Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools

Problem, Formatting or Query -  Send Feedback

Was this page helpful?-10+1


Network Working Group S. Krishnan, Ed. Request for Comments: 4957 Ericsson Research Category: Informational N. Montavont

                                                     GET ENST Bretagne
                                                            E. Njedjou
                                                        France Telecom
                                                         S. Veerepalli
                                                         A. Yegin, Ed.
                                                           August 2007
  Link-Layer Event Notifications for Detecting Network Attachments

Status of This Memo

 This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
 not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
 memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).


 Certain network access technologies are capable of providing various
 types of link-layer status information to IP.  Link-layer event
 notifications can help IP expeditiously detect configuration changes.
 This document provides a non-exhaustive catalogue of information
 available from well-known access technologies.

Krishnan, et al. Informational [Page 1] RFC 4957 L2 Notifications for DNA August 2007

Table of Contents

 1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
 2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
 3.  Link-Layer Event Notifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.1.  GPRS/3GPP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   3.2.  cdma2000/3GPP2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   3.3.  IEEE 802.11/WiFi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   3.4.  IEEE 802.3 CSMA/CD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     3.4.1.  Link Integrity Tests in 802.3 Networks . . . . . . . . 10
     3.4.2.  IEEE 802.1D Bridging and Its Effects on Link-layer
             Event Notifications  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     3.4.3.  802.1AB Link-Layer Discovery Protocol  . . . . . . . . 12
     3.4.4.  Other Heuristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     3.4.5.  Summary  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
 4.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
 5.  Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
 6.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
 7.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   7.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   7.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Krishnan, et al. Informational [Page 2] RFC 4957 L2 Notifications for DNA August 2007

1. Introduction

 It is not an uncommon occurrence for a node to change its point of
 attachment to the network.  This can happen due to mobile usage
 (e.g., a mobile phone moving among base stations) or nomadic usage
 (e.g., road-warrior case).
 A node changing its point of attachment to the network may end up
 changing its IP subnet and therefore require reconfiguration of IP-
 layer parameters, such as IP address, default gateway information,
 and DNS server address.  Detecting the subnet change can usually use
 network-layer indications (such as a change in the advertised
 prefixes for IPv6).  But such indications may not be always available
 (e.g., Detecting Network Attachment in IPv6 (DNAv6)) to the node upon
 changing its point of attachment.
 Link-layer event notifications can help IP expeditiously detect
 configuration changes.  This document provides a non-exhaustive
 catalog of information available from some access technologies, and
 discusses the interpretation of this information at the IP layer.
 This document is not intended to specify or change the behavior of
 these access technologies in any manner.
 Additional information can be conveyed along with the event, such as
 the identifier of the network attachment point (e.g., IEEE 802.11
 Basic Service Set Identification (BSSID) and Service Set Identifier
 (SSID)), or network-layer configuration parameters obtained via the
 link-layer attachment process if available.  It is envisaged that
 such event notifications can in certain circumstances be used to
 expedite the inter-subnet movement detection and reconfiguration
 process.  For example, the notification indicating that the node has
 established a new link-layer connection may be used for immediately
 probing the network for a possible configuration change.  In the
 absence of such a notification from the link layer, IP has to wait
 for indications that are not immediately available, such as receipt
 of the next scheduled router advertisement, unreachability of the
 default gateway, etc.
 It should be noted that a link-layer event notification does not
 always translate into a subnet change.  Even if the node has torn
 down a link-layer connection with one attachment point and
 established a new connection with another, it may still be attached
 to the same IP subnet.  For example, several IEEE 802.11 access
 points can be attached to the same IP subnet.  Moving among these
 access points does not warrant any IP-layer configuration change.

