IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in 802.16(e) Networks draft-ietf-v6ops-802-16-deployment-scenarios-01

1. IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in 802.16(e) Networksdraft-ietf-v6ops-802-16-deployment-scenarios-01 Myung-Ki Shin, ETRI Youn-Hee Han, KUT Sang-Eon Kim, KT DomagojPremec, Siemens Mobile 16ng Interim@Mannheim, Germany

2. Goal of this draft • Provides detailed description of IPv6 deployment and scenarios in IEEE 802.16 access networks • 802.16 specs are limited to L1 and L2, so they may be used within any number of IP network architectures and scenarios • Extends works of [I-D.ietf-v6ops-bb-deployment-scenarios] • Discuss main components of IPv6 802.16 access network and its differences from IPv4 and how IPv6 is deployed and integrated in each of the 802.16 technologies using tunneling mechanisms and native IPv6.

3. Why is this v6ops draft presented here ? • It is related to subnet models and it can give some useful input to discuss about them • Collaboration b/w v6ops and 16ng required • 16ng expert review required

4. History and Further Plan • IETF65, March 2006 • Initial draft was presented • Accepted as a v6ops WG document • IETF66, July 2006 • Wg draft (-00) published, June 2006 • draft-ietf-v6ops-802-16-deployment-scenarios-00 • Next Steps … • Revised wg draft will be published in Sept. • draft-ietf-v6ops-802-16-deployment-scenarios-01 • It is being reviewed by three v6ops experts • Go to WGLC in Oct/Dec 2006

5. Changes since IETF-66 • Authors discussed about scenarios with 16ng (WiMAX, WiBro, etc.) experts. • Sang-Eon (KT) and Domagoj (Siemens) are newly added as co-authors • Three scenarios were more clearly defined and discussed • Mobile Access Deployment Scenario • 3GPP-like Deployment Scenario [RFC 3314] • Fixed/Nomadic Deployment Scenario • According to each scenario, the following IPv6 impacts were described • IPv6 Related Infrastructure Changes • Addressing • IPv6 Control and Data Transport • Routing …. • Multicast, Mobility, etc.

6. 802.16 Networks Elements Customer | Access Provider | Service Provider Premise | | (Backend Network) +-----+ +-----+ +------+ +--------+ | MSs |--(802.16)--| BS |-----+Access+---+ Edge | ISP +-----+ +-----+ |Router| | Router +==>Network +--+---+ +--------+ +-----+ +-----+ | | +------+ | Mss |--(802.16)--| BS |--------+ +--|AAA | +-----+ +-----+ |Server| +------+

7. #1. Mobile Access Deployment • Single/Mobile Deployment Model • One of WiMAX, WiBro Models • A subnet consists of only single router and multiple BSs and MS +-----+ | MS1 |<-(16)-+ +-----+ | +-----+ | +-----+ +-----+ +--------+ | MS2 |<-(16)-+----| BS1 |--+->| AR |----| Edge | ISP +-----+ +-----+ | +-----+ | Router +==>Network | +--------+ +-----+ +-----+ | | MS3 |<-(16)-+----| BS2 |--+ +-----+ | +-----+ +-----+ | | MS4 |<-(16)-+ +-----+

8. IPv6 Impact on #1 • IPv6 Related Infrastructure Changes • MS, AR, ER should be upgraded to IPv6 (BS is L3 unaware) • If the IP aware equipments between the AR and the ER do not support IPv6, the service providers can deploy IPv6-in-IPv4 tunneling to transport IPv6 packets between the AR and the ER. • Addressing • Single prefix can be shared for all the attached MSs. • IPv6 Transport • NDP optimization required • Routing • MS is configured with a default route that points to the AR • The AR should support IPv6 routing protocol such as OSPFv3 or IS-IS for IPv6 when connected to the ER with multiple links. Prefix summarization should be done at the ER.

9. #2. 3GPP-like Deployment • [RFC 3314] like Deployment Model • A subnet consists of only single router and single MS +-----+ | MS1 |<-(16)---------+ +-----+ | +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +--------+ | MS2 |<-(16)------| BS1 |--+->| AR |----| Edge | ISP +-----+ +-----+ | +-----+ | Router +==>Network | +--------+ +-----+ +-----+ | | MS3 |<-(16)------| BS2 |--+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ | | MS4 |<-(16)---------+ +-----+

10. IPv6 Impact on #2 • IPv6 Related Infrastructure Changes • Same as #1 • Addressing • A unique prefix can be allocated to each link. • IPv6 Transport • DAD is easy • Routing • Same as #1

11. #3. Fixed/Nomadic Deployment • Bridging to regular Ethernet Model • Hot zone Deployment (broader than Hot spot) • Wireless DSL (DSL Replacement) +-----+ +---+ +-----+ +-----+ ISP 1 | MS1 |<-(16)+ | | +-->| AR |----| ER1 |===>Network +-----+ | | b| | +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ | +-----+ |E r| | | MS2 |<-(16)+-----| BS1 |-----|t i| | +-----+ +-----+ |h d|--+ | g| | +-----+ +-----+ ISP 2 +-----+ +-----+ | e| +-->| BRAS|----| ER2 |===>Network |MS/GW|<-(16)------| BS2 |-----| | | +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +---+ | | +-----+ +-----+ | | TE |<-(DSL)-----|DSLAM|------------+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ |Hosts|<--> +-----+ This network behind MS may exist

12. IPv6 Impact on #3 • IPv6 Related Infrastructure Changes • BRAS provides the functionality of the AR • Ethernet bridge may provide some IPv6 specific functions to increase link efficiency of the 802.16 link (e.g., DAD optimization) • Addressing • Multiple prefixes can be shared to all the attached MSs. • Prefix delegation can be required since networks can exist behind MS • IPv6 Transport • DAD optimization required • Routing • IPv6 multi-homing considerations exist • If there exist multiple ARs to support MSs, a default router must be selected.

13. Further Item • Due to the problems caused by the existence of multiple CSs [I-D.iab-link-encaps], the mobile access scenarios need solutions about how roaming will work when forced to move from one CS to another.