Capwap Mailing List: Re: Encryption Capabilities

[Bob O'Hara (boohara) (boohara]

Dorothy,

 

Given that protection of the CAPWAP data packet is (optionally) available using DTLS in -01, why should we also include an optional binding-specific protection mechanism that protects only the encapsulated 802.11 data frame?  This seems to me to be two ways to do the same thing, with one of those ways available only when the binding is 802.11.

 

I suggest that we standardize on the DTLS method, which would be available to any binding and eliminate the 802.11-encrypted mechanism.

 -Bob
 

 

---

From: Dorothy Stanley [mailto:dstanley1389 [at] gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 5:04 PM
To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)
Cc: capwap [at] frascone.com
Subject: Re: [Capwap] Encryption Capabilities

I do not agree with always requiring the WTP to provide 
wireless
encryption. The split MAC architecture allows 802.11 
encryption/decryption
at either the WTP or the AC, and this flexibility 
should be retained, with use of the
field in question clearly 
defined.

Dorothy

On 6/5/06, Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) <pcalhoun [at] cisco.com> wrote:

Actually, this field was intended to allow the WTP to communicate whether it is capable of providing its capabilities, and therefore allow the AC to determine whether it should perform centralized encryption. However, with the transition to DTLS, I propose that we always require the WTP to provide wireless encryption, and use DTLS between the AC and the WTP.

 

Pat Calhoun
CTO, Wireless Networking Business Unit
Cisco Systems

 

---

From: Michael Montemurro [mailto:montemurro.michael [at] gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 12:12 PM
To: David T. Perkins
Cc: capwap [at] frascone.com
Subject: Re: [Capwap] Encryption Capabilities

David,

 

Would it be sufficient to move Encryption Capabilities from the WTP Descriptor (Section 4.4.34) to the WTP Radio Information message element (Section 4.4.39)?

 

Mike

 

On 6/3/06, Michael Montemurro <montemurro.michael [at] gmail.com> wrote:

David,

I've created issue 125 to track this issue.

 

Mike

 

On 6/1/06, David T. Perkins <dperkins [at] dsperkins.com > wrote:

HI,

The "(4.4.34)WTP Descriptor" message element has the
subfield "encryption capabilities". What is this used
for? If for radios, then it should be per radio. If
for the user data between the WTP and AC, then
it doesn't seem appropriate to say the value is
defined by "specific binding" definitions because
the WTP can be supporting multiple radios with
some that provide encryption services and some
that don't.

In general, I don't feel that this subfield is
well defined, and it appears to me that it
should be a per radio attribute.

Regards,
/david t. perkins

_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap

Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap

_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap

Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap