





Network Working Group                                     M-K. Shin, Ed.
Request for Comments: 5181                                          ETRI
Category: Informational                                         Y-H. Han
                                                                     KUT
                                                                S-E. Kim
                                                                      KT
                                                               D. Premec
                                                          Siemens Mobile
                                                                May 2008


              IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in 802.16 Networks

Status of This Memo

   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
   memo is unlimited.

Abstract

   This document provides a detailed description of IPv6 deployment and
   integration methods and scenarios in wireless broadband access
   networks in coexistence with deployed IPv4 services.  In this
   document, we will discuss the main components of IPv6 IEEE 802.16
   access networks and their differences from IPv4 IEEE 802.16 networks
   and how IPv6 is deployed and integrated in each of the IEEE 802.16
   technologies.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
     1.1.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
   2.  Deploying IPv6 in IEEE 802.16 Networks . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     2.1.  Elements of IEEE 802.16 Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     2.2.  Scenarios and IPv6 Deployment  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
       2.2.1.  Mobile Access Deployment Scenarios . . . . . . . . . .  4
       2.2.2.  Fixed/Nomadic Deployment Scenarios . . . . . . . . . .  8
     2.3.  IPv6 Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     2.4.  IPv6 QoS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     2.5.  IPv6 Security  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     2.6.  IPv6 Network Management  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   3.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   4.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   5.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     5.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     5.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13




Shin, Ed., et al.            Informational                      [Page 1]

RFC 5181            IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios             May 2008


1.  Introduction

   As the deployment of IEEE 802.16 access networks progresses, users
   will be connected to IPv6 networks.  While the IEEE 802.16 standard
   defines the encapsulation of an IPv4/IPv6 datagram in an IEEE 802.16
   Media Access Control (MAC) payload, a complete description of IPv4/
   IPv6 operation and deployment is not present.  The IEEE 802.16
   standards are limited to L1 and L2, so they may be used within any
   number of IP network architectures and scenarios.  In this document,
   we will discuss the main components of IPv6 IEEE 802.16 access
   networks and their differences from IPv4 IEEE 802.16 networks and how
   IPv6 is deployed and integrated in each of the IEEE 802.16
   technologies.

   This document extends the work of [RFC4779] and follows the structure
   and common terminology of that document.

1.1.  Terminology

   The IEEE 802.16-related terminologies in this document are to be
   interpreted as described in [RFC5154].

   o  Subscriber Station (SS): An end-user equipment that provides
      connectivity to the 802.16 networks.  It can be either fixed/
      nomadic or mobile equipment.  In a mobile environment, SS
      represents the Mobile Subscriber Station (MS) introduced in
      [IEEE802.16e].

   o  Base Station (BS): A generalized equipment set providing
      connectivity, management, and control between the subscriber
      station and the 802.16 networks.

   o  Access Router (AR): An entity that performs an IP routing function
      to provide IP connectivity for a subscriber station (SS or MS).

   o  Connection Identifier (CID): A 16-bit value that identifies a
      connection to equivalent peers in the 802.16 MAC of the SS(MS) and
      BS.

   o  Ethernet CS (Convergence Sublayer): 802.3/Ethernet CS-specific
      part of the Packet CS defined in 802.16 STD.

   o  IPv6 CS (Convergence Sublayer): IPv6-specific subpart of the
      Packet CS, Classifier 2 (Packet, IPv6) defined in 802.16 STD.







Shin, Ed., et al.            Informational                      [Page 2]

RFC 5181            IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios             May 2008


2.  Deploying IPv6 in IEEE 802.16 Networks

2.1.  Elements of IEEE 802.16 Networks

   [IEEE802.16e] is an air interface for fixed and mobile broadband
   wireless access systems.  [IEEE802.16] only specifies the convergence
   sublayers and the ability to transport IP over the air interface.
   The details of IPv6 (and IPv4) operations over IEEE 802.16 are
   defined in the 16ng WG.  The IPv6 over IPv6 CS definition is already
   an approved specification [RFC5121].  IP over Ethernet CS in IEEE
   802.16 is defined in [IP-ETHERNET].

   Figure 1 illustrates the key elements of typical mobile 802.16
   deployments.

