draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-47.txt | draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-48.txt | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
IPWAVE Working Group N. Benamar | IPWAVE Working Group N. Benamar | |||
Internet-Draft Moulay Ismail University | Internet-Draft Moulay Ismail University | |||
Intended status: Standards Track J. Haerri | Intended status: Standards Track J. Haerri | |||
Expires: December 29, 2019 Eurecom | Expires: January 7, 2020 Eurecom | |||
J. Lee | J. Lee | |||
Sangmyung University | Sangmyung University | |||
T. Ernst | T. Ernst | |||
YoGoKo | YoGoKo | |||
June 27, 2019 | July 6, 2019 | |||
Basic support for IPv6 over IEEE Std 802.11 Networks operating Outside | Basic Support for IPv6 over IEEE Std 802.11 Networks Operating Outside | |||
the Context of a Basic Service Set (IPv6-over-80211-OCB) | the Context of a Basic Service Set (IPv6-over-80211-OCB) | |||
draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-47 | draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-48 | |||
Abstract | Abstract | |||
This document provides methods and settings, and describes | This document provides methods and settings, and describes | |||
limitations, for using IPv6 to communicate among nodes in range of | limitations, for using IPv6 to communicate among nodes in range of | |||
one another over a single IEEE 802.11-OCB link with minimal change to | one another over a single IEEE 802.11-OCB link. This support does | |||
existing stacks. Optimizations and usage of IPv6 over more complex | only require minimal changes to existing stacks. Optimizations and | |||
scenarios is not covered and is subject of future work. | usage of IPv6 over more complex scenarios is not covered in this | |||
specification and is subject of future work. | ||||
Status of This Memo | Status of This Memo | |||
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the | This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the | |||
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. | provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. | |||
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | |||
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute | Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute | |||
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- | working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- | |||
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. | Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. | |||
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | |||
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | |||
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | |||
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | |||
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 29, 2019. | This Internet-Draft will expire on January 7, 2020. | |||
Copyright Notice | Copyright Notice | |||
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | |||
document authors. All rights reserved. | document authors. All rights reserved. | |||
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | |||
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | |||
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | |||
publication of this document. Please review these documents | publication of this document. Please review these documents | |||
skipping to change at page 3, line 9 ¶ | skipping to change at page 3, line 9 ¶ | |||
G.2. Capture in Normal Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | G.2. Capture in Normal Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | |||
Appendix H. Extra Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 | Appendix H. Extra Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 | |||
Appendix I. Neighbor Discovery (ND) Potential Issues in Wireless | Appendix I. Neighbor Discovery (ND) Potential Issues in Wireless | |||
Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 | Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 | |||
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 | Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 | |||
1. Introduction | 1. Introduction | |||
This document provides a baseline with limitations for using IPv6 to | This document provides a baseline with limitations for using IPv6 to | |||
communicate among nodes in range of one another over a single IEEE | communicate among nodes in range of one another over a single IEEE | |||
802.11-OCB link [IEEE-802.11-2016] (a.k.a "802.11p" see Appendix A, | 802.11-OCB link [IEEE-802.11-2016] (a.k.a., "802.11p" see Appendicies | |||
Appendix B and Appendix C) with minimal change to existing stacks. | Appendix A, Appendix B and Appendix C) with minimal changes to | |||
This document describes the layering of IPv6 networking on top of the | existing stacks. Moreover, the document identifies limitations of | |||
