 3.1.3. Please add the following informative reference: [WiMAXArch] "WiMAX End-to-End Network Systems Architecture http://www.wimaxforum.org/technology/documents", August 2006. and refer to that from Section 1, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence. In Section 3.1, change "on per MS basis" to "on a per MS basis". Also in Section 3.1, paragraph 1: change "does not any multicast" to "does not provide any multicast". And change "illustrates high" to "illustrate a". Finally, change "one more" to "one or more". Change the section titles (3 instances) that say "Reuse of Existing Standards" to "Reuse of Existing Specifications". Replace the text in the Security Considerations section with the following: This document provides the analysis of various IPv6 link models for IEEE 802.16 based networks and this document as such does not introduce any new security threats. No matter what the link model is, the networks employ the same link-layer security mechanisms defined in . However, the chosen link model affects the scope of link local communication, and this may have security implications for protocols that are designed to work within the link scope. This is the concern for shared link model compared other models wherein private resources e.g. personal printer cannot be put onto a public WiMAX network. This may restrict the usage of shared prefix model to enterprise environments. The Neighbor Discovery related security issues are document in [RFC 2461] [RFC 2462] and these are applicable for all the models described in this documents. The model specific security considerations are documented in their respective protocol specifications. Place a new top-level section between Sections 5 and 6: X. Effect on Routing The model used for in a 802.16 network may have a significant impact on how routing protocols are run over such a network. The deployment model presented in this document discusses the least impacting model on routing as 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 cause a significant impact on routing protocols, however, but they are outside the scope of this document.