          Customer |     Access Provider    | Service Provider
          Premise  |                        | (Backend Network)

       +-----+            +----+     +----+   +--------+
       | SSs |--(802.16)--| BS |-----|    |   | Edge   |   ISP
       +-----+            +----+     | AR |---| Router |==>Network
                                  +--|    |   | (ER)   |
                                  |  +----+   +--------+
       +-----+            +----+  |                |  +------+
       | SSs |--(802.16)--| BS |--+                +--|AAA   |
       +-----+            +----+                      |Server|
                                                      +------+

             Figure 1: Key Elements of IEEE 802.16(e) Networks

2.2.  Scenarios and IPv6 Deployment

   [IEEE802.16] specifies two modes for sharing the wireless medium:
   point-to-multipoint (PMP) and mesh (optional).  This document only
   focuses on the PMP mode.

   Some of the factors that hinder deployment of native IPv6 core
   protocols are already introduced by [RFC5154].

   There are two different deployment scenarios: fixed and mobile access
   deployment scenarios.  A fixed access scenario substitutes for
   existing wired-based access technologies such as digital subscriber
   lines (xDSL) and cable networks.  This fixed access scenario can
   provide nomadic access within the radio coverages, which is called
   the Hot-zone model.  A mobile access scenario exists for the new
   paradigm of transmitting voice, data, and video over mobile networks.
   This scenario can provide high-speed data rates equivalent to the
   wire-based Internet as well as mobility functions equivalent to



Shin, Ed., et al.            Informational                      [Page 3]

RFC 5181            IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios             May 2008


   cellular systems.  There are the different IPv6 impacts on
   convergence sublayer type, link model, addressing, mobility, etc.
   between fixed and mobile access deployment scenarios.  The details
   will be discussed below.  The mobile access scenario can be
   classified into two different IPv6 link models: shared IPv6 prefix
   link model and point-to-point link model.

2.2.1.  Mobile Access Deployment Scenarios

   Unlike IEEE 802.11, the IEEE 802.16 BS can provide mobility functions
   and fixed communications.  [IEEE802.16e] has been standardized to
   provide mobility features on IEEE 802.16 environments.  IEEE 802.16
   BS might be deployed with a proprietary backend managed by an
   operator.

   There are two possible IPv6 link models for mobile access deployment
   scenarios: shared IPv6 prefix link model and point-to-point link
   model [RFC4968].  There is always a default access router in the
   scenarios.  There can exist multiple hosts behind an MS (networks
   behind an MS may exist).  The mobile access deployment models, Mobile
   WiMax and WiBro, fall within this deployment model.

   (1) Shared IPv6 Prefix Link Model

   This link model represents the IEEE 802.16 mobile access network
   deployment where a subnet consists of only single AR interfaces and
   multiple MSs.  Therefore, all MSs and corresponding AR interfaces
   share the same IPv6 prefix as shown in Figure 2.  The IPv6 prefix
   will be different from the interface of the AR.

     +-----+
     | MS1 |<-(16)-+
     +-----+       |    +-----+
     +-----+       +----| BS1 |--+
     | MS2 |<-(16)-+    +-----+  |
     +-----+                     |  +-----+    +--------+
                                 +->| AR  |----| Edge   |    ISP
     +-----+                     |  +-----+    | Router +==>Network
     | MS3 |<-(16)-+    +-----+  |             +--------+
     +-----+       +----| BS2 |--+
     +-----+       |    +-----+
     | MS4 |<-(16)-+
     +-----+

                  Figure 2: Shared IPv6 Prefix Link Model






Shin, Ed., et al.            Informational                      [Page 4]

RFC 5181            IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios             May 2008


   (2) Point-to-Point Link Model

   This link model represents IEEE 802.16 mobile access network
   deployments where a subnet consists of only a single AR, BS, and MS.
   That is, each connection to a mobile node is treated as a single
   link.  Each link between the MS and the AR is allocated a separate,
   unique prefix or a set of unique prefixes by the AR.  The point-to-
   point link model follows the recommendations of [RFC3314].