IEEE Std 802.11 MAC layer or an IEEE Std 802.3 MAC layer with a frame | such usage. Concretly, the document describes the layering of IPv6 | |||
translation underneath. The resulting stack inherits from IPv6 over | networking on top of the IEEE Std 802.11 MAC layer or an IEEE Std | |||
Ethernet [RFC 2464] and operates over 802.11-OCB providing at least | 802.3 MAC layer with a frame translation underneath. The resulting | |||
P2P connectivity using IPv6 ND and link-local addresses. ND | stack inherits from IPv6 over Ethernet [RFC 2464], but operates over | |||
Extensions and IPWAVE optimizations for vehicular communications are | 802.11-OCB to provide at least P2P (Point to Point) connectivity | |||
not in scope. The expectation is that further specs will elaborate | using IPv6 ND and link-local addresses. | |||
for more complex vehicular networking scenarios. | ||||
The IPv6 network layer operates on 802.11-OCB in the same manner as | The IPv6 network layer operates on 802.11-OCB in the same manner as | |||
operating on Ethernet, but there are two kinds of exceptions: | operating on Ethernet with following exceptions: | |||
o Exceptions due to different operation of IPv6 network layer on | o Exceptions due to different operation of IPv6 network layer on | |||
802.11 than on Ethernet. The operation of IP on Ethernet is | 802.11 than on Ethernet. The operation of IP on Ethernet is | |||
described in [RFC1042], [RFC2464] . | described in [RFC1042], [RFC2464] . | |||
o Exceptions due to the OCB nature of 802.11-OCB compared to 802.11. | o Exceptions due to the OCB nature of 802.11-OCB compared to 802.11. | |||
This has impacts on security, privacy, subnet structure and | This has impacts on security, privacy, subnet structure and | |||
movement detection. For security and privacy recommendations see | movement detection. Security and privacy recommendations are | |||
Section 5 and Section 4.4. The subnet structure is described in | discussed in Section 5 and Section 4.4. The subnet structure is | |||
Section 4.6. The movement detection on OCB links is not described | described in Section 4.6. The movement detection on OCB links is | |||
in this document. | not described in this document. Likewise, ND Extensions and | |||
IPWAVE optimizations for vehicular communications are not in | ||||
scope. The expectation is that further specifications will be | ||||
edited to cover more complex vehicular networking scenarios. | ||||
In the published literature, many documents describe aspects and | The reader may refer to [I-D.ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking] for an | |||
problems related to running IPv6 over 802.11-OCB: | overview of problems related to running IPv6 over 802.11-OCB. It is | |||
[I-D.ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking]. | out of scope of this document to reiterate those. | |||
2. Terminology | 2. Terminology | |||
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", | The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", | |||
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and | "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and | |||
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP | "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP | |||
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all | 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all | |||
capitals, as shown here. | capitals, as shown here. | |||
IP-OBU (Internet Protocol On-Board Unit): an IP-OBU is a computer | The document makes uses of the following terms: IP-OBU (Internet | |||
situated in a vehicle such as an automobile, bicycle, or similar. It | Protocol On-Board Unit): an IP-OBU denotes a computer situated in a | |||
has at least one IP interface that runs in mode OCB of 802.11, and | vehicle such as a car, bicycle, or similar. It has at least one IP | |||
that has an "OBU" transceiver. See the definition of the term "OBU" | interface that runs in mode OCB of 802.11, and that has an "OBU" | |||
in section Appendix H. | transceiver. See the definition of the term "OBU" in section | |||
Appendix H. | ||||
IP-RSU (IP Road-Side Unit): an IP-RSU is situated along the road. It | IP-RSU (IP Road-Side Unit): an IP-RSU is situated along the road. It | |||
has at least two distinct IP-enabled interfaces; the wireless PHY/MAC | has at least two distinct IP-enabled interfaces. The wireless PHY/ | |||
layer of at least one of its IP-enabled interfaces is configured to | MAC layer of at least one of its IP-enabled interfaces is configured | |||
operate in 802.11-OCB mode. An IP-RSU communicates with the IP-OBU | to operate in 802.11-OCB mode. An IP-RSU communicates with the IP- | |||
in the vehicle over 802.11 wireless link operating in OCB mode. An | OBU in the vehicle over 802.11 wireless link operating in OCB mode. | |||
IP-RSU is similar to an Access Network Router (ANR) defined in | An IP-RSU is similar to an Access Network Router (ANR) defined in | |||
