idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-41.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == The expression 'MAY NOT', while looking like RFC 2119 requirements text, is not defined in RFC 2119, and should not be used. Consider using 'MUST NOT' instead (if that is what you mean). Found 'MAY NOT' in this paragraph: -31: filled in the section titled "Pseudonym Handling"; removed a 'MAY NOT' phrase about possibility of having other prefix than the LL on the link between cars; shortened and improved the paragraph about Mobile IPv6, now with DNAv6; improved the ND text about ND retransmissions with relationship to packet loss; changed the title of an appendix from 'EPD' to 'Protocol Layering'; improved the 'Aspects introduced by OCB' appendix with a few phrases about the channel use and references. -- The document date (April 16, 2019) is 1836 days in the past. Is this intentional? -- Found something which looks like a code comment -- if you have code sections in the document, please surround them with '' and '' lines. Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'RFC4862' is mentioned on line 1882, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'RFC 4191' is mentioned on line 1943, but not defined ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2818 (Obsoleted by RFC 9110) ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 3753 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 5889 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 7042 (Obsoleted by RFC 9542) ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 7721 == Outdated reference: A later version (-30) exists of draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-08 == Outdated reference: A later version (-15) exists of draft-ietf-mboned-ieee802-mcast-problems-04 Summary: 5 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 6 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 IPWAVE Working Group A. Petrescu 3 Internet-Draft CEA, LIST 4 Intended status: Standards Track N. Benamar 5 Expires: October 18, 2019 Moulay Ismail University 6 J. Haerri 7 Eurecom 8 J. Lee 9 Sangmyung University 10 T. Ernst 11 YoGoKo 12 April 16, 2019 14 Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.11 Networks operating in mode 15 Outside the Context of a Basic Service Set (IPv6-over-80211-OCB) 16 draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-41 18 Abstract 20 In order to transmit IPv6 packets on IEEE 802.11 networks running 21 outside the context of a basic service set (OCB, earlier "802.11p") 22 there is a need to define a few parameters such as the supported 23 Maximum Transmission Unit size on the 802.11-OCB link, the header 24 format preceding the IPv6 header, the Type value within it, and 25 others. This document describes these parameters for IPv6 and IEEE 26 802.11-OCB networks; it portrays the layering of IPv6 on 802.11-OCB 27 similarly to other known 802.11 and Ethernet layers - by using an 28 Ethernet Adaptation Layer. 30 Status of This Memo 32 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 33 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 35 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 36 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 37 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 38 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 40 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 41 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 42 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 43 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 45 This Internet-Draft will expire on October 18, 2019. 47 Copyright Notice 49 Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 50 document authors. All rights reserved. 52 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 53 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 54 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 55 publication of this document. Please review these documents 56 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 57 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 58 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 59 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 60 described in the Simplified BSD License. 62 Table of Contents 64 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 65 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 66 3. Communication Scenarios where IEEE 802.11-OCB Links are Used 4 67 4. IPv6 over 802.11-OCB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 68 4.1. Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 69 4.2. Frame Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 70 4.2.1. Ethernet Adaptation Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 71 4.3. Link-Local Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 72 4.4. Stateless Autoconfiguration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 73 4.5. Address Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 74 4.5.1. Address Mapping -- Unicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 75 4.5.2. Address Mapping -- Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 76 4.6. Subnet Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 77 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 78 5.1. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 79 5.1.1. Privacy Risks of Meaningful info in Interface IDs . . 10 80 5.2. MAC Address and Interface ID Generation . . . . . . . . . 11 81 5.3. Pseudonym Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 82 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 83 7. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 84 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 85 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 86 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 87 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 88 Appendix A. ChangeLog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 89 Appendix B. 802.11p . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 90 Appendix C. Aspects introduced by the OCB mode to 802.11 . . . . 28 91 Appendix D. Changes Needed on a software driver 802.11a to 92 become a 802.11-OCB driver . . . 32 93 Appendix E. Protocol Layering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 94 Appendix F. Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 95 Appendix G. IEEE 802.11 Messages Transmitted in OCB mode . . . . 34 96 Appendix H. Examples of Packet Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 97 H.1. Capture in Monitor Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 98 H.2. Capture in Normal Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 99 Appendix I. Extra Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 100 Appendix J. Neighbor Discovery (ND) Potential Issues in Wireless 101 Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 102 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 104 1. Introduction 106 This document describes the transmission of IPv6 packets on IEEE Std 107 802.11-OCB networks [IEEE-802.11-2016] (a.k.a "802.11p" see 108 Appendix B, Appendix C and Appendix D). This involves the layering 109 of IPv6 networking on top of the IEEE 802.11 MAC layer, with an LLC 110 layer. Compared to running IPv6 over the Ethernet MAC layer, there 111 is no modification expected to IEEE Std 802.11 MAC and Logical Link 112 sublayers: IPv6 works fine directly over 802.11-OCB too, with an LLC 113 layer. 115 The IPv6 network layer operates on 802.11-OCB in the same manner as 116 operating on Ethernet, but there are two kinds of exceptions: 118 o Exceptions due to different operation of IPv6 network layer on 119 802.11 than on Ethernet. To satisfy these exceptions, this 120 document describes an Ethernet Adaptation Layer between Ethernet 121 headers and 802.11 headers. The Ethernet Adaptation Layer is 122 described Section 4.2.1. The operation of IP on Ethernet is 123 described in [RFC1042], [RFC2464] . 125 o Exceptions due to the OCB nature of 802.11-OCB compared to 802.11. 126 This has impacts on security, privacy, subnet structure and 127 movement detection. For security and privacy recommendations see 128 Section 5 and Section 4.4. The subnet structure is described in 129 Section 4.6. The movement detection on OCB links is not described 130 in this document. 132 In the published literature, many documents describe aspects and 133 problems related to running IPv6 over 802.11-OCB: 134 [I-D.ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking]. 136 2. Terminology 138 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 139 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 140 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 141 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 142 capitals, as shown here. 144 IP-OBU (Internet Protocol On-Board Unit): an IP-OBU is a computer 145 situated in a vehicle such as an automobile, bicycle, or similar. It 146 has at least one IP interface that runs in mode OCB of 802.11, and 147 that has an "OBU" transceiver. See the definition of the term "OBU" 148 in section Appendix I. 150 IP-RSU (IP Road-Side Unit): an IP-RSU is situated along the road. It 151 has at least two distinct IP-enabled interfaces; the wireless PHY/MAC 152 layer of at least one of its IP-enabled interfaces is configured to 153 operate in 802.11-OCB mode. An IP-RSU communicates with the IP-OBU 154 in the vehicle over 802.11 wireless link operating in OCB mode. An 155 IP-RSU is similar to an Access Network Router (ANR) defined in 156 [RFC3753], and a Wireless Termination Point (WTP) defined in 157 [RFC5415]. 159 OCB (outside the context of a basic service set - BSS): A mode of 160 operation in which a STA is not a member of a BSS and does not 161 utilize IEEE Std 802.11 authentication, association, or data 162 confidentiality. 164 802.11-OCB: mode specified in IEEE Std 802.11-2016 when the MIB 165 attribute dot11OCBActivited is true. Note: compliance with standards 166 and regulations set in different countries when using the 5.9GHz 167 frequency band is required. 169 3. Communication Scenarios where IEEE 802.11-OCB Links are Used 171 The IEEE 802.11-OCB Networks are used for vehicular communications, 172 as 'Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments'. The IP communication 173 scenarios for these environments have been described in several 174 documents; in particular, we refer the reader to 175 [I-D.ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking], that lists some scenarios and 176 requirements for IP in Intelligent Transportation Systems. 178 The link model is the following: STA --- 802.11-OCB --- STA. In 179 vehicular networks, STAs can be IP-RSUs and/or IP-OBUs. While 180 802.11-OCB is clearly specified, and the use of IPv6 over such link 181 is not radically new, the operating environment (vehicular networks) 182 brings in new perspectives. 184 4. IPv6 over 802.11-OCB 186 4.1. Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU) 188 The default MTU for IP packets on 802.11-OCB MUST be 1500 octets. It 189 is the same value as IPv6 packets on Ethernet links, as specified in 190 [RFC2464]. This value of the MTU respects the recommendation that 191 every link on the Internet must have a minimum MTU of 1280 octets 192 (stated in [RFC8200], and the recommendations therein, especially 193 with respect to fragmentation). 