| Re: Proposed Text for Issue 249: IPv6 UDP Lite | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
|
From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) (pcalhoun |
|
| Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 09:17:23 -0700 (PDT) | |
This is the destination UDP port number. Pat Calhoun CTO, Wireless Networking Business Unit Cisco Systems > -----Original Message----- > From: Puneet Agarwal [mailto:pagarwal [at] broadcom.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 5:50 PM > To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap [at] frascone.com > Subject: RE: [Capwap] Proposed Text for Issue 249: IPv6 UDP Lite > > Hi Pat, > > "CAPWAP protocol control packets sent between the WTP and the AC use > well known UDP port [to be IANA assigned]." > > Does this mean that if the IANA assigned CAPWAP control port > is "x", then for all capwap control packets between WTP and > AC (in both directions), the udp src and the udp dest will > always be set to "x"? > > Thanks. > > -Puneet > > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun [at] cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 2:26 AM > To: capwap [at] frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] Proposed Text for Issue 249: IPv6 UDP Lite > > All, > > In the event that the WG agrees that we are to proceed with > this change, I would like to submit proposed text to the > list. As discussed on the mailing list previously, UDP-Lite > would be restricted to IPv6. Yes, it does have some NAT > transversal issues, which is why some text was added to the > NAT Considerations section. However, there are no IPv6 NATs > today, so there is nothing legacy broken in this proposal. > Note that I also added the proper reference to UDP number > assignment in the IANA considerations as well. > > > 3. CAPWAP Transport > > Communication between a WTP and an AC is established > according to the > standard UDP client/server model. The CAPWAP protocol supports two > different transport protocols. When used over IPv4, the > UDP protocol > is utilized. When CAPWAP is used over IPv6, the UDP-Lite RFC 3828 > [13] is used. This section details the specifics of how the CAPWAP > protocol works with IP. > > 3.1. UDP Transport > > One of the CAPWAP protocol requirements is to allow a WTP to reside > behind a firewall and/or Network Address Translation (NAT) device. > Since the connection is initiated by the WTP (client) to the well- > known UDP port of the AC (server), the use of UDP is a logical > choice. The UDP checksum field in CAPWAP packets MUST be set to > zero. > > CAPWAP protocol control packets sent between the WTP and the AC use > well known UDP port [to be IANA assigned]. CAPWAP protocol data > packets sent between the WTP and the AC use UDP port [to be IANA > assigned]. > > 3.2. UDP-Lite Transport > > When CAPWAP is run over IPv6, the UDP-Lite is used as the > transport. > The reason for using UDP-Lite is because when UDP is run over IPv6, > it MUST NOT have its checksum field set to zero, which > increases the > processing cost for each CAPWAP packet. When UDP-Lite is used, the > checksum field MUST have a coverage of 8 RFC 3828 [13]. > > As defined in RFC 3828 [13], UDP-Lite uses the same port > assignments > as UDP. > [...] > > 11. NAT Considerations > [...] > When CAPWAP is run over IPv6, NAT support can only be > provided if the > IPv6 NAT system is capable of performing address > translation over the > UDP-Lite 3828 protocol [13]. > > [...] > 14. IANA Considerations > > A separate UDP port for data channel communications is (currently) > the selected demultiplexing mechanism, and a port must be assigned > for this purpose in section Section 3.1. The UDP port numbers are > listed by IANA at http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers. > > > Pat Calhoun > CTO, Wireless Networking Business Unit > Cisco Systems > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap >
-
Proposed Text for Issue 249: IPv6 UDP Lite Pat Calhoun (pacalhou), March 19 2007
-
Re: Proposed Text for Issue 249: IPv6 UDP Lite Puneet Agarwal, March 27 2007
- Re: Proposed Text for Issue 249: IPv6 UDP Lite Pat Calhoun (pacalhou), March 28 2007
- Re: Proposed Text for Issue 249: IPv6 UDP Lite Puneet Agarwal, March 28 2007
- Re: Proposed Text for Issue 249: IPv6 UDP Lite Pat Calhoun (pacalhou), April 2 2007
-
Re: Proposed Text for Issue 249: IPv6 UDP Lite Puneet Agarwal, March 27 2007
- Re: Proposed Text for Issue 249: IPv6 UDP Lite Pat Calhoun (pacalhou), March 27 2007
- Re: Proposed Text for Issue 249: IPv6 UDP Lite Abhijit Choudhury (achoudhu), April 4 2007
Results generated by Tiger Technologies using MHonArc.