[RFC3753], and a Wireless Termination Point (WTP) defined in | [RFC3753], and a Wireless Termination Point (WTP) defined in | |||
[RFC5415]. | [RFC5415]. | |||
OCB (outside the context of a basic service set - BSS): A mode of | OCB (outside the context of a basic service set - BSS): is a mode of | |||
operation in which a STA is not a member of a BSS and does not | operation in which a STA is not a member of a BSS and does not | |||
utilize IEEE Std 802.11 authentication, association, or data | utilize IEEE Std 802.11 authentication, association, or data | |||
confidentiality. | confidentiality. | |||
802.11-OCB: mode specified in IEEE Std 802.11-2016 when the MIB | 802.11-OCB: refers to the mode specified in IEEE Std 802.11-2016 when | |||
attribute dot11OCBActivited is true. Note: compliance with standards | the MIB attribute dot11OCBActivited is 'true'. Note: compliance with | |||
and regulations set in different countries when using the 5.9GHz | standards and regulations set in different countries when using the | |||
frequency band is required. | 5.9GHz frequency band is required. | |||
3. Communication Scenarios where IEEE 802.11-OCB Links are Used | 3. Communication Scenarios where IEEE 802.11-OCB Links are Used | |||
The IEEE 802.11-OCB Networks are used for vehicular communications, | The IEEE 802.11-OCB networks are used for vehicular communications, | |||
as 'Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments'. In particular, we | as 'Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments'. In particular, we | |||
refer the reader to [I-D.ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking], that | refer the reader to [I-D.ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking], that | |||
lists some scenarios and requirements for IP in Intelligent | lists some scenarios and requirements for IP in Intelligent | |||
Transportation Systems. | Transportation Systems (ITS). | |||
The link model is the following: STA --- 802.11-OCB --- STA. In | The link model is the following: STA --- 802.11-OCB --- STA. In | |||
vehicular networks, STAs can be IP-RSUs and/or IP-OBUs. All links | vehicular networks, STAs can be IP-RSUs and/or IP-OBUs. All links | |||
are assumed to be P2P and multiple links can be on one radio | are assumed to be P2P and multiple links can be on one radio | |||
interface. While 802.11-OCB is clearly specified, and a legacy IPv6 | interface. While 802.11-OCB is clearly specified, and a legacy IPv6 | |||
stack can operate on such links, the use of the operating environment | stack can operate on such links, the use of the operating environment | |||
(vehicular networks) brings in new perspectives. | (vehicular networks) brings in new perspectives. | |||
4. IPv6 over 802.11-OCB | 4. IPv6 over 802.11-OCB | |||
4.1. Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU) | 4.1. Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU) | |||
The default MTU for IP packets on 802.11-OCB is inherited from | The default MTU for IP packets on 802.11-OCB is inherited from | |||
RFC2464 and is 1500 octets. This value of the MTU respects the | RFC2464 and is, as such, 1500 octets. This value of the MTU respects | |||
recommendation that every link on the Internet must have a minimum | the recommendation that every link on the Internet must have a | |||
MTU of 1280 octets (stated in [RFC8200], and the recommendations | minimum MTU of 1280 octets (stated in [RFC8200], and the | |||
therein, especially with respect to fragmentation). | recommendations therein, especially with respect to fragmentation). | |||
4.2. Frame Format | 4.2. Frame Format | |||
IP packets MUST be transmitted over 802.11-OCB media as QoS Data | IP packets MUST be transmitted over 802.11-OCB media as QoS Data | |||
frames whose format is specified in IEEE 802.11 spec | frames whose format is specified in IEEE 802.11 spec | |||
[IEEE-802.11-2016]. | [IEEE-802.11-2016]. | |||
The IPv6 packet transmitted on 802.11-OCB are immediately preceded by | The IPv6 packet transmitted on 802.11-OCB are immediately preceded by | |||
a Logical Link Control (LLC) header and an 802.11 header. In the LLC | a Logical Link Control (LLC) header and an 802.11 header. In the LLC | |||
header, and in accordance with the EtherType Protocol Discrimination | header, and in accordance with the EtherType Protocol Discrimination | |||
(EPD, see Appendix D), the value of the Type field MUST be set to | (EPD, see Appendix D), the value of the Type field MUST be set to | |||
0x86DD (IPv6). The mapping to the 802.11 data service MUST use a | 0x86DD (IPv6). The mapping to the 802.11 data service MUST use a | |||
'priority' value of 1, which specifies the use of QoS with a | 'priority' value of 1, which specifies the use of QoS with a | |||
'Background' user priority. | 'Background' user priority. | |||
To simplify the Application Programming Interface (API) between the | To simplify the Application Programming Interface (API) between the | |||