195 4.2. Frame Format 197 IP packets MUST be transmitted over 802.11-OCB media as QoS Data 198 frames whose format is specified in IEEE 802.11(TM) -2016 199 [IEEE-802.11-2016]. 201 The IPv6 packet transmitted on 802.11-OCB MUST be immediately 202 preceded by a Logical Link Control (LLC) header and an 802.11 header. 203 In the LLC header, and in accordance with the EtherType Protocol 204 Discrimination (EPD, see Appendix E), the value of the Type field 205 MUST be set to 0x86DD (IPv6). In the 802.11 header, the value of the 206 Subtype sub-field in the Frame Control field MUST be set to 8 (i.e. 207 'QoS Data'); the value of the Traffic Identifier (TID) sub-field of 208 the QoS Control field of the 802.11 header MUST be set to binary 001 209 (i.e. User Priority 'Background', QoS Access Category 'AC_BK'). 211 To simplify the Application Programming Interface (API) between the 212 operating system and the 802.11-OCB media, device drivers MAY 213 implement an Ethernet Adaptation Layer that translates Ethernet II 214 frames to the 802.11 format and vice versa. An Ethernet Adaptation 215 Layer is described in Section 4.2.1. 217 4.2.1. Ethernet Adaptation Layer 219 An 'adaptation' layer is inserted between a MAC layer and the 220 Networking layer. This is used to transform some parameters between 221 their form expected by the IP stack and the form provided by the MAC 222 layer. 224 An Ethernet Adaptation Layer makes an 802.11 MAC look to IP 225 Networking layer as a more traditional Ethernet layer. At reception, 226 this layer takes as input the IEEE 802.11 header and the Logical-Link 227 Layer Control Header and produces an Ethernet II Header. At sending, 228 the reverse operation is performed. 230 The operation of the Ethernet Adaptation Layer is depicted by the 231 double arrow in Figure 1. 233 +------------------+------------+-------------+---------+-----------+ 234 | 802.11 header | LLC Header | IPv6 Header | Payload |.11 Trailer| 235 +------------------+------------+-------------+---------+-----------+ 236 \ / \ / 237 --------------------------- -------- 238 \---------------------------------------------/ 239 ^ 240 | 241 802.11-to-Ethernet Adaptation Layer 242 | 243 v 244 +---------------------+-------------+---------+ 245 | Ethernet II Header | IPv6 Header | Payload | 246 +---------------------+-------------+---------+ 248 Figure 1: Operation of the Ethernet Adaptation Layer 250 The Receiver and Transmitter Address fields in the 802.11 header MUST 251 contain the same values as the Destination and the Source Address 252 fields in the Ethernet II Header, respectively. The value of the 253 Type field in the LLC Header MUST be the same as the value of the 254 Type field in the Ethernet II Header. That value MUST be set to 255 0x86DD (IPv6). 257 The ".11 Trailer" contains solely a 4-byte Frame Check Sequence. 259 The placement of IPv6 networking layer on Ethernet Adaptation Layer 260 is illustrated in Figure 2. 262 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 263 | IPv6 | 264 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 265 | Ethernet Adaptation Layer | 266 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 267 | 802.11 MAC | 268 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 269 | 802.11 PHY | 270 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 272 Figure 2: Ethernet Adaptation Layer stacked with other layers 274 (in the above figure, a 802.11 profile is represented; this is used 275 also for 802.11-OCB profile.) 277 4.3. Link-Local Addresses 279 There are several types of IPv6 addresses [RFC4291], [RFC4193], that 280 MAY be assigned to an 802.11-OCB interface. Among these types of 281 addresses only the IPv6 link-local addresses MAY be formed using an 282 EUI-64 identifier, in particular during transition time. 284 If the IPv6 link-local address is formed using an EUI-64 identifier, 285 then the mechanism of forming that address is the same mechanism as 286 used to form an IPv6 link-local address on Ethernet links. This 287 mechanism is described in section 5 of [RFC2464]. 289 4.4. Stateless Autoconfiguration 291 There are several types of IPv6 addresses [RFC4291], [RFC4193], that 292 MAY be assigned to an 802.11-OCB interface. This section describes 293 the formation of Interface Identifiers for IPv6 addresses of type 294 'Global' or 'Unique Local'. For Interface Identifiers for IPv6 295 address of type 'Link-Local' see Section 4.3. 297 The Interface Identifier for an 802.11-OCB interface is formed using 298 the same rules as the Interface Identifier for an Ethernet interface; 299 the RECOMMENDED method for forming stable Interface Identifiers 300 (IIDs) is described in [RFC8064]. The method of forming IIDs 301 described in section 4 of [RFC2464] MAY be used during transition 302 time, in particular for IPv6 link-local addresses. 304 The bits in the Interface Identifier have no generic meaning and the 305 identifier should be treated as an opaque value. The bits 306 'Universal' and 'Group' in the identifier of an 802.11-OCB interface 307 are significant, as this is an IEEE link-layer address. The details 308 of this significance are described in [RFC7136]. 310 Semantically opaque Interface Identifiers, instead of meaningful 311 Interface Identifiers derived from a valid and meaningful MAC address 312 ([RFC2464], section 4), help avoid certain privacy risks (see the 313 risks mentioned in Section 5.1.1). If semantically opaque Interface 314 Identifiers are needed, they MAY be generated using the method for 315 generating semantically opaque Interface Identifiers with IPv6 316 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration given in [RFC7217]. Typically, 317 an opaque Interface Identifier is formed starting from identifiers 318 different than the MAC addresses, and from cryptographically strong 319 material. Thus, privacy sensitive information is absent from 320 Interface IDs, because it is impossible to calculate back the initial 321 value from which the Interface ID was first generated (intuitively, 322 it is as hard as mentally finding the square root of a number, and as 323 impossible as trying to use computers to identify quickly whether a 324 large number is prime). 326 Some applications that use IPv6 packets on 802.11-OCB links (among 327 other link types) may benefit from IPv6 addresses whose Interface 328 Identifiers don't change too often. It is RECOMMENDED to use the 329 mechanisms described in RFC 7217 to permit the use of Stable 330 Interface Identifiers that do not change within one subnet prefix. A 331 possible source for the Net-Iface Parameter is a virtual interface 332 name, or logical interface name, that is decided by a local 333 administrator. 335 4.5. Address Mapping 337 Unicast and multicast address mapping MUST follow the procedures 338 specified for Ethernet interfaces in sections 6 and 7 of [RFC2464]. 340 4.5.1. Address Mapping -- Unicast 342 The procedure for mapping IPv6 unicast addresses into Ethernet link- 343 layer addresses is described in [RFC4861]. 345 4.5.2. Address Mapping -- Multicast 347 The multicast address mapping is performed according to the method 348 specified in section 7 of [RFC2464]. The meaning of the value "3333" 349 mentioned in that section 7 of [RFC2464] is defined in section 2.3.1 350 of [RFC7042]. 352 Transmitting IPv6 packets to multicast destinations over 802.11 links 353 proved to have some performance issues 354 [I-D.ietf-mboned-ieee802-mcast-problems]. These issues may be 355 exacerbated in OCB mode. Solutions for these problems SHOULD 356 consider the OCB mode of operation. 358 4.6. Subnet Structure 360 A subnet is formed by the external 802.11-OCB interfaces of vehicles 361 that are in close range (not by their in-vehicle interfaces). A 362 Prefix List conceptual data structure ([RFC4861] section 5.1) is 363 maintained for each 802.11-OCB interface. 365 All nodes in the subnet MUST be able to communicate directly using 366 their link-local unicast addresses. 368 The structure of this subnet is ephemeral, in that it is strongly 369 influenced by the mobility of vehicles: the hidden terminal effects 370 appear; the 802.11 networks in OCB mode may be considered as 'ad-hoc' 371 networks with an addressing model as described in [RFC5889]. On 372 another hand, the structure of the internal subnets in each car is 373 relatively stable. 375 As recommended in [RFC5889], when the timing requirements are very 376 strict (e.g. fast drive through IP-RSU coverage), no on-link subnet 377 prefix should be configured on an 802.11-OCB interface. In such 378 cases, the exclusive use of IPv6 link-local addresses is RECOMMENDED. 380 Additionally, even if the timing requirements are not very strict 381 (e.g. the moving subnet formed by two following vehicles is stable, a 382 fixed IP-RSU is absent), the subnet is disconnected from the Internet 383 (a default route is absent), and the addressing peers are equally 384 qualified (impossible to determine that some vehicle owns and 385 distributes addresses to others) the use of link-local addresses is 386 RECOMMENDED. 388 The baseline Neighbor Discovery protocol (ND) [RFC4861] MUST be used 389 over 802.11-OCB links. Transmitting ND packets may prove to have 390 some performance issues. These issues may be exacerbated in OCB 391 mode. Solutions for these problems SHOULD consider the OCB mode of 392 operation. The best of current knowledge indicates the kinds of 393 issues that may arise with ND in OCB mode; they are described in 394 Appendix J. 396 Protocols like Mobile IPv6 [RFC6275] and DNAv6 [RFC6059], which 397 depend on timely movement detection, might need additional tuning 398 work to handle the lack of link-layer notifications during handover. 399 This is for further study. 401 5. Security Considerations 403 Any security mechanism at the IP layer or above that may be carried 404 out for the general case of IPv6 may also be carried out for IPv6 405 operating over 802.11-OCB. 407 The OCB operation is stripped off of all existing 802.11 link-layer 408 security mechanisms. There is no encryption applied below the 409 network layer running on 802.11-OCB. At application layer, the IEEE 410 1609.2 document [IEEE-1609.2] does provide security services for 411 certain applications to use; application-layer mechanisms are out-of- 412 scope of this document. On another hand, a security mechanism 413 provided at networking layer, such as IPsec [RFC4301], may provide 414 data security protection to a wider range of applications. 416 802.11-OCB does not provide any cryptographic protection, because it 417 operates outside the context of a BSS (no Association Request/ 418 Response, no Challenge messages). Any attacker can therefore just 419 sit in the near range of vehicles, sniff the network (just set the 420 interface card's frequency to the proper range) and perform attacks 421 without needing to physically break any wall. Such a link is less 422 protected than commonly used links (wired link or protected 802.11). 424 The potential attack vectors are: MAC address spoofing, IP address 425 and session hijacking, and privacy violation Section 5.1. 