Krishnan, et al. Informational [Page 3] RFC 4957 L2 Notifications for DNA August 2007

 In order to enable an enhanced scheme for detecting change of subnet,
 we need to define link-layer event notifications that can be
 realistically expected from various access technologies.  The
 objective of this document is to provide a catalogue of link-layer
 events and notifications in various architectures.  While this
 document mentions the utility of this information for detecting
 change of subnet (or, detecting network attachment - DNA), the
 detailed usage is left to other documents, namely, DNA solution
 The document limits itself to the minimum set of information that is
 necessary for solving the DNA problem [RFC4135].  A broader set of
 information (e.g., signal strength, packet loss, etc.) and events
 (e.g. link down) may be used for other problem spaces, such as
 anticipation-based Mobile IP fast handovers [RFC4881], [RFC4068],
 These event notifications are considered with hosts in mind, although
 they may also be available on the network side (e.g., on the access
 points and routers).  An API or protocol-based standard interface may
 be defined between the link layer and IP for conveying this
 information.  That activity is beyond the scope of this document.

2. Terminology

 Link: is a communication facility or medium over which network nodes
 can communicate.  Each link is associated with a minimum of two
 endpoints.  An "attachment point" is the link endpoint on the link to
 which the node is currently connected, such as an access point, a
 base station, or a wired switch.
 Link up: is an event provided by the link layer that signifies a
 state change associated with the interface becoming capable of
 communicating data packets.  This event is associated with a link-
 layer connection between the node and an attachment point.
 BSSID: Basic Service Set Identification
 DNA: Detecting Network Attachment
 GPRS: General Packet Radio Service
 PDP: Packet Data Protocol
 SSID: Service Set Identifier

Krishnan, et al. Informational [Page 4] RFC 4957 L2 Notifications for DNA August 2007

3. Link-Layer Event Notifications

 Link-layer event notifications are considered to be one of the inputs
 to the DNA process.  A DNA process is likely to take other inputs
 (e.g., presence of advertised prefixes, reachability of default
 gateways) before determining whether IP-layer configuration must be
 updated.  It is expected that the DNA process can take advantage of
 link-layer notifications when they are made available to IP.  While
 by itself a link-layer notification may not constitute all the input
 DNA needs, it can at least be useful for prompting the DNA process to
 collect further information (i.e., other inputs to the process).  For
 example, the node may send a router solicitation as soon as it learns
 that a new link-layer connection is established.
 The link-layer event that is considered most useful to DNA process is
 the link up event.  The associated notifications can be provided to
 the IP-layer after the event concludes successfully.  The link up
 events and notifications are associated with a network interface on
 the node.  The IP module may receive simultaneous independent
 notifications from each one of the network interfaces on the node.
 The actual event is managed by the link layer of the node through
 execution of link-layer protocols and mechanisms.  Once the event
 successfully completes within the link layer, its notification is
 delivered to the IP-layer.  By the time the notification is
 delivered, the link layer of the node must be ready to accept IP
 packets from the IP and the physical layers.  Each time an interface
 changes its point of attachment, a link up event should be generated.
 There is a non-deterministic usage of the link up notification to
 accommodate implementations that desire to indicate the link is up,
 but the data transmission may be blocked in the network (see IEEE
 802.3 discussion).  A link up notification may be generated with an
 appropriate attribute, conveying its non-deterministic nature, to
 convey the event.  Alternatively, the link-layer implementation may
 choose to delay the link up notification until the risk conditions
 cease to exist.
 If a non-deterministic link up was generated, another link up must
 follow as soon as the link layer is capable of generating a
 deterministic notification.  The event attributes may indicate
 whether the packets transmitted since the previous notification were
 presumed to be blocked or allowed by the network, if the link layer
 could determine the exact conditions.

Krishnan, et al. Informational [Page 5] RFC 4957 L2 Notifications for DNA August 2007

 The deterministic link up event following a non-deterministic link up
 event can be treated differently by consumers of the link up event.
 For example, the second link up event need not trigger a confirmation
 process, if the first one already did.
 A node may have to change its IP-layer configuration even when the
 link-layer connection stays the same.  An example scenario is the
 IPv6 subnet renumbering [RFC2461].  Therefore, there exist cases
 where IP-layer configuration may have to change even without the IP
 layer receiving a link up notification.  Therefore, a link-layer
 notification is not a mandatory indication of a subnet change.
 A link up notification may optionally deliver information relating to
 the attachment point.  Such auxiliary information may include the
 identity of the attachment point (e.g., base station identifier), or
 the IP-layer configuration parameters associated with the attached
 subnet (e.g., subnet prefix, default gateway address, etc.).  While
 merely knowing that a new link-layer connection is established may
 prompt the DNA process to immediately seek other clues for detecting
 a network configuration change, auxiliary information may constitute
 further clues (and even the final answers sometimes).  In cases where
 there is a one-to-one mapping between the attachment point
 identifiers and the IP-layer configurations, learning the former can
 reveal the latter.  Furthermore, IP-layer configuration parameters
 obtained during the link-layer connection may be exactly what the DNA
 process is trying to discover.
 The link-layer process leading to a link up event depend on the link
 technology.  While a link-layer notification must always indicate
 that the link up event occurred, the availability and types of
 auxiliary information on the attachment point depends on the link-
 layer technology as well.  The following subsections examine four
 link-layer technologies and describe when a link-layer notification
 is generated and what information is included in it.