operating system and the 802.11-OCB media, device drivers MAY | operating system and the 802.11-OCB media, device drivers MAY | |||
implement IPv6 over Ethernet per RFC 2464 and then a frame | implement IPv6-over-Ethernet as per RFC 2464 and then a frame | |||
translation from 802.3 to 802.11 in order to minimize the code | translation from 802.3 to 802.11 in order to minimize the code | |||
changes. | changes. | |||
4.3. Link-Local Addresses | 4.3. Link-Local Addresses | |||
There are several types of IPv6 addresses [RFC4291], [RFC4193], that | There are several types of IPv6 addresses [RFC4291], [RFC4193], that | |||
MAY be assigned to an 802.11-OCB interface. Among these types of | may be assigned to an 802.11-OCB interface. Among these types of | |||
addresses only the IPv6 link-local addresses MAY be formed using an | addresses only the IPv6 link-local addresses can be formed using an | |||
EUI-64 identifier, in particular during transition time. | EUI-64 identifier, in particular during transition time. | |||
If the IPv6 link-local address is formed using an EUI-64 identifier, | If the IPv6 link-local address is formed using an EUI-64 identifier, | |||
then the mechanism of forming that address is the same mechanism as | then the mechanism of forming that address is the same mechanism as | |||
used to form an IPv6 link-local address on Ethernet links. Moreover, | used to form an IPv6 link-local address on Ethernet links. Moreover, | |||
whether or not the interface identifier is derived from the EUI-64 A | whether or not the interface identifier is derived from the EUI-64 A | |||
identifier, its length is 64 bits as is the case for Ethernet | identifier, its length is 64 bits as is the case for Ethernet | |||
[RFC2464]. | [RFC2464]. | |||
4.4. Stateless Autoconfiguration | 4.4. Stateless Autoconfiguration | |||
The steps a host takes in deciding how to autoconfigure its | The steps a host takes in deciding how to autoconfigure its | |||
interfaces in IP version 6 are described in [RFC4862]. This section | interfaces in IP6 are described in [RFC4862]. This section describes | |||
describes the formation of Interface Identifiers for IPv6 addresses | the formation of Interface Identifiers for IPv6 addresses of type | |||
of type 'Global' or 'Unique Local'. For Interface Identifiers for | 'Global' or 'Unique Local'. For Interface Identifiers for IPv6 | |||
IPv6 address of type 'Link-Local' see Section 4.3. | address of type 'Link-Local' are discussed in Section 4.3. | |||
The RECOMMENDED method for forming stable Interface Identifiers | The RECOMMENDED method for forming stable Interface Identifiers | |||
(IIDs) is described in [RFC8064]. The method of forming IIDs | (IIDs) is described in [RFC8064]. The method of forming IIDs | |||
described in section 4 of [RFC2464] MAY be used during transition | described in Section 4 of [RFC2464] MAY be used during transition | |||
time, in particular for IPv6 link-local addresses. Regardless of how | time, in particular for IPv6 link-local addresses. Regardless of how | |||
to form the Interface Identifier, its length is 64 bits, as is the | to form the IID, its length is 64 bits, as is the case of the IPv6 | |||
case of the IPv6 over Ethernet specification [RFC2464]. | over Ethernet [RFC2464]. | |||
The bits in the Interface Identifier have no generic meaning and the | The bits in the IID have no specific meaning and the identifier | |||
identifier should be treated as an opaque value. The bits | should be treated as an opaque value. The bits 'Universal' and | |||
'Universal' and 'Group' in the identifier of an 802.11-OCB interface | 'Group' in the identifier of an 802.11-OCB interface are significant, | |||
are significant, as this is an IEEE link-layer address. The details | as this is an IEEE link-layer address. The details of this | |||
of this significance are described in [RFC7136]. | significance are described in [RFC7136]. | |||
Semantically opaque Interface Identifiers, instead of meaningful | Semantically opaque IIDs, instead of meaningful IIs derived from a | |||
Interface Identifiers derived from a valid and meaningful MAC address | valid and meaningful MAC address ([RFC2464], Section 4), help avoid | |||
([RFC2464], section 4), help avoid certain privacy risks (see the | certain privacy risks (see the risks mentioned in Section 5.1.1). If | |||
risks mentioned in Section 5.1.1). If semantically opaque Interface | semantically opaque IIDs are needed, they MAY be generated using the | |||
Identifiers are needed, they MAY be generated using the method for | method for generating semantically opaque IIDs with IPv6 Stateless | |||
generating semantically opaque Interface Identifiers with IPv6 | Address Autoconfiguration given in [RFC7217]. Typically, an opaque | |||
Stateless Address Autoconfiguration given in [RFC7217]. Typically, | IID is formed starting from identifiers different than the MAC | |||