427 Within the IPsec Security Architecture [RFC4301], the IPsec AH and 428 ESP headers [RFC4302] and [RFC4303] respectively, its multicast 429 extensions [RFC5374], HTTPS [RFC2818] and SeND [RFC3971] protocols 430 can be used to protect communications. Further, the assistance of 431 proper Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) protocols [RFC4210] is 432 necessary to establish credentials. More IETF protocols are 433 available in the toolbox of the IP security protocol designer. 434 Certain ETSI protocols related to security protocols in Intelligent 435 Transportation Systems are described in [ETSI-sec-archi]. 437 5.1. Privacy Considerations 439 As with all Ethernet and 802.11 interface identifiers ([RFC7721]), 440 the identifier of an 802.11-OCB interface may involve privacy, MAC 441 address spoofing and IP address hijacking risks. A vehicle embarking 442 an IP-OBU whose egress interface is 802.11-OCB may expose itself to 443 eavesdropping and subsequent correlation of data; this may reveal 444 data considered private by the vehicle owner; there is a risk of 445 being tracked. In outdoors public environments, where vehicles 446 typically circulate, the privacy risks are more important than in 447 indoors settings. It is highly likely that attacker sniffers are 448 deployed along routes which listen for IEEE frames, including IP 449 packets, of vehicles passing by. For this reason, in the 802.11-OCB 450 deployments, there is a strong necessity to use protection tools such 451 as dynamically changing MAC addresses Section 5.2, semantically 452 opaque Interface Identifiers and stable Interface Identifiers 453 Section 4.4. This may help mitigate privacy risks to a certain 454 level. 456 5.1.1. Privacy Risks of Meaningful info in Interface IDs 458 The privacy risks of using MAC addresses displayed in Interface 459 Identifiers are important. The IPv6 packets can be captured easily 460 in the Internet and on-link in public roads. For this reason, an 461 attacker may realize many attacks on privacy. One such attack on 462 802.11-OCB is to capture, store and correlate Company ID information 463 present in MAC addresses of many cars (e.g. listen for Router 464 Advertisements, or other IPv6 application data packets, and record 465 the value of the source address in these packets). Further 466 correlation of this information with other data captured by other 467 means, or other visual information (car color, others) MAY constitute 468 privacy risks. 470 5.2. MAC Address and Interface ID Generation 472 In 802.11-OCB networks, the MAC addresses MAY change during well 473 defined renumbering events. In the moment the MAC address is changed 474 on an 802.11-OCB interface all the Interface Identifiers of IPv6 475 addresses assigned to that interface MUST change. 477 The policy dictating when the MAC address is changed on the 478 802.11-OCB interface is to-be-determined. For more information on 479 the motivation of this policy please refer to the privacy discussion 480 in Appendix C. 482 A 'randomized' MAC address has the following characteristics: 484 o Bit "Local/Global" set to "locally admninistered". 486 o Bit "Unicast/Multicast" set to "Unicast". 488 o The 46 remaining bits are set to a random value, using a random 489 number generator that meets the requirements of [RFC4086]. 491 To meet the randomization requirements for the 46 remaining bits, a 492 hash function may be used. For example, the SHA256 hash function may 493 be used with input a 256 bit local secret, the 'nominal' MAC Address 494 of the interface, and a representation of the date and time of the 495 renumbering event. 497 A randomized Interface ID has the same characteristics of a 498 randomized MAC address, except the length in bits. A MAC address 499 SHOULD be of length 48 decimal. An Interface ID SHOULD be of length 500 64 decimal for all types of IPv6 addresses. In the particular case 501 of IPv6 link-local addresses, the length of the Interface ID MAY be 502 118 decimal. 504 5.3. Pseudonym Handling 506 The demand for privacy protection of vehicles' and drivers' 507 identities, which could be granted by using a pseudonym or alias 508 identity at the same time, may hamper the required confidentiality of 509 messages and trust between participants - especially in safety 510 critical vehicular communication. 512 o Particular challenges arise when the pseudonymization mechanism 513 used relies on (randomized) re-addressing. 515 o A proper pseudonymization tool operated by a trusted third party 516 may be needed to ensure both aspects simultaneously (privacy 517 protection on one hand and trust between participants on another 518 hand). 520 o This is discussed in Section 4.4 and Section 5 of this document. 522 o Pseudonymity is also discussed in 523 [I-D.ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking] in its sections 4.2.4 and 524 5.1.2. 526 6. IANA Considerations 528 No request to IANA. 530 7. Contributors 532 Christian Huitema, Tony Li. 534 Romain Kuntz contributed extensively about IPv6 handovers between 535 links running outside the context of a BSS (802.11-OCB links). 537 Tim Leinmueller contributed the idea of the use of IPv6 over 538 802.11-OCB for distribution of certificates. 540 Marios Makassikis, Jose Santa Lozano, Albin Severinson and Alexey 541 Voronov provided significant feedback on the experience of using IP 542 messages over 802.11-OCB in initial trials. 544 Michelle Wetterwald contributed extensively the MTU discussion, 545 offered the ETSI ITS perspective, and reviewed other parts of the 546 document. 548 8. Acknowledgements 550 The authors would like to thank Witold Klaudel, Ryuji Wakikawa, 551 Emmanuel Baccelli, John Kenney, John Moring, Francois Simon, Dan 552 Romascanu, Konstantin Khait, Ralph Droms, Richard 'Dick' Roy, Ray 553 Hunter, Tom Kurihara, Michal Sojka, Jan de Jongh, Suresh Krishnan, 554 Dino Farinacci, Vincent Park, Jaehoon Paul Jeong, Gloria Gwynne, 555 Hans-Joachim Fischer, Russ Housley, Rex Buddenberg, Erik Nordmark, 556 Bob Moskowitz, Andrew Dryden, Georg Mayer, Dorothy Stanley, Sandra 557 Cespedes, Mariano Falcitelli, Sri Gundavelli, Abdussalam Baryun, 558 Margaret Cullen, Erik Kline, Carlos Jesus Bernardos Cano, Ronald in 559 't Velt, Katrin Sjoberg, Roland Bless, Tijink Jasja, Kevin Smith, 560 Brian Carpenter, Julian Reschke, Mikael Abrahamsson, Dirk von Hugo, 561 Lorenzo Colitti, Pascal Thubert, Ole Troan, Jinmei Tatuya and William 562 Whyte. Their valuable comments clarified particular issues and 563 generally helped to improve the document. 565 Pierre Pfister, Rostislav Lisovy, and others, wrote 802.11-OCB 566 drivers for linux and described how. 568 For the multicast discussion, the authors would like to thank Owen 569 DeLong, Joe Touch, Jen Linkova, Erik Kline, Brian Haberman and 570 participants to discussions in network working groups. 572 The authors would like to thank participants to the Birds-of- 573 a-Feather "Intelligent Transportation Systems" meetings held at IETF 574 in 2016. 576 Human Rights Protocol Considerations review by Amelia Andersdotter. 578 9. References 580 9.1. Normative References 582 [RFC1042] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "Standard for the transmission 583 of IP datagrams over IEEE 802 networks", STD 43, RFC 1042, 584 DOI 10.17487/RFC1042, February 1988, 585 . 587 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 588 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 589 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 590 . 592 [RFC2464] Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet 593 Networks", RFC 2464, DOI 10.17487/RFC2464, December 1998, 594 . 596 [RFC2818] Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, 597 DOI 10.17487/RFC2818, May 2000, 598 . 600 [RFC3753] Manner, J., Ed. and M. Kojo, Ed., "Mobility Related 601 Terminology", RFC 3753, DOI 10.17487/RFC3753, June 2004, 602 . 604 [RFC3971] Arkko, J., Ed., Kempf, J., Zill, B., and P. Nikander, 605 "SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", RFC 3971, 606 DOI 10.17487/RFC3971, March 2005, 607 . 609 [RFC4086] Eastlake 3rd, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker, 610 "Randomness Requirements for Security", BCP 106, RFC 4086, 611 DOI 10.17487/RFC4086, June 2005, 612 . 614 [RFC4193] Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast 615 Addresses", RFC 4193, DOI 10.17487/RFC4193, October 2005, 616 . 618 [RFC4210] Adams, C., Farrell, S., Kause, T., and T. Mononen, 619 "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate 620 Management Protocol (CMP)", RFC 4210, 621 DOI 10.17487/RFC4210, September 2005, 622 . 624 [RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing 625 Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, February 626 2006, . 628 [RFC4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the 629 Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, DOI 10.17487/RFC4301, 630 December 2005, . 632 [RFC4302] Kent, S., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302, 633 DOI 10.17487/RFC4302, December 2005, 634 . 636 [RFC4303] Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)", 637 RFC 4303, DOI 10.17487/RFC4303, December 2005, 638 . 640 [RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman, 641 "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861, 642 DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007, 643 . 645 [RFC5374] Weis, B., Gross, G., and D. Ignjatic, "Multicast 646 Extensions to the Security Architecture for the Internet 647 Protocol", RFC 5374, DOI 10.17487/RFC5374, November 2008, 648 . 650 [RFC5415] Calhoun, P., Ed., Montemurro, M., Ed., and D. Stanley, 651 Ed., "Control And Provisioning of Wireless Access Points 652 (CAPWAP) Protocol Specification", RFC 5415, 653 DOI 10.17487/RFC5415, March 2009, 654 . 656 [RFC5889] Baccelli, E., Ed. and M. Townsley, Ed., "IP Addressing 657 Model in Ad Hoc Networks", RFC 5889, DOI 10.17487/RFC5889, 658 September 2010, . 660 [RFC6059] Krishnan, S. and G. Daley, "Simple Procedures for 661 Detecting Network Attachment in IPv6", RFC 6059, 662 DOI 10.17487/RFC6059, November 2010, 663 . 665 [RFC6275] Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility 666 Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, DOI 10.17487/RFC6275, July 667 2011, . 669 [RFC7042] Eastlake 3rd, D. and J. Abley, "IANA Considerations and 670 IETF Protocol and Documentation Usage for IEEE 802 671 Parameters", BCP 141, RFC 7042, DOI 10.17487/RFC7042, 672 October 2013, . 674 [RFC7136] Carpenter, B. and S. Jiang, "Significance of IPv6 675 Interface Identifiers", RFC 7136, DOI 10.17487/RFC7136, 676 February 2014, . 678 [RFC7217] Gont, F., "A Method for Generating Semantically Opaque 679 Interface Identifiers with IPv6 Stateless Address 680 Autoconfiguration (SLAAC)", RFC 7217, 681 DOI 10.17487/RFC7217, April 2014, 682 . 684 [RFC7721] Cooper, A., Gont, F., and D. Thaler, "Security and Privacy 685 Considerations for IPv6 Address Generation Mechanisms", 686 RFC 7721, DOI 10.17487/RFC7721, March 2016, 687 . 689 [RFC8064] Gont, F., Cooper, A., Thaler, D., and W. Liu, 690 "Recommendation on Stable IPv6 Interface Identifiers", 691 RFC 8064, DOI 10.17487/RFC8064, February 2017, 692 . 694 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 695 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 696 May 2017, . 