Transcript Using a Single IPv4 Global Address in DSTM

IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in
802.16(e) Networks
draft-ietf-v6ops-802-16-deployment-scenarios-01
Myung-Ki Shin, ETRI
Youn-Hee Han, KUT
Sang-Eon Kim, KT
Domagoj Premec, Siemens Mobile
16ng Interim@Mannheim, Germany
1
Goal of this draft
•
Provides detailed description of IPv6
deployment and scenarios in IEEE 802.16
access networks
–
•
802.16 specs are limited to L1 and L2, so they may
be used within any number of IP network
architectures and scenarios
Extends works of [I-D.ietf-v6ops-bbdeployment-scenarios]
–
Discuss main components of IPv6 802.16 access
network and its differences from IPv4 and how IPv6
is deployed and integrated in each of the 802.16
technologies using tunneling mechanisms and
native IPv6.
2
Why is this v6ops draft
presented here ?
• It is related to subnet models and it can give
some useful input to discuss about them
• Collaboration b/w v6ops and 16ng required
• 16ng expert review required
3
History and Further Plan
• IETF65, March 2006
– Initial draft was presented
– Accepted as a v6ops WG document
• IETF66, July 2006
– Wg draft (-00) published, June 2006
• draft-ietf-v6ops-802-16-deployment-scenarios-00
• Next Steps …
– Revised wg draft will be published in Sept.
• draft-ietf-v6ops-802-16-deployment-scenarios-01
– It is being reviewed by three v6ops experts
– Go to WGLC in Oct/Dec 2006
4
Changes since IETF-66
• Authors discussed about scenarios with 16ng (WiMAX,
WiBro, etc.) experts.
– Sang-Eon (KT) and Domagoj (Siemens) are newly added as coauthors
• Three scenarios were more clearly defined and
discussed
– Mobile Access Deployment Scenario
– 3GPP-like Deployment Scenario [RFC 3314]
– Fixed/Nomadic Deployment Scenario
• According to each scenario, the following IPv6 impacts
were described
–
–
–
–
IPv6 Related Infrastructure Changes
Addressing
IPv6 Control and Data Transport
Routing ….
• Multicast, Mobility, etc.
5
802.16 Networks Elements
Customer |
Premise |
Access Provider
| Service Provider
| (Backend Network)
+-----+
+-----+
+------+
+--------+
| MSs |--(802.16)--| BS |-----+Access+---+ Edge
|
ISP
+-----+
+-----+
|Router|
| Router +==>Network
+--+---+
+--------+
+-----+
+-----+
|
| +------+
| Mss |--(802.16)--| BS |--------+
+--|AAA
|
+-----+
+-----+
|Server|
+------+
6
#1. Mobile Access Deployment
• Single/Mobile Deployment Model
– One of WiMAX, WiBro Models
– A subnet consists of only single router and multiple
BSs and MS
+-----+
| MS1 |<-(16)-+
+-----+
|
+-----+
|
+-----+
+-----+
+--------+
| MS2 |<-(16)-+----| BS1 |--+->| AR |----| Edge
|
ISP
+-----+
+-----+ | +-----+
| Router +==>Network
|
+--------+
+-----+
+-----+ |
| MS3 |<-(16)-+----| BS2 |--+
+-----+
|
+-----+
+-----+
|
| MS4 |<-(16)-+
+-----+
7
IPv6 Impact on #1
• IPv6 Related Infrastructure Changes
– MS, AR, ER should be upgraded to IPv6 (BS is L3 unaware)
– If the IP aware equipments between the AR and the ER do not
support IPv6, the service providers can deploy IPv6-in-IPv4
tunneling to transport IPv6 packets between the AR and the ER.
• Addressing
– Single prefix can be shared for all the attached MSs.
• IPv6 Transport
– NDP optimization required
• Routing
– MS is configured with a default route that points to the AR
– The AR should support IPv6 routing protocol such as OSPFv3
or IS-IS for IPv6 when connected to the ER with multiple links.
Prefix summarization should be done at the ER.
8
#2. 3GPP-like Deployment
• [RFC 3314] like Deployment Model
– A subnet consists of only single router and single MS
+-----+
| MS1 |<-(16)---------+
+-----+
|
+-----+
+-----+
+-----+
+--------+
| MS2 |<-(16)------| BS1 |--+->| AR |----| Edge
|
ISP
+-----+
+-----+ | +-----+
| Router +==>Network
|
+--------+
+-----+
+-----+ |
| MS3 |<-(16)------| BS2 |--+
+-----+
+-----+
+-----+
|
| MS4 |<-(16)---------+
+-----+
9
IPv6 Impact on #2
• IPv6 Related Infrastructure Changes
– Same as #1
• Addressing
– A unique prefix can be allocated to each link.
• IPv6 Transport
– DAD is easy
• Routing
– Same as #1
10
#3. Fixed/Nomadic Deployment
• Bridging to regular Ethernet Model
– Hot zone Deployment (broader than Hot spot)
– Wireless DSL (DSL Replacement)
+-----+
+---+
+-----+
+-----+
ISP 1
| MS1 |<-(16)+
|
| +-->| AR |----| ER1 |===>Network
+-----+
|
| b| |
+-----+
+-----+
+-----+
|
+-----+
|E r| |
| MS2 |<-(16)+-----| BS1 |-----|t i| |
+-----+
+-----+
|h d|--+
| g| |
+-----+
+-----+
ISP 2
+-----+
+-----+
| e| +-->| BRAS|----| ER2 |===>Network
+-----+
| |
+-----+
+-----+
|Hosts|<--> |MS/GW|<-(16)------| BS2 |-----|
+-----+
+-----+
+---+ |
+-----+
This network
|
behind MS
+-----+
+-----+
|
may exist
| TE |<-(DSL)-----|DSLAM|------------+
+-----+
+-----+
11
IPv6 Impact on #3
• IPv6 Related Infrastructure Changes
– BRAS provides the functionality of the AR
– Ethernet bridge may provide some IPv6 specific functions to increase
link efficiency of the 802.16 link (e.g., DAD optimization)
• Addressing
– Multiple prefixes can be shared to all the attached MSs.
– Prefix delegation can be required since networks can exist behind MS
• IPv6 Transport
– DAD optimization required
• Routing
– IPv6 multi-homing considerations exist
– If there exist multiple ARs to support MSs, a default router must be
selected.
12
Further Item
• Due to the problems caused by the existence of
multiple CSs [I-D.iab-link-encaps], the mobile access
scenarios need solutions about how roaming will
work when forced to move from one CS to another.
13