3.1. GPRS/3GPP

 GSM Packet Radio System (GPRS) provides packet-switched data
 transmission over a cellular network [GPRS][GPRS-LINK].
 The GPRS architecture consists of a Radio Access Network and a packet
 domain Core Network.
  1. The GPRS Radio Access Network is composed of Mobile Terminals

(MTs), a Base Station Subsystem and Serving GPRS Support Nodes


Krishnan, et al. Informational [Page 6] RFC 4957 L2 Notifications for DNA August 2007

  1. An IP Core Network that acts as the transport backbone of user

datagrams between SGSNs and Gateway GPRS Support Nodes (GGSNs).

    The GGSN ensures the GPRS IP core network connectivity with
    external networks, such as the Internet or Local Area Networks.
    The GGSN acts as the default IP gateway for the MT.
 A GPRS MT that wants to establish IP connectivity establishes first a
 connection to the GPRS network and one or more PDP Context
 associations between the MT and the GGSN.  It is only after the PDP
 Context has been established and after address autoconfiguration and
 tunneling mechanism have taken place that the MT's IP packets can be
 forwarded to and from its remote IP peers.  The aim of PDP Context
 establishment is also to provide IP-level configuration on top of the
 GPRS link-layer attachment.
 Successful establishment of a PDP Context on a GPRS link signifies
 the availability of IP service to the MT.  Therefore, this link-layer
 event generates a link up event notification sent to the IP layer.
 An MT may establish a secondary PDP Context while reusing the IP
 configuration acquired from a previously established and active PDP
 Context.  Such a secondary PDP Context does not provide additional
 information to the IP layer and only allows another quality-of-
 service (QoS) profile to be used.  The activation of such a secondary
 PDP context does not usually generate a link up event since it does
 not require new IP parameters.  However, other additional PDP Context
 activations are to be treated as indicated earlier.
 With IPv4, the auxiliary information carried along with this
 notification is the IPv4 address of the MT that is obtained as part
 of the PDP Context.  With IPv6, the PDP Context activation response
 does not come along with a usable IPv6 address.  Effectively, the
 IPv6 address received from the GGSN in the PDP address field of the
 message does not contain a valid prefix.  The MN actually only uses
 the interface identifier extracted from that field to form a link-
 local address that it uses afterwards to obtain a valid prefix (e.g.,
 by stateless [RFC2462][GPRS-CN] or stateful [RFC3315] [GPRS-GSSA]
 address configuration).  Therefore, no IPv6-related auxiliary
 information is provided to the IP layer.

3.2. cdma2000/3GPP2

 cdma2000-based 3GPP2 packet data services provide mobile users wide
 area high-speed access to packet switched networks [CDMA2K].  Some of
 the major components of the 3GPP2 packet network architecture consist

Krishnan, et al. Informational [Page 7] RFC 4957 L2 Notifications for DNA August 2007

  1. Mobile Station (MS), which allows mobile access to packet-switched

networks over a wireless connection.

  1. Radio Access Network, which consists of the Base Station

Transceivers, Base Station Controllers, and the Packet Control

  1. Network Access Server known as the Packet Data Switching Node

(PDSN). The PDSN also serves as default IP gateway for the IP MS.

