idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-capwap-problem-statement-01.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Looks like you're using RFC 2026 boilerplate. This must be updated to follow RFC 3978/3979, as updated by RFC 4748. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) ** The document seems to lack separate sections for Informative/Normative References. All references will be assumed normative when checking for downward references. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (May 10, 2004) is 7291 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) No issues found here. Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 CAPWAP Working Group P. Calhoun 3 Internet-Draft B. O'Hara 4 Expires: November 8, 2004 Airespace 5 J. Kempf 6 Docomo Labs USA 7 May 10, 2004 9 CAPWAP Problem Statement 10 draft-ietf-capwap-problem-statement-01 12 Status of this Memo 14 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with 15 all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 17 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 18 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 19 other groups may also distribute working documents as 20 Internet-Drafts. 22 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 23 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 24 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 25 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 27 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 28 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 30 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 31 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 33 This Internet-Draft will expire on November 8, 2004. 35 Copyright Notice 37 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. 39 Abstract 41 This document describes the Configuration and Provisioning for 42 Wireless Access Points (CAPWAP) problem statement. 44 Table of Contents 46 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 47 2. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 48 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 49 4. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 50 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 51 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 8 53 1. Introduction 55 With the approval of the 802.11 standard by the IEEE in 1997, 56 wireless LANs (WLANs) began a slow entry into enterprise networks. 57 The limited data rates of the original 802.11 standard, only 1- and 58 2-Mbps, limited widespread adoption of the technology. 802.11 found 59 wide deployment in vertical applications, such as inventory 60 management, point of sale, and transportation management. Pioneering 61 enterprises began to deploy 802.11, mostly for experimentation. 63 In 1999, the IEEE approved the 802.11a and 802.11b amendments to the 64 base standard, increasing the available data rate to 54- and 11-Mbps, 65 respectively, and expanding to a new radio band. This removed one of 66 the significant factors holding back adoption of 802.11 in large, 67 enterprise networks. These large deployments were bound by the 68 definition and functionality of an 802.11 Access Point (AP), as 69 described in the 802.11 standard. The techniques required extensive 70 use of layer 2 bridging and widespread VLANs to ensure the proper 71 operation of higher layer protocols. Deployments of 802.11 WLANs as 72 large as several thousand APs have been described. 74 Large deployments of 802.11 WLANs have introduced several problems 75 that require solutions. The limitations on the scalability of 76 bridging should come as no suprise to the networking community, since 77 similar limitations arose in the early 1980's for wired network 78 bridging during the expansion and interconnection of wired local area 79 networks. This document will describe the problems introduced by the 80 large scale deployment of 802.11 WLANs in enterprise networks. 82 2. Problem Statement 84 The first problem introduced by large WLAN deployments is that each 85 AP is an IP-addressable device requiring management, monitoring, and 86 control. Deployment of a large WLAN will typically double the number 87 of network infrastructure devices that require management, over the 88 devices in the network prior to the addition of the WLAN. This 89 presents a significant additional burden to the network 90 administration resources and is often a hurdle to adoption of 91 wireless technologies, particularly because the configuration of each 92 access point is nearly identical to the next. This near-sameness of 93 configuration from one AP to the next often leads to misconfiguration 94 and improper operation of the WLAN. 96 A second problem introduced by large WLAN deployments is distributing 97 and maintaining a consistent configuration throughout the entire set 98 of access points in the WLAN. Access point configuration consists of 99 both long-term static information, such as addressing and hardware 100 settings, and more dynamic provisioning information, such as 101 individual WLAN settings and security parameters. Large WLAN 102 installations that need to update dyanmic provisioning information in 103 all the APs in the WLAN require a prolonged phase-over time, while 104 each AP is updated and the WLAN does not have a single, consistent, 105 configuration. 107 A third problem introduced by large WLAN deployments is the 108 difficulty in dealing effectively with the dynamic nature of the WLAN 109 medium, itself. Due to the shared nature of the wireless medium, 110 shared with APs in the same WLAN, with APs in other WLANs, and with 111 devices that are not APs at all, parameters controlling the wireless 112 medium on each AP must be monitored frequently and modified in a 113 coordinated fashion to maximize performance for the WLAN to utilize 114 the wireless medium efficiently. This must be coordinated among all 115 the access points, to minimize the interference of one access point 116 with its neighbors. Manually monitoring these metrics and 117 determining a new, optimum configuration for the parameters related 118 to the wireless medium is a task that takes a significant amount of 119 time and effort. 