698 [RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 699 (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200, 700 DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017, 701 . 703 9.2. Informative References 705 [ETSI-sec-archi] 706 "ETSI TS 102 940 V1.2.1 (2016-11), ETSI Technical 707 Specification, Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS); 708 Security; ITS communications security architecture and 709 security management, November 2016. Downloaded on 710 September 9th, 2017, freely available from ETSI website at 711 URL http://www.etsi.org/deliver/ 712 etsi_ts/102900_102999/102940/01.02.01_60/ 713 ts_102940v010201p.pdf". 715 [I-D.ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking] 716 Jeong, J., "IP Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments 717 (IPWAVE): Problem Statement and Use Cases", draft-ietf- 718 ipwave-vehicular-networking-08 (work in progress), March 719 2019. 721 [I-D.ietf-mboned-ieee802-mcast-problems] 722 Perkins, C., McBride, M., Stanley, D., Kumari, W., and J. 723 Zuniga, "Multicast Considerations over IEEE 802 Wireless 724 Media", draft-ietf-mboned-ieee802-mcast-problems-04 (work 725 in progress), November 2018. 727 [IEEE-1609.2] 728 "IEEE SA - 1609.2-2016 - IEEE Standard for Wireless Access 729 in Vehicular Environments (WAVE) -- Security Services for 730 Applications and Management Messages. Example URL 731 http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7426684/ accessed on 732 August 17th, 2017.". 734 [IEEE-1609.3] 735 "IEEE SA - 1609.3-2016 - IEEE Standard for Wireless Access 736 in Vehicular Environments (WAVE) -- Networking Services. 737 Example URL http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7458115/ 738 accessed on August 17th, 2017.". 740 [IEEE-1609.4] 741 "IEEE SA - 1609.4-2016 - IEEE Standard for Wireless Access 742 in Vehicular Environments (WAVE) -- Multi-Channel 743 Operation. Example URL 744 http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7435228/ accessed on 745 August 17th, 2017.". 747 [IEEE-802.11-2016] 748 "IEEE Standard 802.11-2016 - IEEE Standard for Information 749 Technology - Telecommunications and information exchange 750 between systems Local and metropolitan area networks - 751 Specific requirements - Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium 752 Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) 753 Specifications. Status - Active Standard. Description 754 retrieved freely; the document itself is also freely 755 available, but with some difficulty (requires 756 registration); description and document retrieved on April 757 8th, 2019, starting from URL 758 https://standards.ieee.org/findstds/ 759 standard/802.11-2016.html". 761 [IEEE-802.11p-2010] 762 "IEEE Std 802.11p (TM)-2010, IEEE Standard for Information 763 Technology - Telecommunications and information exchange 764 between systems - Local and metropolitan area networks - 765 Specific requirements, Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access 766 Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications, 767 Amendment 6: Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments; 768 document freely available at URL 769 http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/ 770 download/802.11p-2010.pdf retrieved on September 20th, 771 2013.". 773 Appendix A. ChangeLog 775 The changes are listed in reverse chronological order, most recent 776 changes appearing at the top of the list. 778 -41: updated a reference from draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking- 779 survey to draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking; clarified the link- 780 local text by eliminating link-local addresses and prefixes 781 altogether and referring to RFC4861 which requires the prefixes; 782 added a statement about the subnet being a not multi-link subnet. 784 -40: added a phrase in appendix to further described a condition 785 where ND on OCB may not work; that phrase contains a placeholder; the 786 placeholder is 'TBD' (To Be Defined). 788 -39: removed a reference to an expired draft trying to update the 789 IPv6-over-Ethernet spec 'RFC2464bis'; added text in the subnet 790 structure section saying nodes MUST be able to communicate directly 791 using their link-local addresses. 793 -38: removed the word "fe80::/10". 795 -37: added a section about issues on ND wireless; added the qualifier 796 'baseline' to using ND on 802.11-OCB; improved the description of the 797 reference to 802.11-2016 document, with a qualifier about the 798 difficulty of accessing it, even though it is free. 800 -36: removed a phrase about the IID formation and MAC generation, but 801 left in the section 5.2 that describes how it happens. 803 -35: addressing the the intarea review: clarified a small apparent 804 contradiction between two parts of text that use the old MAC-based 805 IIDs (clarified by using qualifiers from each other: transition time, 806 and ll addresses); sequenced closer the LL and Stateless Autoconf 807 sections, instead of spacing them; shortened the paragraph of Opaque 808 IIDs; moved the privacy risks of in-clear IIDs in the security 809 section; removed a short phrase duplicating the idea of privacy 810 risks; added third time a reference to the 802.11-2016 document; used 811 'the hidden terminal' text; updated the Terminology section with new 812 BCP-14 text 'MUST' to include RFC8174. 814 -33: substituted 'movement detection' for 'handover behaviour' in 815 introductory text; removed redundant phrase referring to Security 816 Considerations section; removed the phrase about forming mechanisms 817 being left out, as IP is not much concerned about L2 forming; moved 818 the Pseudonym section from main section to end of Security 819 Considerations section (and clarified 'concurrently'); capitalized 820 SHOULD consider OCB in WiFi multicast problems, and referred to more 821 recent I-D on topic; removed several phrases in a paragraph about 822 oui.txt and MAC presence in IPv6 address, as they are well known 823 info, but clarified the example of privacy risk of Company ID in MAC 824 addresses in public roads; clarified that ND MUST be used over 825 802.11-OCB. 827 -32: significantly shortened the relevant ND/OCB paragraph. It now 828 just states ND is used over OCB, w/o detailing. 830 -31: filled in the section titled "Pseudonym Handling"; removed a 831 'MAY NOT' phrase about possibility of having other prefix than the LL 832 on the link between cars; shortened and improved the paragraph about 833 Mobile IPv6, now with DNAv6; improved the ND text about ND 834 retransmissions with relationship to packet loss; changed the title 835 of an appendix from 'EPD' to 'Protocol Layering'; improved the 836 'Aspects introduced by OCB' appendix with a few phrases about the 837 channel use and references. 839 -30: a clarification on the reliability of ND over OCB and over 840 802.11. 842 -29: 844 o 846 -28: 848 o Created a new section 'Pseudonym Handling'. 850 o removed the 'Vehicle ID' appendix. 852 o improved the address generation from random MAC address. 854 o shortened Term IP-RSU definition. 856 o removed refs to two detail Clauses in IEEE documents, kept just 857 these latter. 859 -27: part 1 of addressing Human Rights review from IRTF. Removed 860 appendices F.2 and F.3. Shortened definition of IP-RSU. Removed 861 reference to 1609.4. A few other small changes, see diff. 863 -26: moved text from SLAAC section and from Design Considerations 864 appendix about privacy into a new Privacy Condiderations subsection 865 of the Security section; reformulated the SLAAC and IID sections to 866 stress only LLs can use EUI-64; removed the "GeoIP" wireshark 867 explanation; reformulated SLAAC and LL sections; added brief mention 868 of need of use LLs; clarified text about MAC address changes; dropped 869 pseudonym discussion; changed title of section describing examples of 870 packet formats. 872 -25: added a reference to 'IEEE Management Information Base', instead 873 of just 'Management Information Base'; added ref to further 874 appendices in the introductory phrases; improved text for IID 875 formation for SLAAC, inserting recommendation for RFC8064 before 876 RFC2464. 878 From draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-23 to draft-ietf-ipwave- 879 ipv6-over-80211ocb-24 881 o Nit: wrote "IPWAVE Working Group" on the front page, instead of 882 "Network Working Group". 884 o Addressed the comments on 6MAN: replaced a sentence about ND 885 problem with "is used over 802.11-OCB". 887 From draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-22 to draft-ietf-ipwave- 888 ipv6-over-80211ocb-23 890 o No content modifications, but check the entire draft chain on 891 IPv6-only: xml2rfc, submission on tools.ietf.org and datatracker. 893 From draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-21 to draft-ietf-ipwave- 894 ipv6-over-80211ocb-22 896 o Corrected typo, use dash in "802.11-OCB" instead of space. 898 o Improved the Frame Format section: MUST use QoSData, specify the 899 values within; clarified the Ethernet Adaptation Layer text. 901 From draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-20 to draft-ietf-ipwave- 902 ipv6-over-80211ocb-21 904 o Corrected a few nits and added names in Acknowledgments section. 906 o Removed unused reference to old Internet Draft tsvwg about QoS. 908 From draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-19 to draft-ietf-ipwave- 909 ipv6-over-80211ocb-20 911 o Reduced the definition of term "802.11-OCB". 913 o Left out of this specification which 802.11 header to use to 914 transmit IP packets in OCB mode (QoS Data header, Data header, or 915 any other). 917 o Added 'MUST' use an Ethernet Adaptation Layer, instead of 'is 918 using' an Ethernet Adaptation Layer. 920 From draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-18 to draft-ietf-ipwave- 921 ipv6-over-80211ocb-19 923 o Removed the text about fragmentation. 925 o Removed the mentioning of WSMP and GeoNetworking. 927 o Removed the explanation of the binary representation of the 928 EtherType. 930 o Rendered normative the paragraph about unicast and multicast 931 address mapping. 933 o Removed paragraph about addressing model, subnet structure and 934 easiness of using LLs. 936 o Clarified the Type/Subtype field in the 802.11 Header. 938 o Used RECOMMENDED instead of recommended, for the stable interface 939 identifiers. 941 From draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-17 to draft-ietf-ipwave- 942 ipv6-over-80211ocb-18 944 o Improved the MTU and fragmentation paragraph. 946 From draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-16 to draft-ietf-ipwave- 947 ipv6-over-80211ocb-17 949 o Susbtituted "MUST be increased" to "is increased" in the MTU 950 section, about fragmentation. 952 From draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-15 to draft-ietf-ipwave- 953 ipv6-over-80211ocb-16 955 o Removed the definition of the 'WiFi' term and its occurences. 956 Clarified a phrase that used it in Appendix C "Aspects introduced 957 by the OCB mode to 802.11". 959 o Added more normative words: MUST be 0x86DD, MUST fragment if size 960 larger than MTU, Sequence number in 802.11 Data header MUST be 961 increased. 