an opaque Interface Identifier is formed starting from identifiers | addresses, and from cryptographically strong material. Thus, privacy | |||
different than the MAC addresses, and from cryptographically strong | sensitive information is absent from Interface IDs, because it is | |||
material. Thus, privacy sensitive information is absent from | impossible to calculate back the initial value from which the | |||
Interface IDs, because it is impossible to calculate back the initial | Interface ID was first generated. | |||
value from which the Interface ID was first generated (intuitively, | ||||
it is as hard as mentally finding the square root of a number, and as | ||||
impossible as trying to use computers to identify quickly whether a | ||||
large number is prime). | ||||
Some applications that use IPv6 packets on 802.11-OCB links (among | Some applications that use IPv6 packets on 802.11-OCB links (among | |||
other link types) may benefit from IPv6 addresses whose Interface | other link types) may benefit from IPv6 addresses whose IIDs don't | |||
Identifiers don't change too often. It is RECOMMENDED to use the | change too often. It is RECOMMENDED to use the mechanisms described | |||
mechanisms described in RFC 7217 to permit the use of Stable | in RFC 7217 to permit the use of Stable IIDs that do not change | |||
Interface Identifiers that do not change within one subnet prefix. A | within one subnet prefix. A possible source for the Net-Iface | |||
possible source for the Net-Iface Parameter is a virtual interface | Parameter is a virtual interface name, or logical interface name, | |||
name, or logical interface name, that is decided by a local | that is decided by a local administrator. | |||
administrator. | ||||
4.5. Address Mapping | 4.5. Address Mapping | |||
Unicast and multicast address mapping MUST follow the procedures | Unicast and multicast address mapping MUST follow the procedures | |||
specified for Ethernet interfaces in sections 6 and 7 of [RFC2464]. | specified for Ethernet interfaces specified in Sections 6 and 7 of | |||
[RFC2464]. | ||||
4.5.1. Address Mapping -- Unicast | 4.5.1. Address Mapping -- Unicast | |||
This draft is scoped for AR and DAD per RFC 4861 [RFC4861]. | This document is scoped for Address Resolution (AR) and Duplicate | |||
Address Detection (DAD) per RFC 4861 [RFC4861]. | ||||
4.5.2. Address Mapping -- Multicast | 4.5.2. Address Mapping -- Multicast | |||
The multicast address mapping is performed according to the method | The multicast address mapping is performed according to the method | |||
specified in section 7 of [RFC2464]. The meaning of the value "3333" | specified in section 7 of [RFC2464]. The meaning of the value "3333" | |||
mentioned in that section 7 of [RFC2464] is defined in section 2.3.1 | mentioned in that section 7 of [RFC2464] is defined in section 2.3.1 | |||
of [RFC7042]. | of [RFC7042]. | |||
Transmitting IPv6 packets to multicast destinations over 802.11 links | Transmitting IPv6 packets to multicast destinations over 802.11 links | |||
proved to have some performance issues | proved to have some performance issues | |||
[I-D.ietf-mboned-ieee802-mcast-problems]. These issues may be | [I-D.ietf-mboned-ieee802-mcast-problems]. These issues may be | |||
exacerbated in OCB mode.A Future improvement to this specification | exacerbated in OCB mode.A A future improvement to this specification | |||
SHOULD consider solutions for these problems. | should consider solutions for these problems. | |||
4.6. Subnet Structure | 4.6. Subnet Structure | |||
A subnet may be formed over 802.11-OCB interfaces of vehicles that | A subnet may be formed over 802.11-OCB interfaces of vehicles that | |||
are in close range (not by their in-vehicle interfaces). A Prefix | are in close range (not by their in-vehicle interfaces). A Prefix | |||
List conceptual data structure ([RFC4861] section 5.1) is maintained | List conceptual data structure ([RFC4861] Section 5.1) is maintained | |||
for each 802.11-OCB interface. | for each 802.11-OCB interface. | |||
An IPv6 subnet on which Neighbor Discovery protocol (ND) can be | An IPv6 subnet on which Neighbor Discovery protocol (ND) can be | |||
mapped on an OCB network iff all nodes share a single broadcast | mapped on an OCB network if all nodes share a single broadcast | |||
Domain, which is generally the case for P2P OCB links; The extension | Domain, which is generally the case for P2P OCB links; The extension | |||
to IPv6 ND operating on a subnet that covers multiple OCB links and | to IPv6 ND operating on a subnet that covers multiple OCB links and | |||
not fully overlapping (NBMA) is not in scope. | not fully overlapping (NBMA) is not in scope. | |||
The structure of this subnet is ephemeral, in that it is strongly | The structure of this subnet is ephemeral, in that it is strongly | |||
influenced by the mobility of vehicles: the hidden terminal effects | influenced by the mobility of vehicles: the hidden terminal effects | |||