121 A fourth problem introduced by large WLAN deployments is securing 122 access to the network and preventing installation of unauthorized 123 access points. Access points are often difficult to physically 124 secure, since their location must often be outside of a locked 125 network closet or server room. Theft of an access point, with its 126 embedded secrets, allows the thief to obtain access to the resources 127 secured by those secrets. 129 Recently, multiple vendors have begun offering proprietary solutions 130 that combine aspects of network switching, centralized control and 131 management, and distributed wireless access in a variety of new 132 architectures to adress some, or all, of the above mentioned 133 problems. Since interoperable solutions allow enterprises and 134 service providers a broader choice, a standardized, interoperable 135 interface between access points and a centralized controller 136 addressing the above mentioned problems seems desirable. 138 The physical portions of this network system, in currently fielded 139 devices, are one or more 802.11 access points (APs) and one or more 140 central control devices, alternatively described as controllers (or 141 access controllers, ACs). Ideally, a network designer would be able 142 to choose one or more vendors for the APs and one or more vendors for 143 the central control devices in sufficient numbers to design a network 144 with 802.11 wireless access to meet the designer's requirements. 146 Current implementations are proprietary and not interoperable. This 147 is due to a number of factors, including the disparate architectural 148 choices made by the various manufacturers. A taxonomy of the 149 architectures employed in the existing products in the market will 150 provide the basis of an output document to be provided to the IEEE 151 802.11 Working Group. This taxonomy will be utilized by the 802.11 152 Working Group as input to their task of defining the functional 153 architecture of an access point. The functional architecture, 154 including description of detailed functional blocks, interfaces, and 155 information flow, will be reviewed by CAPWAP to determine if further 156 work is needed to apply or develop standard protocols providing for 157 multi-vendor interoperable implementations of WLANs built from 158 devices that adhere to the newly appearing hierarchical architecture 159 utilizing a functional split between an access point and an access 160 controller. 162 3. Security Considerations 164 The devices used in WLANs control the access to networks and provide 165 for the delivery of packets between hosts using the WLAN and other 166 hosts on the WLAN or elsewhere on the internet. The functions for 167 control and provisioning of wireless access points, therefore require 168 protection to prevent misuse of the devices. 170 Requirements for central management, monitoring, and control of 171 wireless access points that should be addressed include 172 confidentiality, integrity, and authenticity. Once an AP and AC have 173 been authenticated to each other, it may not be sufficient that a 174 single level of authorization allows monitoring, as well as control 175 and provisioning. The requirement for more than a single level of 176 authorization should be determined. Physical security should also be 177 addressed, for those devices that contain security parameters that 178 are sensitive and might compromise the security of the system, if 179 those parameters were to fall into the hands of an attacker. 181 4 References 183 Authors' Addresses 185 Pat R. Calhoun 186 Airespace 187 110 Nortech Parkway 188 San Jose, CA 95134 190 Phone: +1 408-635-2000 191 EMail: pcalhoun@airespace.com 193 Bob O'Hara 194 Airespace 195 110 Nortech Parkway 196 San Jose, CA 95134 198 Phone: +1 408-635-2025 199 EMail: bob@airespace.com 200 James Kempf 201 Docomo Labs USA 202 181 Metro Drive, Suite 300 203 San Jose, CA 95110 205 Phone: +1 408 451 4711 206 EMail: kempf@docomolabs-usa.com 208 Intellectual Property Statement 210 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 211 intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to 212 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 213 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 214 might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it 215 has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the 216 IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and 217 standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of 218 claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of 219 licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to 220 obtain a general license or permission for the use of such 221 proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can 222 be obtained from the IETF Secretariat. 224 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 225 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 226 rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice 227 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive 228 Director. 230 Full Copyright Statement 232 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. 234 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to 235 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it 236 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published 237 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any 238 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are 239 included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this 240 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing 241 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other 242 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of 243 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for 244 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be 245 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than 246 English. 248 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be 249 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees. 251 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an 252 "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING 253 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING 254 BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION 255 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF 256 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 258 Acknowledgment 260 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the 261 Internet Society.