963 From draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-14 to draft-ietf-ipwave- 964 ipv6-over-80211ocb-15 966 o Added normative term MUST in two places in section "Ethernet 967 Adaptation Layer". 969 From draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-13 to draft-ietf-ipwave- 970 ipv6-over-80211ocb-14 972 o Created a new Appendix titled "Extra Terminology" that contains 973 terms DSRC, DSRCS, OBU, RSU as defined outside IETF. Some of them 974 are used in the main Terminology section. 976 o Added two paragraphs explaining that ND and Mobile IPv6 have 977 problems working over 802.11-OCB, yet their adaptations is not 978 specified in this document. 980 From draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-12 to draft-ietf-ipwave- 981 ipv6-over-80211ocb-13 983 o Substituted "IP-OBU" for "OBRU", and "IP-RSU" for "RSRU" 984 throughout and improved OBU-related definitions in the Terminology 985 section. 987 From draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-11 to draft-ietf-ipwave- 988 ipv6-over-80211ocb-12 989 o Improved the appendix about "MAC Address Generation" by expressing 990 the technique to be an optional suggestion, not a mandatory 991 mechanism. 993 From draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-10 to draft-ietf-ipwave- 994 ipv6-over-80211ocb-11 996 o Shortened the paragraph on forming/terminating 802.11-OCB links. 998 o Moved the draft tsvwg-ieee-802-11 to Informative References. 1000 From draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-09 to draft-ietf-ipwave- 1001 ipv6-over-80211ocb-10 1003 o Removed text requesting a new Group ID for multicast for OCB. 1005 o Added a clarification of the meaning of value "3333" in the 1006 section Address Mapping -- Multicast. 1008 o Added note clarifying that in Europe the regional authority is not 1009 ETSI, but "ECC/CEPT based on ENs from ETSI". 1011 o Added note stating that the manner in which two STAtions set their 1012 communication channel is not described in this document. 1014 o Added a time qualifier to state that the "each node is represented 1015 uniquely at a certain point in time." 1017 o Removed text "This section may need to be moved" (the "Reliability 1018 Requirements" section). This section stays there at this time. 1020 o In the term definition "802.11-OCB" added a note stating that "any 1021 implementation should comply with standards and regulations set in 1022 the different countries for using that frequency band." 1024 o In the RSU term definition, added a sentence explaining the 1025 difference between RSU and RSRU: in terms of number of interfaces 1026 and IP forwarding. 1028 o Replaced "with at least two IP interfaces" with "with at least two 1029 real or virtual IP interfaces". 1031 o Added a term in the Terminology for "OBU". However the definition 1032 is left empty, as this term is defined outside IETF. 1034 o Added a clarification that it is an OBU or an OBRU in this phrase 1035 "A vehicle embarking an OBU or an OBRU". 1037 o Checked the entire document for a consistent use of terms OBU and 1038 OBRU. 1040 o Added note saying that "'p' is a letter identifying the 1041 Ammendment". 1043 o Substituted lower case for capitals SHALL or MUST in the 1044 Appendices. 1046 o Added reference to RFC7042, helpful in the 3333 explanation. 1047 Removed reference to individual submission draft-petrescu-its- 1048 scenario-reqs and added reference to draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular- 1049 networking-survey. 1051 o Added figure captions, figure numbers, and references to figure 1052 numbers instead of 'below'. Replaced "section Section" with 1053 "section" throughout. 1055 o Minor typographical errors. 1057 From draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-08 to draft-ietf-ipwave- 1058 ipv6-over-80211ocb-09 1060 o Significantly shortened the Address Mapping sections, by text 1061 copied from RFC2464, and rather referring to it. 1063 o Moved the EPD description to an Appendix on its own. 1065 o Shortened the Introduction and the Abstract. 1067 o Moved the tutorial section of OCB mode introduced to .11, into an 1068 appendix. 1070 o Removed the statement that suggests that for routing purposes a 1071 prefix exchange mechanism could be needed. 1073 o Removed refs to RFC3963, RFC4429 and RFC6775; these are about ND, 1074 MIP/NEMO and oDAD; they were referred in the handover discussion 1075 section, which is out. 1077 o Updated a reference from individual submission to now a WG item in 1078 IPWAVE: the survey document. 1080 o Added term definition for WiFi. 1082 o Updated the authorship and expanded the Contributors section. 1084 o Corrected typographical errors. 1086 From draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-07 to draft-ietf-ipwave- 1087 ipv6-over-80211ocb-08 1089 o Removed the per-channel IPv6 prohibition text. 1091 o Corrected typographical errors. 1093 From draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-06 to draft-ietf-ipwave- 1094 ipv6-over-80211ocb-07 1096 o Added new terms: OBRU and RSRU ('R' for Router). Refined the 1097 existing terms RSU and OBU, which are no longer used throughout 1098 the document. 1100 o Improved definition of term "802.11-OCB". 1102 o Clarified that OCB does not "strip" security, but that the 1103 operation in OCB mode is "stripped off of all .11 security". 1105 o Clarified that theoretical OCB bandwidth speed is 54mbits, but 1106 that a commonly observed bandwidth in IP-over-OCB is 12mbit/s. 1108 o Corrected typographical errors, and improved some phrasing. 1110 From draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-05 to draft-ietf-ipwave- 1111 ipv6-over-80211ocb-06 1113 o Updated references of 802.11-OCB document from -2012 to the IEEE 1114 802.11-2016. 1116 o In the LL address section, and in SLAAC section, added references 1117 to 7217 opaque IIDs and 8064 stable IIDs. 1119 From draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-04 to draft-ietf-ipwave- 1120 ipv6-over-80211ocb-05 1122 o Lengthened the title and cleanded the abstract. 1124 o Added text suggesting LLs may be easy to use on OCB, rather than 1125 GUAs based on received prefix. 1127 o Added the risks of spoofing and hijacking. 1129 o Removed the text speculation on adoption of the TSA message. 1131 o Clarified that the ND protocol is used. 1133 o Clarified what it means "No association needed". 1135 o Added some text about how two STAs discover each other. 1137 o Added mention of external (OCB) and internal network (stable), in 1138 the subnet structure section. 1140 o Added phrase explaining that both .11 Data and .11 QoS Data 1141 headers are currently being used, and may be used in the future. 1143 o Moved the packet capture example into an Appendix Implementation 1144 Status. 1146 o Suggested moving the reliability requirements appendix out into 1147 another document. 1149 o Added a IANA Consiserations section, with content, requesting for 1150 a new multicast group "all OCB interfaces". 1152 o Added new OBU term, improved the RSU term definition, removed the 1153 ETTC term, replaced more occurences of 802.11p, 802.11-OCB with 1154 802.11-OCB. 1156 o References: 1158 * Added an informational reference to ETSI's IPv6-over- 1159 GeoNetworking. 1161 * Added more references to IETF and ETSI security protocols. 1163 * Updated some references from I-D to RFC, and from old RFC to 1164 new RFC numbers. 1166 * Added reference to multicast extensions to IPsec architecture 1167 RFC. 1169 * Added a reference to 2464-bis. 1171 * Removed FCC informative references, because not used. 1173 o Updated the affiliation of one author. 1175 o Reformulation of some phrases for better readability, and 1176 correction of typographical errors. 1178 From draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-03 to draft-ietf-ipwave- 1179 ipv6-over-80211ocb-04 1181 o Removed a few informative references pointing to Dx draft IEEE 1182 1609 documents. 1184 o Removed outdated informative references to ETSI documents. 1186 o Added citations to IEEE 1609.2, .3 and .4-2016. 1188 o Minor textual issues. 1190 From draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-02 to draft-ietf-ipwave- 1191 ipv6-over-80211ocb-03 1193 o Keep the previous text on multiple addresses, so remove talk about 1194 MIP6, NEMOv6 and MCoA. 1196 o Clarified that a 'Beacon' is an IEEE 802.11 frame Beacon. 1198 o Clarified the figure showing Infrastructure mode and OCB mode side 1199 by side. 1201 o Added a reference to the IP Security Architecture RFC. 1203 o Detailed the IPv6-per-channel prohibition paragraph which reflects 1204 the discussion at the last IETF IPWAVE WG meeting. 1206 o Added section "Address Mapping -- Unicast". 1208 o Added the ".11 Trailer" to pictures of 802.11 frames. 1210 o Added text about SNAP carrying the Ethertype. 1212 o New RSU definition allowing for it be both a Router and not 1213 necessarily a Router some times. 1215 o Minor textual issues. 1217 From draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-01 to draft-ietf-ipwave- 1218 ipv6-over-80211ocb-02 1220 o Replaced almost all occurences of 802.11p with 802.11-OCB, leaving 1221 only when explanation of evolution was necessary. 1223 o Shortened by removing parameter details from a paragraph in the 1224 Introduction. 1226 o Moved a reference from Normative to Informative. 1228 o Added text in intro clarifying there is no handover spec at IEEE, 1229 and that 1609.2 does provide security services. 1231 o Named the contents the fields of the EthernetII header (including 1232 the Ethertype bitstring). 1234 o Improved relationship between two paragraphs describing the 1235 increase of the Sequence Number in 802.11 header upon IP 1236 fragmentation. 1238 o Added brief clarification of "tracking". 1240 From draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-00 to draft-ietf-ipwave- 1241 ipv6-over-80211ocb-01 1243 o Introduced message exchange diagram illustrating differences 1244 between 802.11 and 802.11 in OCB mode. 1246 o Introduced an appendix listing for information the set of 802.11 1247 messages that may be transmitted in OCB mode. 1249 o Removed appendix sections "Privacy Requirements", "Authentication 1250 Requirements" and "Security Certificate Generation". 1252 o Removed appendix section "Non IP Communications". 1254 o Introductory phrase in the Security Considerations section. 1256 o Improved the definition of "OCB". 1258 o Introduced theoretical stacked layers about IPv6 and IEEE layers 1259 including EPD. 1261 o Removed the appendix describing the details of prohibiting IPv6 on 1262 certain channels relevant to 802.11-OCB. 1264 o Added a brief reference in the privacy text about a precise clause 1265 in IEEE 1609.3 and .4. 1267 o Clarified the definition of a Road Side Unit. 1269 o Removed the discussion about security of WSA (because is non-IP). 1271 o Removed mentioning of the GeoNetworking discussion. 1273 o Moved references to scientific articles to a separate 'overview' 1274 draft, and referred to it. 1276 Appendix B. 802.11p 1278 The term "802.11p" is an earlier definition. The behaviour of 1279 "802.11p" networks is rolled in the document IEEE Std 802.11-2016. 