 3GPP2 networks use the Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP [RFC1661]) as the
 link-layer protocol between the MS and the PDSN.  Before any IP
 packets may be sent or received, PPP must reach the Network-Layer
 Protocol phase, and the IP Control Protocol (IPCP [RFC1332], IPV6CP
 [RFC2472]) must reach the Opened state.  When these states are
 reached in PPP, a link up event notification is delivered to the IP
 When the PPP is used for 3GPP2 Simple (i.e., non-Mobile) IPv4
 Service, IPCP enables configuration of an IPv4 address on the MS.
 This IPv4 address is provided as the auxiliary information along with
 the link up notification.  IPV6CP used for Simple IPv6 service does
 not provide an IPv6 address, but the interface identifiers for local
 and remote endpoints of the PPP link.  Since there is no standards-
 mandated correlation between the interface identifier and other IP-
 layer configuration parameters, this information is deemed not useful
 for DNA (nevertheless, it may be provided as auxiliary information
 for other uses).

3.3. IEEE 802.11/WiFi

 IEEE 802.11-based WiFi networks are the wireless extension of the
 Local Area Networks.  Currently available standards are IEEE 802.11b
 [IEEE-802.11b], IEEE 802.11g [IEEE-802.11g], and IEEE 802.11a
 [IEEE-802.11a].  The specifications define both the MAC layer and the
 physical layer.  The MAC layer is the same for all these
 Two operating modes are available in the IEEE 802.11 series, either
 infrastructure mode or ad-hoc mode.  In infrastructure mode, all
 link-layer frames are transmitted to an access point (AP) that then
 forwards them to the final receiver.  A station (STA) establishes an
 IEEE 802.11 association with an AP in order to send and receive IP
 packets.  In a WiFi network that uses Robust Secure Network (RSN
 [IEEE-802.11i]), successful completion of the 4-way handshake between
 the STA and AP commences the availability of IP service.  The link up

Krishnan, et al. Informational [Page 8] RFC 4957 L2 Notifications for DNA August 2007

 event notification is generated upon this event.  In non-RSN-based
 networks, successful association or re-association events on the link
 layer causes a link up notification sent to the IP layer.
 As part of the link establishment, the STA learns the BSSID and SSID
 associated with the AP.  The BSSID is a unique identifier of the AP,
 usually set to the MAC address of the wireless interface of the AP.
 The SSID carries the identifier of the Extended Service Set (ESS) --
 the set composed of APs and associated STAs that share a common
 distribution system.  The BSSID and SSID may be provided as auxiliary
 information along with the link up notification.  Unfortunately, this
 information does not provide a deterministic indication of whether
 the IP-layer configuration must be changed upon movement.  There is
 no standards-mandated one-to-one relation between the BSSID/SSID
 pairs and IP subnets.  An AP with a given BSSID can connect a STA to
 any one of multiple IP subnets.  Similarly, an ESS with the given
 SSID may span multiple IP subnets.  And finally, the SSIDs are not
 globally unique.  The same SSID may be used by multiple independent
 ESSs.  Nevertheless, BSSID/SSID information may be used in a
 probabilistic way by the DNA process; hence, it is provided with the
 link up event notification.
 In ad-hoc mode, mobile stations (STA) in range may directly
 communicate with each other, i.e., without any infrastructure or
 intermediate hop.  The set of communicating STAs is called IBSS for
 Independent Basic Service Set.  In an IBSS, only STA services are
 available, i.e., authentication, deauthentication, privacy, and MAC
 Service Data Unit (MSDU) delivery.  STAs do not associate with each
 other, and therefore may exchange data frames in state 2
 (authenticated and not associated) or even in state 1
 (unauthenticated and unassociated) if the Distribution System is not
 used (i.e., "To DS" and "From DS" bits are clear).  If authentication
 is performed, a link up indication can be generated upon
 authentication.  Concerning the link layer identification, both the
 BSSID (which is a random MAC address chosen by a STA of the IBSS) and
 SSID may be used to identify a link, but not to make any assumptions
 on the IP network configuration.

3.4. IEEE 802.3 CSMA/CD

 IEEE 802.3 CSMA/CD (commonly referred to as Ethernet) is the most
 commonly deployed Local Area Network technology in use today.  As
 deployed today, it is specified by a physical layer/medium access
 control (MAC) layer specification [IEEE-802.3].  In order to provide
 connection of different LANs together into a larger network, 802.3
 LANs are often bridged together [IEEE-802.1D].