      +-----+            +-----+     +-----+
      | MS1 |<-(16)------|     |---->|     |
      +-----+            | BS1 |     |     |
      +-----+            |     |     |     |    +--------+
      | MS2 |<-(16)------|     |---->|     |----| Edge   |    ISP
      +-----+            +-----+     |     |    | Router +==>Network
                                     | AR  |    +--------+
      +-----+            +-----+     |     |
      | MS3 |<-(16)------|     |---->|     |
      +-----+            | BS2 |     |     |
      +-----+            |     |     |     |
      | MS4 |<-(16)------|     |---->|     |
      +-----+            +-----+     +-----+

                    Figure 3: Point-to-Point Link Model

2.2.1.1.  IPv6-Related Infrastructure Changes

   IPv6 will be deployed in this scenario by upgrading the following
   devices to dual stack: MS, AR, and ER.  In this scenario, IEEE 802.16
   BSs have only MAC and PHY (Physical Layer) layers without router
   functionality and operate as a bridge.  The BS should support IPv6
   classifiers as specified in [IEEE802.16].

2.2.1.2.  Addressing

   An IPv6 MS has two possible options to get an IPv6 address.  These
   options will be equally applied to the other scenario below (Section
   2.2.2).

   (1) An IPv6 MS can get the IPv6 address from an access router using
   stateless auto-configuration.  In this case, router discovery and
   Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) operation should be properly
   operated over an IEEE 802.16 link.








Shin, Ed., et al.            Informational                      [Page 5]

RFC 5181            IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios             May 2008


   (2) An IPv6 MS can use Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6
   (DHCPv6) to get an IPv6 address from the DHCPv6 server.  In this
   case, the DHCPv6 server would be located in the service provider core
   network, and the AR should provide a DHCPv6 relay agent.  This option
   is similar to what we do today in case of DHCPv4.

   In this scenario, a router and multiple BSs form an IPv6 subnet, and
   a single prefix is allocated to all the attached MSs.  All MSs
   attached to the same AR can be on the same IPv6 link.

   As for the prefix assignment, in the case of the shared IPv6 prefix
   link model, one or more IPv6 prefixes are assigned to the link and
   are hence shared by all the nodes that are attached to the link.  In
   the point-to-point link model, the AR assigns a unique prefix or a
   set of unique prefixes for each MS.  Prefix delegation can be
   required if networks exist behind an MS.

2.2.1.3.  IPv6 Transport

   In an IPv6 subnet, there are always two underlying links: one is the
   IEEE 802.16 wireless link between the MS and BS, and the other is a
   wired link between the BS and AR.

   IPv6 packets can be sent and received via the IP-specific part of the
   packet convergence sublayer.  The Packet CS is used for the transport
   of packet-based protocols, which include Ethernet and Internet
   Protocol (IPv4 and IPv6).  Note that in this scenario, IPv6 CS may be
   more appropriate than Ethernet CS to transport IPv6 packets, since
   there is some overhead of Ethernet CS (e.g., Ethernet header) under
   mobile access environments.  However, when PHS (Payload Header
   Suppression) is deployed, it mitigates this overhead through the
   compression of packet headers.  The details of IPv6 operations over
   the IP-specific part of the packet CS are defined in [RFC5121].

   Simple or complex network equipment may constitute the underlying
   wired network between the AR and the ER.  If the IP-aware equipment
   between the AR and the ER does not support IPv6, the service
   providers can deploy IPv6-in-IPv4 tunneling mechanisms to transport
   IPv6 packets between the AR and the ER.

   The service providers are deploying tunneling mechanisms to transport
   IPv6 over their existing IPv4 networks as well as deploying native
   IPv6 where possible.  Native IPv6 should be preferred over tunneling
   mechanisms as native IPv6 deployment options might be more scalable
   and provide the required service performance.  Tunneling mechanisms
   should only be used when native IPv6 deployment is not an option.
   This can be equally applied to other scenarios below (Section 2.2.2).




Shin, Ed., et al.            Informational                      [Page 6]

RFC 5181            IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios             May 2008


2.2.1.4.  Routing

   In general, the MS is configured with a default route that points to
   the AR.  Therefore, no routing protocols are needed on the MS.  The
   MS just sends to the AR using the default route.

   The AR can configure multiple links to the ER for network
   reliability.  The AR should support IPv6 routing protocols such as
   OSPFv3 [RFC2740] or Intermediate System to Intermediate System
   (IS-IS) for IPv6 when connected to the ER with multiple links.

   The ER runs the Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) such as OSPFv3 or
   IS-IS for IPv6 in the service provider network.  The routing
   information of the ER can be redistributed to the AR.  Prefix
   summarization should be done at the ER.

2.2.1.5.  Mobility

   There are two types of handovers for the IEEE 802.16e networks: link
   layer handover and IP layer handover.  In a link layer handover, BSs
   involved in the handover reside in the same IP subnet.  An MS only
   needs to reestablish a link layer connection with a new BS without
   changing its IP configuration, such as its IP address, default
   router, on-link prefix, etc.  The link layer handover in IEEE 802.16e
   is by nature a hard handover since the MS has to cut off the
   connection with the current BS at the beginning of the handover
   process and cannot resume communication with the new BS until the
   handover completes [IEEE802.16e].  In an IP layer handover, the BSs
   involved reside in different IP subnets, or in different networks.
   Thus, in an IP layer handover, an MS needs to establish both a new
   link layer connection, as in a link layer handover, and a new IP
   configuration to maintain connectivity.

   IP layer handover for MSs is handled by Mobile IPv6 [RFC3775].
   Mobile IPv6 defines that movement detection uses Neighbor
   Unreachability Detection to detect when the default router is no
   longer bidirectionally reachable, in which case the mobile node must
   discover a new default router.  Periodic Router Advertisements for
   reachability and movement detection may be unnecessary because the
   IEEE 802.16 MAC provides the reachability by its ranging procedure
   and the movement detection by the Handoff procedure.

   Mobile IPv6 alone will not solve the handover latency problem for the
   IEEE 802.16e networks.  To reduce or eliminate packet loss and to
   reduce the handover delay in Mobile IPv6, therefore, Fast Handover
   for Mobile IPv6 (FMIPv6) [RFC4068] can be deployed together with
   MIPv6.  To perform predictive packet forwarding, the FMIPv6's IP
   layer assumes the presence of handover-related triggers delivered by



Shin, Ed., et al.            Informational                      [Page 7]

RFC 5181            IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios             May 2008


   the IEEE 802.16 MAC layers.  Thus, there is a need for cross-layering
   design to support proper behavior of the FMIPv6 solution.  This issue
   is also discussed in [MIPSHOP-FH80216E].

   Also, [IEEE802.16g] defines L2 triggers for link status such as
   link-up, link-down, and handoff-start.  These L2 triggers may make
   the Mobile IPv6 or FMIPv6 procedure more efficient and faster.

   In addition, due to the problems caused by the existence of multiple
   convergence sublayers [RFC4840], the mobile access scenarios need
   solutions about how roaming will work when forced to move from one CS
   to another (e.g., IPv6 CS to Ethernet CS).  Note that, at this phase,
   this issue is the out of scope of this document.

2.2.2.  Fixed/Nomadic Deployment Scenarios

   The IEEE 802.16 access networks can provide plain Ethernet end-to-end
   connectivity.  This scenario represents a deployment model using
   Ethernet CS.  A wireless DSL deployment model is an example of a
   fixed/nomadic IPv6 deployment of IEEE 802.16.  Many wireless Internet
   service providers (wireless ISPs) have planned to use IEEE 802.16 for
   the purpose of high-quality broadband wireless services.  A company
   can use IEEE 802.16 to build up a mobile office.  Wireless Internet
   spreading through a campus or a cafe can also be implemented with it.

            +-----+                        +-----+    +-----+    ISP 1
            | SS1 |<-(16)+              +->| AR1 |----| ER1 |===>Network
            +-----+      |              |  +-----+    +-----+
            +-----+      |     +-----+  |
            | SS2 |<-(16)+-----| BS1 |--|
            +-----+            +-----+  |  +-----+    +-----+    ISP 2
                                        +->| AR2 |----| ER2 |===>Network
 +-----+    +-----+            +-----+  |  +-----+    +-----+
 |Hosts|<-->|SS/GW|<-(16)------| BS2 |--+
 +-----+    +-----+            +-----+
    This network
 behind SS may exist

                Figure 4: Fixed/Nomadic Deployment Scenario

   This scenario also represents IEEE 802.16 network deployment where a
   subnet consists of multiple MSs and multiple interfaces of the
   multiple BSs.  Multiple access routers can exist.  There exist
   multiple hosts behind an SS (networks behind an SS may exist).  When
   802.16 access networks are widely deployed as in a Wireless Local
   Area Network (WLAN), this case should also be considered.  The Hot-
   zone deployment model falls within this case.




Shin, Ed., et al.            Informational                      [Page 8]

RFC 5181            IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios             May 2008


   While Figure 4 illustrates a generic deployment scenario, the
   following, Figure 5, shows in more detail how an existing DSL ISP
   would integrate the 802.16 access network into its existing
   infrastructure.