1280 In that document the term 802.11p disappears. Instead, each 802.11p 1281 feature is conditioned by the IEEE Management Information Base (MIB) 1282 attribute "OCBActivated" [IEEE-802.11-2016]. Whenever OCBActivated 1283 is set to true the IEEE Std 802.11-OCB state is activated. For 1284 example, an 802.11 STAtion operating outside the context of a basic 1285 service set has the OCBActivated flag set. Such a station, when it 1286 has the flag set, uses a BSS identifier equal to ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff. 1288 Appendix C. Aspects introduced by the OCB mode to 802.11 1290 In the IEEE 802.11-OCB mode, all nodes in the wireless range can 1291 directly communicate with each other without involving authentication 1292 or association procedures. In OCB mode, the manner in which channels 1293 are selected and used is simplified compared to when in BSS mode. 1294 Contrary to BSS mode, at link layer, it is necessary to set 1295 statically the same channel number (or frequency) on two stations 1296 that need to communicate with each other (in BSS mode this channel 1297 set operation is performed automatically during 'scanning'). The 1298 manner in which stations set their channel number in OCB mode is not 1299 specified in this document. Stations STA1 and STA2 can exchange IP 1300 packets only if they are set on the same channel. At IP layer, they 1301 then discover each other by using the IPv6 Neighbor Discovery 1302 protocol. The allocation of a particular channel for a particular 1303 use is defined statically in standards authored by ETSI (in Europe), 1304 FCC in America, and similar organisations in South Korea, Japan and 1305 other parts of the world. 1307 Briefly, the IEEE 802.11-OCB mode has the following properties: 1309 o The use by each node of a 'wildcard' BSSID (i.e., each bit of the 1310 BSSID is set to 1) 1312 o No IEEE 802.11 Beacon frames are transmitted 1314 o No authentication is required in order to be able to communicate 1316 o No association is needed in order to be able to communicate 1318 o No encryption is provided in order to be able to communicate 1320 o Flag dot11OCBActivated is set to true 1322 All the nodes in the radio communication range (IP-OBU and IP-RSU) 1323 receive all the messages transmitted (IP-OBU and IP-RSU) within the 1324 radio communications range. The eventual conflict(s) are resolved by 1325 the MAC CDMA function. 1327 The message exchange diagram in Figure 3 illustrates a comparison 1328 between traditional 802.11 and 802.11 in OCB mode. The 'Data' 1329 messages can be IP packets such as HTTP or others. Other 802.11 1330 management and control frames (non IP) may be transmitted, as 1331 specified in the 802.11 standard. For information, the names of 1332 these messages as currently specified by the 802.11 standard are 1333 listed in Appendix G. 1335 STA AP STA1 STA2 1336 | | | | 1337 |<------ Beacon -------| |<------ Data -------->| 1338 | | | | 1339 |---- Probe Req. ----->| |<------ Data -------->| 1340 |<--- Probe Res. ------| | | 1341 | | |<------ Data -------->| 1342 |---- Auth Req. ------>| | | 1343 |<--- Auth Res. -------| |<------ Data -------->| 1344 | | | | 1345 |---- Asso Req. ------>| |<------ Data -------->| 1346 |<--- Asso Res. -------| | | 1347 | | |<------ Data -------->| 1348 |<------ Data -------->| | | 1349 |<------ Data -------->| |<------ Data -------->| 1351 (i) 802.11 Infrastructure mode (ii) 802.11-OCB mode 1353 Figure 3: Difference between messages exchanged on 802.11 (left) and 1354 802.11-OCB (right) 1356 The interface 802.11-OCB was specified in IEEE Std 802.11p (TM) -2010 1357 [IEEE-802.11p-2010] as an amendment to IEEE Std 802.11 (TM) -2007, 1358 titled "Amendment 6: Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments". 1359 Since then, this amendment has been integrated in IEEE 802.11(TM) 1360 -2012 and -2016 [IEEE-802.11-2016]. 1362 In document 802.11-2016, anything qualified specifically as 1363 "OCBActivated", or "outside the context of a basic service" set to be 1364 true, then it is actually referring to OCB aspects introduced to 1365 802.11. 1367 In order to delineate the aspects introduced by 802.11-OCB to 802.11, 1368 we refer to the earlier [IEEE-802.11p-2010]. The amendment is 1369 concerned with vehicular communications, where the wireless link is 1370 similar to that of Wireless LAN (using a PHY layer specified by 1371 802.11a/b/g/n), but which needs to cope with the high mobility factor 1372 inherent in scenarios of communications between moving vehicles, and 1373 between vehicles and fixed infrastructure deployed along roads. 1374 While 'p' is a letter identifying the Ammendment, just like 'a, b, g' 1375 and 'n' are, 'p' is concerned more with MAC modifications, and a 1376 little with PHY modifications; the others are mainly about PHY 1377 modifications. It is possible in practice to combine a 'p' MAC with 1378 an 'a' PHY by operating outside the context of a BSS with OFDM at 1379 5.4GHz and 5.9GHz. 1381 The 802.11-OCB links are specified to be compatible as much as 1382 possible with the behaviour of 802.11a/b/g/n and future generation 1383 IEEE WLAN links. From the IP perspective, an 802.11-OCB MAC layer 1384 offers practically the same interface to IP as the 802.11a/b/g/n and 1385 802.3. A packet sent by an IP-OBU may be received by one or multiple 1386 IP-RSUs. The link-layer resolution is performed by using the IPv6 1387 Neighbor Discovery protocol. 1389 To support this similarity statement (IPv6 is layered on top of LLC 1390 on top of 802.11-OCB, in the same way that IPv6 is layered on top of 1391 LLC on top of 802.11a/b/g/n (for WLAN) or layered on top of LLC on 1392 top of 802.3 (for Ethernet)) it is useful to analyze the differences 1393 between 802.11-OCB and 802.11 specifications. During this analysis, 1394 we note that whereas 802.11-OCB lists relatively complex and numerous 1395 changes to the MAC layer (and very little to the PHY layer), there 1396 are only a few characteristics which may be important for an 1397 implementation transmitting IPv6 packets on 802.11-OCB links. 1399 The most important 802.11-OCB point which influences the IPv6 1400 functioning is the OCB characteristic; an additional, less direct 1401 influence, is the maximum bandwidth afforded by the PHY modulation/ 1402 demodulation methods and channel access specified by 802.11-OCB. The 1403 maximum bandwidth theoretically possible in 802.11-OCB is 54 Mbit/s 1404 (when using, for example, the following parameters: 20 MHz channel; 1405 modulation 64-QAM; coding rate R is 3/4); in practice of IP-over- 1406 802.11-OCB a commonly observed figure is 12Mbit/s; this bandwidth 1407 allows the operation of a wide range of protocols relying on IPv6. 1409 o Operation Outside the Context of a BSS (OCB): the (earlier 1410 802.11p) 802.11-OCB links are operated without a Basic Service Set 1411 (BSS). This means that the frames IEEE 802.11 Beacon, Association 1412 Request/Response, Authentication Request/Response, and similar, 1413 are not used. The used identifier of BSS (BSSID) has a 1414 hexadecimal value always 0xffffffffffff (48 '1' bits, represented 1415 as MAC address ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff, or otherwise the 'wildcard' 1416 BSSID), as opposed to an arbitrary BSSID value set by 1417 administrator (e.g. 'My-Home-AccessPoint'). The OCB operation - 1418 namely the lack of beacon-based scanning and lack of 1419 authentication - should be taken into account when the Mobile IPv6 1420 protocol [RFC6275] and the protocols for IP layer security 1421 [RFC4301] are used. The way these protocols adapt to OCB is not 1422 described in this document. 1424 o Timing Advertisement: is a new message defined in 802.11-OCB, 1425 which does not exist in 802.11a/b/g/n. This message is used by 1426 stations to inform other stations about the value of time. It is 1427 similar to the time as delivered by a GNSS system (Galileo, GPS, 1428 ...) or by a cellular system. This message is optional for 1429 implementation. 1431 o Frequency range: this is a characteristic of the PHY layer, with 1432 almost no impact on the interface between MAC and IP. However, it 1433 is worth considering that the frequency range is regulated by a 1434 regional authority (ARCEP, ECC/CEPT based on ENs from ETSI, FCC, 1435 etc.); as part of the regulation process, specific applications 1436 are associated with specific frequency ranges. In the case of 1437 802.11-OCB, the regulator associates a set of frequency ranges, or 1438 slots within a band, to the use of applications of vehicular 1439 communications, in a band known as "5.9GHz". The 5.9GHz band is 1440 different from the 2.4GHz and 5GHz bands used by Wireless LAN. 1441 However, as with Wireless LAN, the operation of 802.11-OCB in 1442 "5.9GHz" bands is exempt from owning a license in EU (in US the 1443 5.9GHz is a licensed band of spectrum; for the fixed 1444 infrastructure an explicit FCC authorization is required; for an 1445 on-board device a 'licensed-by-rule' concept applies: rule 1446 certification conformity is required.) Technical conditions are 1447 different than those of the bands "2.4GHz" or "5GHz". The allowed 1448 power levels, and implicitly the maximum allowed distance between 1449 vehicles, is of 33dBm for 802.11-OCB (in Europe), compared to 20 1450 dBm for Wireless LAN 802.11a/b/g/n; this leads to a maximum 1451 distance of approximately 1km, compared to approximately 50m. 1452 Additionally, specific conditions related to congestion avoidance, 1453 jamming avoidance, and radar detection are imposed on the use of 1454 DSRC (in US) and on the use of frequencies for Intelligent 1455 Transportation Systems (in EU), compared to Wireless LAN 1456 (802.11a/b/g/n). 1458 o 'Half-rate' encoding: as the frequency range, this parameter is 1459 related to PHY, and thus has not much impact on the interface 1460 between the IP layer and the MAC layer. 1462 o In vehicular communications using 802.11-OCB links, there are 1463 strong privacy requirements with respect to addressing. While the 1464 802.11-OCB standard does not specify anything in particular with 1465 respect to MAC addresses, in these settings there exists a strong 1466 need for dynamic change of these addresses (as opposed to the non- 1467 vehicular settings - real wall protection - where fixed MAC 1468 addresses do not currently pose some privacy risks). This is 1469 further described in Section 5. A relevant function is described 1470 in documents IEEE 1609.3-2016 [IEEE-1609.3] and IEEE 1609.4-2016 1471 [IEEE-1609.4]. 1473 Appendix D. Changes Needed on a software driver 802.11a to become a 1474 802.11-OCB driver 1476 The 802.11p amendment modifies both the 802.11 stack's physical and 1477 MAC layers but all the induced modifications can be quite easily 1478 obtained by modifying an existing 802.11a ad-hoc stack. 1480 Conditions for a 802.11a hardware to be 802.11-OCB compliant: 1482 o The PHY entity shall be an orthogonal frequency division 1483 multiplexing (OFDM) system. It must support the frequency bands 1484 on which the regulator recommends the use of ITS communications, 1485 for example using IEEE 802.11-OCB layer, in France: 5875MHz to 1486 5925MHz. 1488 o The OFDM system must provide a "half-clocked" operation using 10 1489 MHz channel spacings. 1491 o The chip transmit spectrum mask must be compliant to the "Transmit 1492 spectrum mask" from the IEEE 802.11p amendment (but experimental 1493 environments tolerate otherwise). 