Krishnan, et al. Informational [Page 9] RFC 4957 L2 Notifications for DNA August 2007

 In this section, the terms 802.3 and Ethernet are used
 interchangeably.  This section describes some issues in providing
 link-layer indications on Ethernet networks, and shows how bridging
 affects these indications.
 In Ethernet networks, hosts are connected by wires or by optic fibre
 to a switch (bridge), a bus (e.g., coaxial cable), a repeater (hub),
 or directly to another Ethernet device.  Interfaces are symmetric, in
 that while many different physical layers may be present, medium
 access control is uniform for all devices.
 In order to determine whether the physical medium is ready for frame
 transfer, IEEE 802.3 Ethernet specifies its own link monitoring
 mechanism, which is defined for some, but not all, classes of media.
 Where available, this Link Integrity Test operation is used to
 identify when packets are able to be received on an Ethernet segment.
 It is applicable to both wired and optical physical layers, although
 details vary between technologies (link pulses in twisted pair
 copper, light levels in fibre).

3.4.1. Link Integrity Tests in 802.3 Networks

 Link Integrity Tests in 802.3 networks typically occur at initial
 physical connection time (for example, at the auto-negotiation stage)
 and periodically afterwards.  They make use of physical-layer
 specific operations to determine if a medium is able to support link-
 layer frames [IEEE-802.3].
 The status of the link as determined by the Link Integrity Test is
 stored in the variable 'link_status'.  Changes to the value of
 link_status (for example due to Link Integrity Test failure) will
 generate link indications if the technology-dependent interface is
 implemented on an Ethernet device [IEEE-802.3].
 The link_status has possible values of FAIL, READY, and OK.  In FAIL
 state, Link Integrity Tests have failed.  In READY state, the link
 segment has passed integrity tests, but auto-negotiation has not
 completed.  In OK state, the medium is able to send and receive
 Upon transition to a particular state, the Physical Medium Attachment
 subsystems generates a PMA_LINK.indicate(link_status).  Indications
 of OK state may be used to generate a link up event notification.
 These indications do not definitively ensure that packets will be
 able to be received through the bridge domain, though (see the next
 section).  Such operations are governed by bridging.

Krishnan, et al. Informational [Page 10] RFC 4957 L2 Notifications for DNA August 2007

3.4.2. IEEE 802.1D Bridging and Its Effects on Link-layer Event

 Ethernet networks commonly consist of LANs joined together by
 transparent bridges (usually implemented as switches).  Transparent
 bridges require the active topology to be loop free.  This is
 achieved through the Spanning Tree Protocol (STP) or the Rapid
 Spanning Tree Protocol (RSTP).  These protocols exchange Bridge
 Protocol Data Units (BPDUs), as defined in [IEEE-802.1D]; this leads
 to the blocking of ports (i.e., not forwarding), where required.
 By default, the spanning tree protocol does not know whether a
 particular newly connected piece of Ethernet will cause a loop.
 Therefore, it will block all traffic from and to newly connected
 ports with the exception of some unbridged management frames.  The
 STP will determine if the port can be connected to the network in a
 loop-free manner.
 For these technologies, even though the link layer appears available,
 no data packet forwarding will occur until it is determined that the
 port can be connected to the network in a loop-free environment.
 For hosts that are providing indications to upper-layer protocols,
 even if the host itself does not implement bridging or STP, packet
 delivery across the network can be affected by the presence of
 A host connected to a bridge port does not receive any explicit
 indication that the bridge has started forwarding packets.
 Therefore, a host may not know when STP operations have completed, or
 when it is safe to inform upper layers to transmit packets.
 Where it is not known that forwarding operations are available, a
 host should assume that RSTP or STP is being performed.  Hosts may
 listen to STP/RSTP and 802.1AB messages to gain further information
 about the timing of full connectivity on the link, for example, to
 override an existing indication.
 Notably, though, it is not easy for a host to distinguish between
 disabled bridge ports and non-bridge ports with no active
 transmitters on them, as Disabled ports will have no traffic on them,
 and incur 100% sender loss.
 If no bridge configuration messages are received within the
 Bridge_Max_Age interval (default 20s) then it is likely that there is
 no visible bridge whose port is enabled for bridging (S8.4.5 of
 [IEEE-802.1D]), since at least two BPDU hello messages would have

