SlideServe
Télécharger Obtenir Pro
Menu
Accueil Pro
Préférences
ApparenceLight Aide et commentaires
© SlideServe · v2026

CAPWAP Protocol Specification Update: Issue Resolutions and Future Steps

raiden avatar
raiden
10 diapositives · 261 Views · Oct 23, 2014

This report outlines the latest updates on the CAPWAP Protocol Specification as of July 2007. It summarizes resolutions for issues raised in previous publications, including critical changes related to IPv4/IPv6 address requirements, clarification on DTLS functionalities, and the definition of important terms. Notable resolved issues span various technical aspects, such as heartbeat timers and UDP port usage. The report also discusses next steps for addressing outstanding concerns and preparing for upcoming Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) meetings.

CAPWAP Protocol Specification Update: Issue Resolutions and Future Steps - slide 1
01 / 10CAPWAP Protocol Specification Update: Issue Resolutions and Future Steps
1 / 17

Télécharger la présentation

CAPWAP Protocol Specification Update: Issue Resolutions and Future Steps
Une image / un lien ci-dessous est fourni (tel quel) pour télécharger la présentation

Politique de téléchargement : le contenu du site vous est fourni TEL QUEL pour votre information et votre usage personnel ; il ne peut être vendu, concédé sous licence ni partagé sur d’autres sites sans l’accord de son auteur.Le contenu vous est fourni TEL QUEL, pour votre information et votre usage personnel uniquement. Téléchargez la présentation en cliquant sur ce lien. Lors du téléchargement, si vous ne parvenez pas à télécharger une présentation, l’éditeur a peut-être supprimé le fichier de son serveur.Pendant le téléchargement, si vous ne parvenez pas à obtenir une présentation, le fichier a peut-être été supprimé par l’éditeur.

F I N

Plus de contenu associé

Transcription de la présentation

  1. CAPWAP Protocol Specification Editors' Report July 2007 pcalhoun@cisco.com mmontemurro@rim.com dstanley@arubanetworks.com

  2. Highlights from -06/-03 issue resolution Highlights from -07/-04 issue resolution Discussion of new issues raised since publication of -07/-04 Next Steps Editors’ Report Agenda

  3. Issues Resolved in -06/-03 248: Both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses not required 250: Clarification onDTLSRehandshake/DTLSPeerAuthorize/DTLSIncomingSession 252: Heartbeat timer is undefined 217: What is frame format when WTP encrypts/decrypts 249: UDP-Lite as optional transport for CAPWAP 251: Retransmission of control packets is not exponential Issues Resolved in -07/-04 257: WTP IPvX address 263: KeyLifetime should be removed 262: Capwap state transition (Join to Image download) 261: Issue with fix to issue 244 (Header Optimization) 254: Clarification required on use of UDP ports 258: DHCP Option Under-Specified 244: preamble header optimization Resolved Issues

  4. Issue 248 – Both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses not required Editorial problem. The text required the WTP to have *both* an IPv4 and an IPv6 address. The fix is that only one is now required. Issue 250 – Clarification on DTLSRehandshake /DTLSPeerAuthorize / DTLSIncomingSession There were three problems that existed with the DTLS text. Specifically: 1. The DTLSRehandshake timer still existed in the spec, but rehandshake is not supported by CAPWAP. 2. The state machine pointed to the DTLSPeerAuthorize notification, which was not specified in the document. 3. DTLSIncomingSession notification existed, but the state machine did not refer to it. The state machine included the actual state change, but was missing the text to point to the notification. Issue Resolutions in -06, -03

  5. Issue 252 – Heartbeat timer is undefined The text made references to a “Heartbeat timer”, but the actual timer is called the EchoInterval timer. Issue 217 – What is frame format when WTP encrypts / decrypts Section 2.1.1 of the binding-02 draft did not specify which fields in the 802.11 header the WTP and AC were responsible for setting when encryption occurred in the WTP. Issue Resolutions in -06, -03

  6. Issue 249 – UDP-Lite as optional transport for CAPWAP In order for hardware to be able to process UDP headers efficiently, the spec calls for a zero (0) checksum. However, IPv6 does not allow zero (0) checksum with UDP, which caused the WG to adopt UDP-Lite when CAPWAP is run over IPv6. Issue 251 – Retransmission of control packets is not exponential The CAPWAP protocol did not have any congestion control mechanisms, which we knew would be a problem during the IESG review. The control protocol now has exponential backoff. Issue Resolutions in -06, -03

  7. Issue 257 - WTP IPvX address The CAPWAP protocol states that the WTP IPv4 Address message element can be used to determine if NAT is performed. However, there is no similar IPv6 message element. This was added in order to support v4< - >v6 scenarios. Issue 263 - KeyLifetime should be removed The Working Group had agreed we would not use DTLS rekeying, but the KeyLifetime field was never removed from the spec. Issue 262 - Capwap state transition (Join to Image download) When the WTP entered the Image Data state (for image downloads), it would not initialize the Echo Request timer. Issue Resolutions in -07, -04

  8. Issue 261 – Issue with fix to issue 244 (Header Optimization) The introduction of issue 244 (Header Optimization) created editorial issues. Issue 254 – Clarification required on use of UDP ports The specification made references to control channel, control ports, control plane, etc. The same was true for the data channel. This issue ensured that the spec used a common terminology throughout, and added definitions for both the control and data channel. Issue 258 – DHCP Option Under-Specified The use of DHCP in the CAPWAP specification was inconsistent with how DHCP options are defined. The text was removed and moved to a separate specification that follows DHCP protocol conventions. Issue 244 - preamble header optimization The issue raised was that the CAPWAP headers could be optimized to reduce the overhead and duplication of fields. Issue Resolutions in -07, -04

  9. Issue 15: DataChannelKeepAlive The text refers to this timer that was not defined in the spec Issue 16: MAC Address Length The text included a MAC Address field of 9 bytes (instead of 8) in various message elements. Issues Being Addressed for -08/-05

  10. Plan is to submit -08/-05 after IETF meeting Depends largely on whether transport issues need to be addressed Need some guidance on which issues are show stoppers Do the chair anticipate another WG Last Call? Since the WG Last Call occurred on -06/-03, some technical changes were introduced that may warrant another one. Do we need another IEEE review? No comments were received on the previous version Next Steps