appear; the 802.11 networks in OCB mode may be considered as 'ad-hoc' | appear; the 802.11 networks in OCB mode may be considered as 'ad-hoc' | |||
networks with an addressing model as described in [RFC5889]. On | networks with an addressing model as described in [RFC5889]. On | |||
another hand, the structure of the internal subnets in each car is | another hand, the structure of the internal subnets in each vehicle | |||
relatively stable. | is relatively stable. | |||
As recommended in [RFC5889], when the timing requirements are very | As recommended in [RFC5889], when the timing requirements are very | |||
strict (e.g. fast drive through IP-RSU coverage), no on-link subnet | strict (e.g. fast drive through IP-RSU coverage), no on-link subnet | |||
prefix should be configured on an 802.11-OCB interface. In such | prefix should be configured on an 802.11-OCB interface. In such | |||
cases, the exclusive use of IPv6 link-local addresses is RECOMMENDED. | cases, the exclusive use of IPv6 link-local addresses is RECOMMENDED. | |||
Additionally, even if the timing requirements are not very strict | Additionally, even if the timing requirements are not very strict | |||
(e.g. the moving subnet formed by two following vehicles is stable, a | (e.g., the moving subnet formed by two following vehicles is stable, | |||
fixed IP-RSU is absent), the subnet is disconnected from the Internet | a fixed IP-RSU is absent), the subnet is disconnected from the | |||
(a default route is absent), and the addressing peers are equally | Internet (i.e., a default route is absent), and the addressing peers | |||
qualified (impossible to determine that some vehicle owns and | are equally qualified (that is, it is impossible to determine that | |||
distributes addresses to others) the use of link-local addresses is | some vehicle owns and distributes addresses to others) the use of | |||
RECOMMENDED. | link-local addresses is RECOMMENDED. | |||
The baseline Neighbor Discovery protocol (ND) [RFC4861] MUST be | The baseline ND protocol [RFC4861] MUST be supported over 802.11-OCB | |||
supported over 802.11-OCB links. Transmitting ND packets may prove | links. Transmitting ND packets may prove to have some performance | |||
to have some performance issues see Section 4.5.2, and Appendix I. | issues as mentioned in Section 4.5.2, and Appendix I. These issues | |||
These issues may be exacerbated in OCB mode. Solutions for these | may be exacerbated in OCB mode. Solutions for these problems should | |||
problems SHOULD consider the OCB mode of operation. Future solutions | consider the OCB mode of operation. Future solutions to OCB should | |||
to OCB should consider solutions for avoiding broadcast. The best of | consider solutions for avoiding broadcast. The best of current | |||
current knowledge indicates the kinds of issues that may arise with | knowledge indicates the kinds of issues that may arise with ND in OCB | |||
ND in OCB mode; they are described in Appendix I. | mode; they are described in Appendix I. | |||
Protocols like Mobile IPv6 [RFC6275] , [RFC3963] and DNAv6 [RFC6059], | Protocols like Mobile IPv6 [RFC6275] , [RFC3963] and DNAv6 [RFC6059], | |||
which depend on timely movement detection, might need additional | which depend on a timely movement detection, might need additional | |||
tuning work to handle the lack of link-layer notifications during | tuning work to handle the lack of link-layer notifications during | |||
handover. This is for further study. | handover. This is for further study. | |||
5. Security Considerations | 5. Security Considerations | |||
Any security mechanism at the IP layer or above that may be carried | Any security mechanism at the IP layer or above that may be carried | |||
out for the general case of IPv6 may also be carried out for IPv6 | out for the general case of IPv6 may also be carried out for IPv6 | |||
operating over 802.11-OCB. | operating over 802.11-OCB. | |||
The OCB operation is stripped off of all existing 802.11 link-layer | The OCB operation is stripped off of all existing 802.11 link-layer | |||
security mechanisms. There is no encryption applied below the | security mechanisms. There is no encryption applied below the | |||
network layer running on 802.11-OCB. At application layer, the IEEE | network layer running on 802.11-OCB. At the application layer, the | |||
1609.2 document [IEEE-1609.2] does provide security services for | IEEE 1609.2 document [IEEE-1609.2] provides security services for | |||
certain applications to use; application-layer mechanisms are out-of- | certain applications to use; application-layer mechanisms are out-of- | |||
scope of this document. On another hand, a security mechanism | scope of this document. On another hand, a security mechanism | |||
provided at networking layer, such as IPsec [RFC4301], may provide | provided at networking layer, such as IPsec [RFC4301], may provide | |||