Krishnan, et al. Informational [Page 11] RFC 4957 L2 Notifications for DNA August 2007

 been lost.  Upon this timeout, a link up notification is generated,
 if one has not been already.
 If a BPDU is received, and the adjacent bridge is running the
 original Spanning Tree Protocol, then a host cannot successfully send
 packets until at least twice the ForwardDelay value in the received
 BPDU has elapsed.  After this time, a link up notification is
 generated.  If the previous link up notification was non-
 deterministic, then this notification includes an attribute
 signifying that the packets sent within the prior interval were lost.
 If the bridge is identified as performing Rapid Spanning Tree
 Protocol (RSTP), it instead waits Bridge_Max_Age after packet
 reception (advertised in the BPDU's Max Age field), before
 forwarding.  For ports which are known to be point-to-point through
 auto-negotiation, this delay is abbreviated to 3 seconds after auto-
 negotiation completes [IEEE-802.1D].

3.4.3. 802.1AB Link-Layer Discovery Protocol

 The recently defined 802.1AB Link-Layer Discovery Protocol (LLDP)
 provides information to devices that are directly adjacent to them on
 the local LAN [IEEE-802.1ab].
 LLDP sends information periodically and at link status change time to
 indicate the configuration parameters of the device.  Devices may
 send or receive these messages, or do both.
 The LLDP message may contain a System Capabilities TLV, which
 describes the MAC- and IP-layer functions that a device is currently
 using.  Where a host receives the System Capabilities TLV indicating
 that no Bridging is occurring on the LLDP transmitter, no delays for
 STP calculation will be applied to packets sent through this
 transmitter.  This would allow the generation of a link up
 Additionally, if a host receives a System Capabilities TLV indicating
 that the LLDP transmitter is a bridge, the host's advertisement that
 it is an (end-host) Station-Only may tell the bridge not to run STP
 and may immediately allow forwarding.
 Proprietary extensions may also indicate that data forwarding is
 already available on such a port.  Discussion of such optimizations
 is out of scope for this document.
 Because the protocol is new and not widely deployed, it is unclear
 how this protocol will eventually affect DNA in IPv4 or IPv6

Krishnan, et al. Informational [Page 12] RFC 4957 L2 Notifications for DNA August 2007

3.4.4. Other Heuristics

 In 802.3 networks, Network Interface Cards (NICs) are often capable
 of returning a speed and duplex indication to the host.  Changes in
 these characteristics may indicate a connection to a new layer 2

3.4.5. Summary

 Link-layer indications in Ethernet-like networks are complicated by
 additional unadvertised delays due to spanning tree calculations.
 This may cause re-indication or retraction of indications previously
 sent to upper layer protocols.

4. Security Considerations

 Attackers may spoof various indications at the link layer, or
 manipulate the physical medium directly in an effort to confuse the
 host about the state of the link layer.  For instance, attackers may
 spoof error messages or disturb the wireless medium to cause the host
 to move its connection elsewhere or even to disconnect.  Attackers
 may also spoof information to make the host believe it has a
 connection when, in reality, it does not.  In addition, wireless
 networks such as 802.11 are susceptible to an attack called the "Evil
 Twin" attack where an attacker sets up an Access Point with the same
 SSID as a legitimate one and gets the use to connect to the fake
 access point instead of the real one.  These attacks may cause use of
 non-preferred networks or even denial of service.
 This specification does not provide any protection of its own for the
 indications from the lower layers.  But the vulnerabilities can be
 mitigated through the use of techniques in other parts of the
 protocol stack.  In particular, it is recommended that
 authentication, replay, and integrity protection of link-layer
 management messages are enabled when available.  For example, the
 IEEE 802.1ae standard [IEEE-802.1ae] defines such mechanisms for IEEE
 802-compliant MAC layers.  Additionally, the protocol stack may also
 use some network-layer mechanisms to achieve partial protection.  For
 instance, SEND [RFC3971] could be used to confirm secure reachability
 with a router.  However, network layer mechanisms are unable to deal
 with all problems, such as insecure lower-layer notifications that
 lead to the link not functioning properly.