1495 o The chip should be able to transmit up to 44.8 dBm when used by 1496 the US government in the United States, and up to 33 dBm in 1497 Europe; other regional conditions apply. 1499 Changes needed on the network stack in OCB mode: 1501 o Physical layer: 1503 * The chip must use the Orthogonal Frequency Multiple Access 1504 (OFDM) encoding mode. 1506 * The chip must be set in half-mode rate mode (the internal clock 1507 frequency is divided by two). 1509 * The chip must use dedicated channels and should allow the use 1510 of higher emission powers. This may require modifications to 1511 the local computer file that describes regulatory domains 1512 rules, if used by the kernel to enforce local specific 1513 restrictions. Such modifications to the local computer file 1514 must respect the location-specific regulatory rules. 1516 MAC layer: 1518 * All management frames (beacons, join, leave, and others) 1519 emission and reception must be disabled except for frames of 1520 subtype Action and Timing Advertisement (defined below). 1522 * No encryption key or method must be used. 1524 * Packet emission and reception must be performed as in ad-hoc 1525 mode, using the wildcard BSSID (ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff). 1527 * The functions related to joining a BSS (Association Request/ 1528 Response) and for authentication (Authentication Request/Reply, 1529 Challenge) are not called. 1531 * The beacon interval is always set to 0 (zero). 1533 * Timing Advertisement frames, defined in the amendment, should 1534 be supported. The upper layer should be able to trigger such 1535 frames emission and to retrieve information contained in 1536 received Timing Advertisements. 1538 Appendix E. Protocol Layering 1540 A more theoretical and detailed view of layer stacking, and 1541 interfaces between the IP layer and 802.11-OCB layers, is illustrated 1542 in Figure 4. The IP layer operates on top of the EtherType Protocol 1543 Discrimination (EPD); this Discrimination layer is described in IEEE 1544 Std 802.3-2012; the interface between IPv6 and EPD is the LLC_SAP 1545 (Link Layer Control Service Access Point). 1547 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1548 | IPv6 | 1549 +-+-+-+-+-+-{ }+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1550 { LLC_SAP } 802.11-OCB 1551 +-+-+-+-+-+-{ }+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Boundary 1552 | EPD | | | 1553 | | MLME | | 1554 +-+-+-{ MAC_SAP }+-+-+-| MLME_SAP | 1555 | MAC Sublayer | | | 802.11-OCB 1556 | and ch. coord. | | SME | Services 1557 +-+-+-{ PHY_SAP }+-+-+-+-+-+-+-| | 1558 | | PLME | | 1559 | PHY Layer | PLME_SAP | 1560 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1562 Figure 4: EtherType Protocol Discrimination 1564 Appendix F. Design Considerations 1566 The networks defined by 802.11-OCB are in many ways similar to other 1567 networks of the 802.11 family. In theory, the encapsulation of IPv6 1568 over 802.11-OCB could be very similar to the operation of IPv6 over 1569 other networks of the 802.11 family. However, the high mobility, 1570 strong link asymmetry and very short connection makes the 802.11-OCB 1571 link significantly different from other 802.11 networks. Also, the 1572 automotive applications have specific requirements for reliability, 1573 security and privacy, which further add to the particularity of the 1574 802.11-OCB link. 1576 Appendix G. IEEE 802.11 Messages Transmitted in OCB mode 1578 For information, at the time of writing, this is the list of IEEE 1579 802.11 messages that may be transmitted in OCB mode, i.e. when 1580 dot11OCBActivated is true in a STA: 1582 o The STA may send management frames of subtype Action and, if the 1583 STA maintains a TSF Timer, subtype Timing Advertisement; 1585 o The STA may send control frames, except those of subtype PS-Poll, 1586 CF-End, and CF-End plus CFAck; 1588 o The STA may send data frames of subtype Data, Null, QoS Data, and 1589 QoS Null. 1591 Appendix H. Examples of Packet Formats 1593 This section describes an example of an IPv6 Packet captured over a 1594 IEEE 802.11-OCB link. 1596 By way of example we show that there is no modification in the 1597 headers when transmitted over 802.11-OCB networks - they are 1598 transmitted like any other 802.11 and Ethernet packets. 1600 We describe an experiment of capturing an IPv6 packet on an 1601 802.11-OCB link. In topology depicted in Figure 5, the packet is an 1602 IPv6 Router Advertisement. This packet is emitted by a Router on its 1603 802.11-OCB interface. The packet is captured on the Host, using a 1604 network protocol analyzer (e.g. Wireshark); the capture is performed 1605 in two different modes: direct mode and 'monitor' mode. The topology 1606 used during the capture is depicted below. 1608 The packet is captured on the Host. The Host is an IP-OBU containing 1609 an 802.11 interface in format PCI express (an ITRI product). The 1610 kernel runs the ath5k software driver with modifications for OCB 1611 mode. The capture tool is Wireshark. The file format for save and 1612 analyze is 'pcap'. The packet is generated by the Router. The 1613 Router is an IP-RSU (ITRI product). 1615 +--------+ +-------+ 1616 | | 802.11-OCB Link | | 1617 ---| Router |--------------------------------| Host | 1618 | | | | 1619 +--------+ +-------+ 1621 Figure 5: Topology for capturing IP packets on 802.11-OCB 1623 During several capture operations running from a few moments to 1624 several hours, no message relevant to the BSSID contexts were 1625 captured (no Association Request/Response, Authentication Req/Resp, 1626 Beacon). This shows that the operation of 802.11-OCB is outside the 1627 context of a BSSID. 1629 Overall, the captured message is identical with a capture of an IPv6 1630 packet emitted on a 802.11b interface. The contents are precisely 1631 similar. 1633 H.1. Capture in Monitor Mode 1635 The IPv6 RA packet captured in monitor mode is illustrated below. 1636 The radio tap header provides more flexibility for reporting the 1637 characteristics of frames. The Radiotap Header is prepended by this 1638 particular stack and operating system on the Host machine to the RA 1639 packet received from the network (the Radiotap Header is not present 1640 on the air). The implementation-dependent Radiotap Header is useful 1641 for piggybacking PHY information from the chip's registers as data in 1642 a packet understandable by userland applications using Socket 1643 interfaces (the PHY interface can be, for example: power levels, data 1644 rate, ratio of signal to noise). 1646 The packet present on the air is formed by IEEE 802.11 Data Header, 1647 Logical Link Control Header, IPv6 Base Header and ICMPv6 Header. 1649 Radiotap Header v0 1650 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1651 |Header Revision| Header Pad | Header length | 1652 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1653 | Present flags | 1654 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1655 | Data Rate | Pad | 1656 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1658 IEEE 802.11 Data Header 1659 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1660 | Type/Subtype and Frame Ctrl | Duration | 1661 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1662 | Receiver Address... 1663 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1664 ... Receiver Address | Transmitter Address... 1665 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1666 ... Transmitter Address | 1667 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1668 | BSS Id... 1669 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1670 ... BSS Id | Frag Number and Seq Number | 1671 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1673 Logical-Link Control Header 1674 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1675 | DSAP |I| SSAP |C| Control field | Org. code... 1676 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1677 ... Organizational Code | Type | 1678 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1679 IPv6 Base Header 1680 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1681 |Version| Traffic Class | Flow Label | 1682 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1683 | Payload Length | Next Header | Hop Limit | 1684 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1685 | | 1686 + + 1687 | | 1688 + Source Address + 1689 | | 1690 + + 1691 | | 1692 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1693 | | 1694 + + 1695 | | 1696 + Destination Address + 1697 | | 1698 + + 1699 | | 1700 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1702 Router Advertisement 1703 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1704 | Type | Code | Checksum | 1705 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1706 | Cur Hop Limit |M|O| Reserved | Router Lifetime | 1707 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1708 | Reachable Time | 1709 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1710 | Retrans Timer | 1711 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1712 | Options ... 1713 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- 1715 The value of the Data Rate field in the Radiotap header is set to 6 1716 Mb/s. This indicates the rate at which this RA was received. 1718 The value of the Transmitter address in the IEEE 802.11 Data Header 1719 is set to a 48bit value. The value of the destination address is 1720 33:33:00:00:00:1 (all-nodes multicast address). The value of the BSS 1721 Id field is ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff, which is recognized by the network 1722 protocol analyzer as being "broadcast". The Fragment number and 1723 sequence number fields are together set to 0x90C6. 1725 The value of the Organization Code field in the Logical-Link Control 1726 Header is set to 0x0, recognized as "Encapsulated Ethernet". The 1727 value of the Type field is 0x86DD (hexadecimal 86DD, or otherwise 1728 #86DD), recognized as "IPv6". 1730 A Router Advertisement is periodically sent by the router to 1731 multicast group address ff02::1. It is an icmp packet type 134. The 1732 IPv6 Neighbor Discovery's Router Advertisement message contains an 1733 8-bit field reserved for single-bit flags, as described in [RFC4861]. 1735 The IPv6 header contains the link local address of the router 1736 (source) configured via EUI-64 algorithm, and destination address set 1737 to ff02::1. 1739 The Ethernet Type field in the logical-link control header is set to 1740 0x86dd which indicates that the frame transports an IPv6 packet. In 1741 the IEEE 802.11 data, the destination address is 33:33:00:00:00:01 1742 which is the corresponding multicast MAC address. The BSS id is a 1743 broadcast address of ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff. Due to the short link 1744 duration between vehicles and the roadside infrastructure, there is 1745 no need in IEEE 802.11-OCB to wait for the completion of association 1746 and authentication procedures before exchanging data. IEEE 1747 802.11-OCB enabled nodes use the wildcard BSSID (a value of all 1s) 1748 and may start communicating as soon as they arrive on the 1749 communication channel. 