 +-----+                        +---+      +-----+    +-----+    ISP 1
 | SS1 |<-(16)+                 |   |  +-->|BRAS |----| ER1 |===>Network
 +-----+      |                 |  b|  |   +-----+    +-----+
 +-----+      |     +-----+     |E r|  |
 | SS2 |<-(16)+-----| BS1 |-----|t i|  |
 +-----+            +-----+     |h d|--+
                                |  g|  |   +-----+    +-----+    ISP 2
 +-----+            +-----+     |  e|  +-->|BRAS |----| ER2 |===>Network
 | SS3 |<-(16)------| BS2 |-----|   |  |   +-----+    +-----+
 +-----+            +-----+     +---+  |
                                       |
 +-----+            +-----+            |
 | TE  |<-(DSL)-----|DSLAM|------------+
 +-----+            +-----+

    Figure 5: Integration of 802.16 Access into the DSL Infrastructure

   In this approach, the 802.16 BS is acting as a DSLAM (Digital
   Subscriber Line Access Multiplexer).  On the network side, the BS is
   connected to an Ethernet bridge, which can be separate equipment or
   integrated into the BRAS (Broadband Remote Access Server).

2.2.2.1.  IPv6-Related Infrastructure Changes

   IPv6 will be deployed in this scenario by upgrading the following
   devices to dual stack: MS, AR, ER, and the Ethernet bridge.  The BS
   should support IPv6 classifiers as specified in [IEEE802.16].

   The BRAS in Figure 5 is providing the functionality of the AR.  An
   Ethernet bridge is necessary for protecting the BRAS from 802.16 link
   layer peculiarities.  The Ethernet bridge relays all traffic received
   through the BS to its network side port(s) connected to the BRAS.
   Any traffic received from the BRAS is relayed to the appropriate BS.
   Since the 802.16 MAC layer has no native support for multicast (and
   broadcast) in the uplink direction, the Ethernet bridge will
   implement multicast (and broadcast) by relaying the multicast frame
   received from the MS to all of its ports.  The Ethernet bridge may
   also provide some IPv6-specific functions to increase link efficiency
   of the 802.16 radio link (see Section 2.2.2.3).







Shin, Ed., et al.            Informational                      [Page 9]

RFC 5181            IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios             May 2008


2.2.2.2.  Addressing

   One or more IPv6 prefixes can be shared to all the attached MSs.
   Prefix delegation can be required if networks exist behind the SS.

2.2.2.3.  IPv6 Transport

   Transmission of IPv6 over Ethernet CS follows [RFC2464] and does not
   introduce any changes to [RFC4861] and [RFC4862].  However, there are
   a few considerations in the viewpoint of operation, such as
   preventing periodic router advertisement messages from an access
   router and broadcast transmission, deciding path MTU size, and so on.
   The details about the considerations are described in [IP-ETHERNET].

2.2.2.4.  Routing

   In this scenario, IPv6 multi-homing considerations exist.  For
   example, if there exist two routers to support MSs, a default router
   must be selected.

   The Edge Router runs the IGP used in the SP network such as OSPFv3
   [RFC2740] or IS-IS for IPv6.  The connected prefixes have to be
   redistributed.  Prefix summarization should be done at the Edge
   Router.

2.2.2.5.  Mobility

   No mobility functions of Layer 2 and Layer 3 are supported in the
   fixed access scenario.  Like WLAN technology, however, nomadicity can
   be supported in the radio coverage without any mobility protocol.
   So, a user can access Internet nomadically in the coverage.

   Sometimes, service users can demand IP session continuity or home
   address reusability even in the nomadic environment.  In that case,
   Mobile IPv6 [RFC3775] may be used in this scenario even in the
   absence of Layer 2's mobility support.

2.3.  IPv6 Multicast

   [IP-ETHERNET] realizes IPv6 multicast support by Internet Group
   Management Protocol/Multicast Listener Discovery (IGMP/MLD) proxying
   [RFC4605] and IGMP/MLD snooping [RFC4541].  Additionally, it may be
   possible to efficiently implement multicast packet transmission among
   the multicast subscribers by means of IEEE 802.16 Multicast CIDs.
   However, such a protocol is not yet available and under development
   in WiMAX Forum.