data security protection to a wider range of applications. | data security protection to a wider range of applications. | |||
802.11-OCB does not provide any cryptographic protection, because it | 802.11-OCB does not provide any cryptographic protection, because it | |||
operates outside the context of a BSS (no Association Request/ | operates outside the context of a BSS (no Association Request/ | |||
Response, no Challenge messages). Any attacker can therefore just | Response, no Challenge messages). Any attacker can therefore just | |||
sit in the near range of vehicles, sniff the network (just set the | sit in the near range of vehicles, sniff the network (just set the | |||
interface card's frequency to the proper range) and perform attacks | interface card's frequency to the proper range) and performs attacks | |||
without needing to physically break any wall. Such a link is less | without needing to physically break any wall. Such a link is less | |||
protected than commonly used links (wired link or protected 802.11). | protected than commonly used links (wired link or protected 802.11). | |||
The potential attack vectors are: MAC address spoofing, IP address | The potential attack vectors are: MAC address spoofing, IP address | |||
and session hijacking, and privacy violation Section 5.1. A previous | and session hijacking, and privacy violation Section 5.1. A previous | |||
work at SAVI WG presents some threats [RFC6959], while SeND presented | work at SAVI WG identifies some threats [RFC6959], while SeND | |||
in [RFC3971] and [RFC3972] is a solution against address theft but it | presented in [RFC3971] and [RFC3972] is a solution against address | |||
is complex and not deployed. | theft but it is complex and not deployed. | |||
More IETF protocols are available in the toolbox of the IP security | More IETF protocols are available in the toolbox of the IP security | |||
protocol designer. Certain ETSI protocols related to security | protocol designer. Some ETSI protocols related to security protocols | |||
protocols in Intelligent Transportation Systems are described in | in ITS are described in [ETSI-sec-archi]. | |||
[ETSI-sec-archi]. | ||||
5.1. Privacy Considerations | 5.1. Privacy Considerations | |||
As with all Ethernet and 802.11 interface identifiers ([RFC7721]), | As with all Ethernet and 802.11 interface identifiers ([RFC7721]), | |||
the identifier of an 802.11-OCB interface may involve privacy, MAC | the identifier of an 802.11-OCB interface may involve privacy, MAC | |||
address spoofing and IP address hijacking risks. A vehicle embarking | address spoofing and IP hijacking risks. A vehicle embarking an IP- | |||
an IP-OBU whose egress interface is 802.11-OCB may expose itself to | OBU whose egress interface is 802.11-OCB may expose itself to | |||
eavesdropping and subsequent correlation of data; this may reveal | eavesdropping and subsequent correlation of data; this may reveal | |||
data considered private by the vehicle owner; there is a risk of | data considered private by the vehicle owner; there is a risk of | |||
being tracked. In outdoors public environments, where vehicles | being tracked. In outdoors public environments, where vehicles | |||
typically circulate, the privacy risks are more important than in | typically circulate, the privacy risks are more important than in | |||
indoors settings. It is highly likely that attacker sniffers are | indoors settings. It is highly likely that attacker sniffers are | |||
deployed along routes which listen for IEEE frames, including IP | deployed along routes which listen for IEEE frames, including IP | |||
packets, of vehicles passing by. For this reason, in the 802.11-OCB | packets, of vehicles passing by. For this reason, in the 802.11-OCB | |||
deployments, there is a strong necessity to use protection tools such | deployments, there is a strong necessity to use protection tools such | |||
as dynamically changing MAC addresses Section 5.2, semantically | as dynamically changing MAC addresses Section 5.2, semantically | |||
opaque Interface Identifiers and stable Interface Identifiers | opaque Interface Identifiers and stable Interface Identifiers | |||
Section 4.4. An example of change policy is to change the MAC | Section 4.4. An example of change policy is to change the MAC | |||
address of the OCB interface each time the system boots upThis may | address of the OCB interface each time the system boots up. This may | |||
help mitigate privacy risks to a certain level. | help mitigate privacy risks to a certain level. Futhermore, for | |||
pricavy concerns ([RFC8065]) recommends using an address generation | ||||
scheme rather than addresses generated from a fixed link-layer | ||||
address. | ||||
5.1.1. Privacy Risks of Meaningful info in Interface IDs | 5.1.1. Privacy Risks of Meaningful info in Interface IDs | |||