1751 H.2. Capture in Normal Mode 1753 The same IPv6 Router Advertisement packet described above (monitor 1754 mode) is captured on the Host, in the Normal mode, and depicted 1755 below. 1757 Ethernet II Header 1758 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1759 | Destination... 1760 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1761 ...Destination | Source... 1762 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1763 ...Source | 1764 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1765 | Type | 1766 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1768 IPv6 Base Header 1769 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1770 |Version| Traffic Class | Flow Label | 1771 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1772 | Payload Length | Next Header | Hop Limit | 1773 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1774 | | 1775 + + 1776 | | 1777 + Source Address + 1778 | | 1779 + + 1780 | | 1781 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1782 | | 1783 + + 1784 | | 1785 + Destination Address + 1786 | | 1787 + + 1788 | | 1789 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1791 Router Advertisement 1792 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1793 | Type | Code | Checksum | 1794 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1795 | Cur Hop Limit |M|O| Reserved | Router Lifetime | 1796 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1797 | Reachable Time | 1798 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1799 | Retrans Timer | 1800 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1801 | Options ... 1802 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- 1804 One notices that the Radiotap Header, the IEEE 802.11 Data Header and 1805 the Logical-Link Control Headers are not present. On the other hand, 1806 a new header named Ethernet II Header is present. 1808 The Destination and Source addresses in the Ethernet II header 1809 contain the same values as the fields Receiver Address and 1810 Transmitter Address present in the IEEE 802.11 Data Header in the 1811 "monitor" mode capture. 1813 The value of the Type field in the Ethernet II header is 0x86DD 1814 (recognized as "IPv6"); this value is the same value as the value of 1815 the field Type in the Logical-Link Control Header in the "monitor" 1816 mode capture. 1818 The knowledgeable experimenter will no doubt notice the similarity of 1819 this Ethernet II Header with a capture in normal mode on a pure 1820 Ethernet cable interface. 1822 An Adaptation layer is inserted on top of a pure IEEE 802.11 MAC 1823 layer, in order to adapt packets, before delivering the payload data 1824 to the applications. It adapts 802.11 LLC/MAC headers to Ethernet II 1825 headers. In further detail, this adaptation consists in the 1826 elimination of the Radiotap, 802.11 and LLC headers, and in the 1827 insertion of the Ethernet II header. In this way, IPv6 runs straight 1828 over LLC over the 802.11-OCB MAC layer; this is further confirmed by 1829 the use of the unique Type 0x86DD. 1831 Appendix I. Extra Terminology 1833 The following terms are defined outside the IETF. They are used to 1834 define the main terms in the main terminology section Section 2. 1836 DSRC (Dedicated Short Range Communication): a term defined outside 1837 the IETF. The US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Dedicated 1838 Short Range Communication (DSRC) is defined in the Code of Federal 1839 Regulations (CFR) 47, Parts 90 and 95. This Code is referred in the 1840 definitions below. At the time of the writing of this Internet 1841 Draft, the last update of this Code was dated October 1st, 2010. 1843 DSRCS (Dedicated Short-Range Communications Services): a term defined 1844 outside the IETF. The use of radio techniques to transfer data over 1845 short distances between roadside and mobile units, between mobile 1846 units, and between portable and mobile units to perform operations 1847 related to the improvement of traffic flow, traffic safety, and other 1848 intelligent transportation service applications in a variety of 1849 environments. DSRCS systems may also transmit status and 1850 instructional messages related to the units involve. [Ref. 47 CFR 1851 90.7 - Definitions] 1852 OBU (On-Board Unit): a term defined outside the IETF. An On-Board 1853 Unit is a DSRCS transceiver that is normally mounted in or on a 1854 vehicle, or which in some instances may be a portable unit. An OBU 1855 can be operational while a vehicle or person is either mobile or 1856 stationary. The OBUs receive and contend for time to transmit on one 1857 or more radio frequency (RF) channels. Except where specifically 1858 excluded, OBU operation is permitted wherever vehicle operation or 1859 human passage is permitted. The OBUs mounted in vehicles are 1860 licensed by rule under part 95 of the respective chapter and 1861 communicate with Roadside Units (RSUs) and other OBUs. Portable OBUs 1862 are also licensed by rule under part 95 of the respective chapter. 1863 OBU operations in the Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure 1864 (UNII) Bands follow the rules in those bands. - [CFR 90.7 - 1865 Definitions]. 1867 RSU (Road-Side Unit): a term defined outside of IETF. A Roadside 1868 Unit is a DSRC transceiver that is mounted along a road or pedestrian 1869 passageway. An RSU may also be mounted on a vehicle or is hand 1870 carried, but it may only operate when the vehicle or hand- carried 1871 unit is stationary. Furthermore, an RSU operating under the 1872 respectgive part is restricted to the location where it is licensed 1873 to operate. However, portable or hand-held RSUs are permitted to 1874 operate where they do not interfere with a site-licensed operation. 1875 A RSU broadcasts data to OBUs or exchanges data with OBUs in its 1876 communications zone. An RSU also provides channel assignments and 1877 operating instructions to OBUs in its communications zone, when 1878 required. - [CFR 90.7 - Definitions]. 1880 Appendix J. Neighbor Discovery (ND) Potential Issues in Wireless Links 1882 IPv6 Neighbor Discovery (IPv6 ND) [RFC4861][RFC4862] was designed for 1883 point-to-point and transit links such as Ethernet, with the 1884 expectation of a cheap and reliable support for multicast from the 1885 lower layer. Section 3.2 of RFC 4861 indicates that the operation on 1886 Shared Media and on non-broadcast multi-access (NBMA) networks 1887 require additional support, e.g., for Address Resolution (AR) and 1888 duplicate address detection (DAD), which depend on multicast. An 1889 infrastructureless radio network such as OCB shares properties with 1890 both Shared Media and NBMA networks, and then adds its own 1891 complexity, e.g., from movement and interference that allow only 1892 transient and non-transitive reachability between any set of peers. 1894 The uniqueness of an address within a scoped domain is a key pillar 1895 of IPv6 and the base for unicast IP communication. RFC 4861 details 1896 the DAD method to avoid that an address is duplicated. For a link 1897 local address, the scope is the link, whereas for a global address 1898 the scope is much larger. The underlying assumption for DAD to 1899 operate correctly is that the node that owns an IPv6 address can 1900 reach any other node within the scope at the time it claims its 1901 address, which is done by sending a NS multicast message, and can 1902 hear any future claim for that address by another party within the 1903 scope for the duration of the address ownership. 1905 In the case of OCB, there is a potentially a need to define a scope 1906 that is compatible with DAD, and that cannot be the set of nodes that 1907 a transmitter can reach at a particular time, because that set varies 1908 all the time and does not meet the DAD requirements for a link local 1909 address that could possibly be used anytime, anywhere. The generic 1910 expectation of a reliable multicast is not ensured, and the operation 1911 of DAD and AR (Address Resolution) as specificed by RFC 4861 cannot 1912 be guaranteed. Moreoever, multicast transmissions that rely on 1913 broadcast are not only unreliable but are also often detrimental to 1914 unicast traffic (see [draft-ietf-mboned-ieee802-mcast-problems]). 1916 Early experience indicates that it should be possible to exchange 1917 IPv6 packets over OCB while relying on IPv6 ND alone for DAD and AR 1918 (Address Resolution) in good conditions. However, this does not 1919 apply if TBD TBD TBD. In the absence of a correct DAD operation, a 1920 node that relies only on IPv6 ND for AR and DAD over OCB should 1921 ensure that the addresses that it uses are unique by means others 1922 than DAD. It must be noted that deriving an IPv6 address from a 1923 globally unique MAC address has this property but may yield privacy 1924 issues. 1926 RFC 8505 provides a more recent approach to IPv6 ND and in particular 1927 DAD. RFC 8505 is designed to fit wireless and otherwise constrained 1928 networks whereby multicast and/or continuous access to the medium may 1929 not be guaranteed. RFC 8505 Section 5.6 "Link-Local Addresses and 1930 Registration" indicates that the scope of uniqueness for a link local 1931 address is restricted to a pair of nodes that use it to communicate, 1932 and provides a method to assert the uniqueness and resolve the link- 1933 Layer address using a unicast exchange. 1935 RFC 8505 also enables a router (acting as a 6LR) to own a prefix and 1936 act as a registrar (acting as a 6LBR) for addresses within the 1937 associated subnet. A peer host (acting as a 6LN) registers an 1938 address derived from that prefix and can use it for the lifetime of 1939 the registration. The prefix is advertised as not onlink, which 1940 means that the 6LN uses the 6LR to relay its packets within the 1941 subnet, and participation to the subnet is constrained to the time of 1942 reachability to the 6LR. Note that RSU that provides internet 1943 connectivity MAY announce a default router preference [RFC 4191], 1944 whereas a car that does not provide that connectivity MUST NOT do so. 1945 This operation presents similarities with that of an access point, 1946 but at Layer-3. This is why RFC 8505 well-suited for wireless in 1947 general. 1949 Support of RFC 8505 is may be implemented on OCB. OCB nodes that 1950 support RFC 8505 would support the 6LN operation in order to act as a 1951 host, and may support the 6LR and 6LBR operations in order to act as 1952 a router and in particular own a prefix that can be used by RFC 1953 8505-compliant hosts for address autoconfiguration and registration. 1955 Authors' Addresses 1957 Alexandre Petrescu 1958 CEA, LIST 1959 CEA Saclay 1960 Gif-sur-Yvette , Ile-de-France 91190 1961 France 1963 Phone: +33169089223 1964 Email: Alexandre.Petrescu@cea.fr 1966 Nabil Benamar 1967 Moulay Ismail University 1968 Morocco 1970 Phone: +212670832236 1971 Email: n.benamar@est.umi.ac.ma 1973 Jerome Haerri 1974 Eurecom 1975 Sophia-Antipolis 06904 1976 France 1978 Phone: +33493008134 1979 Email: Jerome.Haerri@eurecom.fr 1981 Jong-Hyouk Lee 1982 Sangmyung University 1983 31, Sangmyeongdae-gil, Dongnam-gu 1984 Cheonan 31066 1985 Republic of Korea 1987 Email: jonghyouk@smu.ac.kr 1988 Thierry Ernst 1989 YoGoKo 1990 France 1992 Email: thierry.ernst@yogoko.fr