2.3.1 IPv6 over IEEE 802.16(e) Networks (16ng)

NOTE: This charter is a snapshot of the 64th IETF Meeting in Vancouver, British Columbia Canada. It may now be out-of-date.

Last Modified: 2005-10-04

Chair(s):

Gabriel Montenegro <gabriel_montenegro_2000@yahoo.com>
Soohong Park <soohong.park@samsung.com>

Internet Area Director(s):

Mark Townsley <townsley@cisco.com>
Margaret Wasserman <margaret@thingmagic.com>

Internet Area Advisor:

Margaret Wasserman <margaret@thingmagic.com>

Mailing Lists:

General Discussion:
To Subscribe:
Archive:

Description of Working Group:

Broadband Wireless Access networks address the inadequacies of low
bandwidth wireless communication for user requirements such as high
quality data/voice service, fast mobility, wide coverage, etc. The
IEEE 802.16 Working Group on Broadband Wireless Access Standards
develops standards and recommended practices to support the
development and deployment of broadband Wireless Metropolitan Area
Networks. Additionally, IEEE 802.16e is an amendment that adds support
for mobility over the base IEEE 802.16 specification.

Recently, the WiMAX Forum, and, in particular, its NWG (Network Working
Group) is defining the IEEE 802.16(e) network architecture (e.g., IPv4,
IPv6, Mobility, Interworking with different networks, AAA, etc). The
NWG is thus taking on work at layers above those defined by the IEEE
802 standards (typically limited to the physical and link layers
only). Similarly, WiBro (Wireless Broadband), a Korean effort which
focuses on the 2.3 GHz spectrum band, is also based on the IEEE
802.16e specification.

IEEE 802.16(e) is different from existing wireless access technologies
such as IEEE 802.11 or 3G. Accordingly, while 802.16 defines the
encapsulation of an IP datagram in an IEEE 802.16 MAC payload,
complete description of IP operation is not present and can benefit
from IETF input and specification.

For example: immediately subsequent to network entry an 802.16
subscriber station has no capability whatsoever for data (as opposed
to management) connectivity. The criteria by which the Base Station
(or other headend elements) set up the 802.16 MAC connections for data
transport is not part of the 802.16 standard and depends on the type
of data services being offered (ie. the set up of transport
connections will be different for IPv4 and IPv6 services).
Aditionally - as 802.16 is a point-to-multipoint network - an 802.16
subscriber station is not capable of broadcasting (eg. for neighbor
discovery) or direct communication to the other nodes in the network.
While the built-in LAN emulation feature of 802.16 ("802.3 Convergence
Sublayer") rectifies this, it may involve additional packet overhead.
As for fast mobility, the characteristics of IEEE 802.16e link-layer
operation may require an amendment to the Fast Handover Mobile IPv6
scheme (RFC 4068), something which may be pursued in the MIPSHOP WG.

The principal objective of the 16ng BoF is to identify what limitations
and considerations apply to IPv6 adoption over IEEE 802.16(e), and to
propose available solutions. The working group may issue
recommendations to IEEE 802.16(e) suggesting protocol modifications
for better IP support.

In 2006, WiBro deployment will begin, and the WiMAX Forum is slated to
specify IPv6 operation over IEEE 802.16(e) in 2006. Accordingly, the
working group will work and coordinate with the WiMAX Forum and with
the WiBro efforts.

Goals and Milestones:

No Current Internet-Drafts

No Request For Comments

Current Meeting Report

 
16NG BoF

05 mins: Agenda bashing, chairs (5 mins)

  Chair: agenda bashing, blue sheets, jabber scribe...

15 mins: An Introduction to IEEE 802.16(e), H. Tschofenig

15 mins: WiMAX Forum NWG Overview, P. Yegani

05 mins: IEEE 802.16 and NETLMM Overview, J. Kempf

05 mins: IPv6 depolyment over IEEE 802.16, Y. Kim

  IPv4 WiBro is service starts in 2006. IPv6 will be within a year afterwards. 
  There are still unclear implications of IP over WiBro, and IETF 
  efforts will be a good reference for WiBro deployment.

  Data rates and distances for WiBro ? 
  WiBro1: 2 Mbps, 60 Km/h, cells of 1~2 Km radio, micro mobility 
  is an issue
  Wibro2: 100Mbps, up to 100 Km/s
  Bernard: which CS ?
  IP CS

10 mins: Transport of IP over IEEE 802.16, J. Mandin

  Lots of discussion of how Ethernet CS is simpler to understand

10 mins: Scenarios and Considerations of IPv6 in IEEE 802.16, M. Shin

  Dino Farinacci: one suggestion: define an IP MULTICAST CS
  Bernard: if ETH CS is not used, this results in very complex stuff in which 
  IPv6 won't work

10 mins: IPv6 NDP Implications in IEEE 802.16, S. Madanapalli

  Margaret, Eric and others: some discussion on IPv6 ND, the same problems
  may exist for IPv4 ARP as well. 

10 mins: Fast Mobile IP Handovers over IEEE 802.16e, R. Koodli

  Mobility is not among the list of 16ng deliverables. 16ng will coordinate 
  with related WGs such as MIPSHOP (FMIP6 over 802.16e) and MIP4 (FMIP4 over 802.16e). 

05 mins: 16ng problem statements, J. Jee

  Current problem statements are as follows;

  IEEE 802.16(e) is different from 802.11 or 3G networks.
  Transmission of IPv6 packets over 802.16(e) is not specified yet.
  (PMTU, CID, NDP, Multicasting, etc)
  FMIP6 over IEEE 802.16e because of 802.16e link characteristics.
  IP multicasting and MBS interworking.

05 mins: Overview of proposed charter, chairs

25 mins: Charter discussion, chairs
    
  Dino: suggestions for charter to include L3 mcast issues like UDP mcast, 
  IGMP suppression, 
  Erik: include possibility of mcast CS
  Raj: do it in ipv6 WG 

  IPv4/v6 Coordination should be done in this group. And IP multicast 
  should be part of the charter. IEEE 802.16 IP CS and Ethernet CS are 
  in scope for this group as they are covered by IP adoption. To sense what's 
  happening on WiMAX, relevant documents should be accessible by IETF folks. 
  802.16-2004 standard is accessible, but not WiMAX.

  Margaret then carried out a series of straw polls 

  Should the IETF have a WG in this area?
	YES: 56
	 NO: 2

  How many would have time to work on this?
	20, above

  Is charter ok? 
	Yes: 21 
	 No: 18
	 
  Both IP CS and Ethernet CS are considered ?
	YES	 

  Should this group work on IPv4 in addition to IPv6?  
	Yes: 14 
	 No: 8

  Mark Townsley then added another question to the straw poll:

  Of the people who raised their hand for the WG, how many would be active: LOTS! 
  (no number available)
  How many are also in 802.16?: 0
  (Perhaps nobody was here because of the simultaneous WiMax meeting in Beijing.) 

  How many participate in Wibro or Wimax?: 
	In WiMax: 5-7
 	In WiBro: 5+11=16

BOF closed

Slides

Agenda
WiMAX Overview
NETLMM
IPv6 Deployment KT
802.16 CS and IPCS
802.16 Ethernet CS
Scenario and Consideration of IPv6 over 802.16
IPv6 NDP Implication
FMIP over 802.16
16ng Problem Statements
IEEE 802.16 Overview