The privacy risks of using MAC addresses displayed in Interface | The privacy risks of using MAC addresses displayed in Interface | |||
Identifiers are important. The IPv6 packets can be captured easily | Identifiers are important. The IPv6 packets can be captured easily | |||
in the Internet and on-link in public roads. For this reason, an | in the Internet and on-link in public roads. For this reason, an | |||
attacker may realize many attacks on privacy. One such attack on | attacker may realize many attacks on privacy. One such attack on | |||
802.11-OCB is to capture, store and correlate Company ID information | 802.11-OCB is to capture, store and correlate Company ID information | |||
present in MAC addresses of many cars (e.g. listen for Router | present in MAC addresses of many cars (e.g. listen for Router | |||
Advertisements, or other IPv6 application data packets, and record | Advertisements, or other IPv6 application data packets, and record | |||
skipping to change at page 14, line 44 ¶ | skipping to change at page 14, line 44 ¶ | |||
[RFC7721] Cooper, A., Gont, F., and D. Thaler, "Security and Privacy | [RFC7721] Cooper, A., Gont, F., and D. Thaler, "Security and Privacy | |||
Considerations for IPv6 Address Generation Mechanisms", | Considerations for IPv6 Address Generation Mechanisms", | |||
RFC 7721, DOI 10.17487/RFC7721, March 2016, | RFC 7721, DOI 10.17487/RFC7721, March 2016, | |||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7721>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7721>. | |||
[RFC8064] Gont, F., Cooper, A., Thaler, D., and W. Liu, | [RFC8064] Gont, F., Cooper, A., Thaler, D., and W. Liu, | |||
"Recommendation on Stable IPv6 Interface Identifiers", | "Recommendation on Stable IPv6 Interface Identifiers", | |||
RFC 8064, DOI 10.17487/RFC8064, February 2017, | RFC 8064, DOI 10.17487/RFC8064, February 2017, | |||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8064>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8064>. | |||
[RFC8065] Thaler, D., "Privacy Considerations for IPv6 Adaptation- | ||||
Layer Mechanisms", RFC 8065, DOI 10.17487/RFC8065, | ||||
February 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8065>. | ||||
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC | [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC | |||
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, | 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, | |||
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. | May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. | |||
[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 | [RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 | |||
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200, | (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200, | |||
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017, | DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017, | |||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>. | |||
9.2. Informative References | 9.2. Informative References | |||
skipping to change at page 23, line 8 ¶ | skipping to change at page 23, line 8 ¶ | |||
+-+-+-{ PHY_SAP }+-+-+-+-+-+-+-| | | +-+-+-{ PHY_SAP }+-+-+-+-+-+-+-| | | |||
| | PLME | | | | | PLME | | | |||
| PHY Layer | PLME_SAP | | | PHY Layer | PLME_SAP | | |||
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
Figure 2: EtherType Protocol Discrimination | Figure 2: EtherType Protocol Discrimination | |||
Appendix E. Design Considerations | Appendix E. Design Considerations | |||
The networks defined by 802.11-OCB are in many ways similar to other | The networks defined by 802.11-OCB are in many ways similar to other | |||
networks of the 802.11 family. In theory, the encapsulation of IPv6 | networks of the 802.11 family. In theory, the transportation of IPv6 | |||
over 802.11-OCB could be very similar to the operation of IPv6 over | over 802.11-OCB could be very similar to the operation of IPv6 over | |||
other networks of the 802.11 family. However, the high mobility, | other networks of the 802.11 family. However, the high mobility, | |||
strong link asymmetry and very short connection makes the 802.11-OCB | strong link asymmetry and very short connection makes the 802.11-OCB | |||
link significantly different from other 802.11 networks. Also, the | link significantly different from other 802.11 networks. Also, the | |||
automotive applications have specific requirements for reliability, | automotive applications have specific requirements for reliability, | |||
security and privacy, which further add to the particularity of the | security and privacy, which further add to the particularity of the | |||
802.11-OCB link. | 802.11-OCB link. | |||
Appendix F. IEEE 802.11 Messages Transmitted in OCB mode | Appendix F. IEEE 802.11 Messages Transmitted in OCB mode | |||
End of changes. 42 change blocks. | ||||
121 lines changed or deleted | 128 lines changed or added | |||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/ |