Shin, Ed., et al.            Informational                     [Page 10]

RFC 5181            IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios             May 2008


2.4.  IPv6 QoS

   In IEEE 802.16 networks, a connection is unidirectional and has a
   Quality of Service (QoS) specification.  Each connection is
   associated with a single data service flow, and each service flow is
   associated with a set of QoS parameters in [IEEE802.16].  The QoS-
   related parameters are managed using the Dynamic Service Addition
   (DSA) and Dynamic Service Change (DSC) MAC management messages
   specified in [IEEE802.16].  The [IEEE802.16] provides QoS
   differentiation for the different types of applications by five
   scheduling services.  Four scheduling services are defined in 802.16:
   Unsolicited Grant Service (UGS), real-time Polling Service (rtPS),
   non-real-time Polling Service (nrtPS), and Best Effort (BE).  A fifth
   scheduling service is Extended Real-time Polling Service (ertPS),
   defined in [IEEE802.16e].  It is required to define IP layer quality
   of service mapping to MAC layer QoS types [IEEE802.16],
   [IEEE802.16e].

2.5.  IPv6 Security

   When initiating the connection, an MS is authenticated by the
   Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) server located at
   its service provider network.  To achieve that, the MS and the BS use
   Privacy Key Management [IEEE802.16],[IEEE802.16e], while the BS
   communicates with the AAA server using a AAA protocol.  Once the MS
   is authenticated with the AAA server, it can associate successfully
   with the BS and acquire an IPv6 address through stateless auto-
   configuration or DHCPv6.  Note that the initiation and authentication
   process is the same as the one used in IPv4.

2.6.  IPv6 Network Management

   [IEEE802.16f] includes the management information base for IEEE
   802.16 networks.  For IPv6 network management, the necessary
   instrumentation (such as MIBs, NetFlow Records, etc.) should be
   available.

   Upon entering the network, an MS is assigned three management
   connections in each direction.  These three connections reflect the
   three different QoS requirements used by different management levels.
   The first of these is the basic connection, which is used for the
   transfer of short, time-critical MAC management messages and radio
   link control (RLC) messages.  The primary management connection is
   used to transfer longer, more delay-tolerant messages such as those
   used for authentication and connection setup.  The secondary
   management connection is used for the transfer of standards-based





Shin, Ed., et al.            Informational                     [Page 11]

RFC 5181            IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios             May 2008


   management messages such as Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
   (DHCP), Trivial File Transfer Protocol (TFTP), and Simple Network
   Management Protocol (SNMP).

   IPv6-based IEEE 802.16 networks can be managed by IPv4 or IPv6 when
   network elements are implemented dual stack.  SNMP messages can be
   carried by either IPv4 or IPv6.

3.  Security Considerations

   This document provides a detailed description of various IPv6
   deployment scenarios and link models for IEEE 802.16-based networks,
   and as such does not introduce any new security threats.  No matter
   what the scenario applied is, the networks should employ the same
   link layer security mechanisms defined in [IEEE802.16e] and IPv6
   transition security considerations defined in [RFC4942].  However, as
   already described in [RFC4968], a shared prefix model-based mobile
   access deployment scenario may have security implications for
   protocols that are designed to work within the scope.  This is the
   concern for a shared prefix link model wherein private resources
   cannot be put onto a public 802.16-based network.  This may restrict
   the usage of a shared prefix model to enterprise environments.

4.   Acknowledgements

   This work extends v6ops work on [RFC4779].  We thank all the authors
   of the document.  Special thanks are due to Maximilian Riegel, Jonne
   Soininen, Brian E. Carpenter, Jim Bound, David Johnston, Basavaraj
   Patil, Byoung-Jo Kim, Eric Klein, Bruno Sousa, Jung-Mo Moon, Sangjin
   Jeong, and Jinhyeock Choi for extensive review of this document.  We
   acknowledge Dominik Kaspar for proofreading the document.

5.  References

5.1.  Normative References

   [RFC4861]           Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H.
                       Soliman, "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6
                       (IPv6)", RFC 4861, September 2007.

   [RFC4862]           Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6
                       Stateless Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862,
                       September 2007.








Shin, Ed., et al.            Informational                     [Page 12]

RFC 5181            IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios             May 2008


5.2.  Informative References

   [IEEE802.16]        "IEEE 802.16-2004, IEEE Standard for Local and
                       Metropolitan Area Networks, Part 16: Air
                       Interface for Fixed Broadband Wireless Access
                       Systems", October 2004.

   [IEEE802.16e]       "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area
                       Networks Part 16:  Air Interface for Fixed and
                       Mobile Broadband Wireless Access Systems
                       Amendment 2:  Physical and Medium Access Control
                       Layers for Combined Fixed and Mobile Operation in
                       Licensed Bands and Corrigendum 1", February 2006.

   [IEEE802.16f]       "Amendment to IEEE Standard for Local and
                       Metropolitan Area Networks,  Part 16: Air
                       Interface for Fixed Broadband Wireless Access
                       Systems - Management Information Base",
                       December 2005.

   [IEEE802.16g]       "Draft Amendment to IEEE Standard for Local and
                       Metropolitan Area Networks,  Part 16: Air
                       Interface for Fixed Broadband Wireless Access
                       Systems - Management Plane Procedures and
                       Services", January 2007.

   [IP-ETHERNET]       Jeon, H., Riegel, M., and S. Jeong, "Transmission
                       of IP over Ethernet over IEEE 802.16 Networks",
                       Work in Progress, April 2008.

   [MIPSHOP-FH80216E]  Jang, H., Jee, J., Han, Y., Park, S., and J. Cha,
                       "Mobile IPv6 Fast Handovers over IEEE 802.16e
                       Networks", Work in Progress, March 2008.

   [RFC2464]           Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over
                       Ethernet Networks", RFC 2464, December 1998.

   [RFC2740]           Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., and J. Moy, "OSPF for
                       IPv6", RFC 2740, December 1999.

   [RFC3314]           Wasserman, M., "Recommendations for IPv6 in Third
                       Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Standards",
                       RFC 3314, September 2002.

   [RFC3775]           Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility
                       Support in IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004.





Shin, Ed., et al.            Informational                     [Page 13]

RFC 5181            IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios             May 2008


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

   [RFC4541]           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.

   [RFC4605]           Fenner, B., He, H., Haberman, B., and H. Sandick,
                       "Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) /
                       Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD)-Based
                       Multicast Forwarding ("IGMP/MLD Proxying")",
                       RFC 4605, August 2006.

   [RFC4779]           Asadullah, S., Ahmed, A., Popoviciu, C., Savola,
                       P., and J. Palet, "ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios
                       in Broadband Access Networks", RFC 4779,
                       January 2007.

   [RFC4840]           Aboba, B., Davies, E., and D. Thaler, "Multiple
                       Encapsulation Methods Considered Harmful",
                       RFC 4840, April 2007.

   [RFC4942]           Davies, E., Krishnan, S., and P. Savola, "IPv6
                       Transition/Co-existence Security Considerations",
                       RFC 4942, September 2007.

   [RFC4968]           Madanapalli, S., "Analysis of IPv6 Link Models
                       for 802.16 Based Networks", RFC 4968,
                       August 2007.

   [RFC5121]           Patil, B., Xia, F., Sarikaya, B., Choi, JH., and
                       S. Madanapalli, "Transmission of IPv6 via the
                       IPv6 Convergence Sublayer over IEEE 802.16
                       Networks", RFC 5121, February 2008.

   [RFC5154]           Jee, J., Madanapalli, S., and J. Mandin, "IP over
                       IEEE 802.16 Problem Statement and Goals",
                       RFC 5154, April 2008.












Shin, Ed., et al.            Informational                     [Page 14]

RFC 5181            IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios             May 2008


Authors' Addresses

   Myung-Ki Shin
   ETRI
   161 Gajeong-dong Yuseng-gu
   Daejeon, 305-350
   Korea

   Phone: +82 42 860 4847
   EMail: myungki.shin@gmail.com


   Youn-Hee Han
   KUT
   Gajeon-Ri 307 Byeongcheon-Myeon
   Cheonan-Si Chungnam Province, 330-708
   Korea

   EMail: yhhan@kut.ac.kr


   Sang-Eon Kim
   KT
   17 Woomyeon-dong, Seocho-gu
   Seoul, 137-791
   Korea

   EMail: sekim@kt.com


   Domagoj Premec
   Siemens Mobile
   Heinzelova 70a
   10010 Zagreb
   Croatia

   EMail: domagoj.premec@siemens.com














Shin, Ed., et al.            Informational                     [Page 15]

RFC 5181            IPv6 over IEEE 802.16 Scenarios             May 2008


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

   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.












Shin, Ed., et al.            Informational                     [Page 16]