Krishnan, et al. Informational [Page 13] RFC 4957 L2 Notifications for DNA August 2007

5. Contributors

 In addition to the people listed in the author list, text for the
 specific link-layer technologies covered by this document was
 contributed by Thomas Noel (IEEE 802.11b) and Greg Daley (IEEE
 802.3).  The authors would like to thank them for their efforts in
 bringing this document to fruition.

6. Acknowledgements

 The authors would like to acknowledge Bernard Aboba, Sanjeev Athalye,
 JinHyeock Choi, John Loughney, Pekka Nikander, Brett Pentland, Tom
 Petch, Dan Romascanu, Pekka Savola, Steve Bellovin, Thomas Narten,
 Matt Mathis, Alfred Hoenes, and Muhammad Mukarram bin Tariq for their
 useful comments and suggestions.

7. References

7.1. Normative References

 [CDMA2K]        "cdma2000 Wireless IP Network Standard",  ,
                 December 2000.
 [GPRS]          "Digital cellular telecommunications system (Phase
                 2+); General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) Service
                 description; Stage 2", 3GPP TS 03.60 version 7.9.0
                 Release 98.
 [GPRS-LINK]     "Digital cellular telecommunications system (Phase
                 2+); Radio subsystem link control", 3GPP GSM 03.05
                 version 7.0.0 Release 98.
 [IEEE-802.11a]  Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,
                 "IEEE Std 802.11a-1999, supplement to IEEE Std
                 802.11-1999, Part 11: Wireless MAN Medium Access
                 Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY)
                 specifications: High-speed Physical Layer in the 5
                 GHZ band", IEEE Standard 802.11a, September 1999.
 [IEEE-802.11b]  Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,
                 "IEEE Std 802 Part 11, Information technology -
                 Telecomunications and information exchange between
                 systems - Local and metropolitan area networks -
                 Specific requirements - Part 11: Wireless Lan Medium
                 Access Control (MAC) And Physical Layer (PHY)
                 Specifications", IEEE Standard 802.11b, August 1999.

Krishnan, et al. Informational [Page 14] RFC 4957 L2 Notifications for DNA August 2007

 [IEEE-802.11g]  Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,
                 "IEEE Std 802.11g-2003, Amendment to IEEE Std 802.11,
                 1999 edition, Part 11: Wireless MAN Medium Access
                 Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY)
                 specifications.  Amendment 4: Further Higher Data
                 Rate Extension in the 2.4 GHz Band", IEEE Standard
                 802.11g, June 2003.
 [IEEE-802.11i]  Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,
                 "Supplement to STANDARD FOR Telecommunications and
                 Information Exchange between Systems - LAN/MAN
                 Specific Requirements - Part 11: Wireless Medium
                 Access Control (MAC) and physical layer (PHY)
                 specifications: Specification for Enhanced Security",
                 IEEE 802.11i, December 2004.
 [IEEE-802.1D]   Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,
                 "IEEE standard for local and metropolitan area
                 networks - common  specifications - Media access
                 control (MAC) Bridges", ISO/IEC IEEE Std 802.1D,
 [IEEE-802.1ab]  Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,
                 "Draft Standard for Local and Metropolitan Networks:
                 Station and Media Access Control Connectivity
                 Discovery (Draft 13)", IEEE draft Std 802.1AB, 2004.
 [IEEE-802.1ae]  Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,
                 "IEEE Std 802.1AE, Local and Metropolitan Area
                 Networks - Media Access Control (MAC) Security",
                 IEEE Standard 802.1ae, June 2006.
 [IEEE-802.3]    Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,
                 "IEEE standard for local and metropolitan area
                 networks -  Specific Requirements, Part 3: Carrier
                 Sense Multiple Access with Collision Detection
                 (CSMA/CD) Access Method and Physical Layer
                 Specifications", ISO/IEC IEEE Std 802.3, 2002.
 [RFC1332]       McGregor, G., "The PPP Internet Protocol Control
                 Protocol (IPCP)", RFC 1332, May 1992.
 [RFC1661]       Simpson, W., "The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)",
                 STD 51, RFC 1661, July 1994.
 [RFC2462]       Thomson, S. and T. Narten, "IPv6 Stateless Address
                 Autoconfiguration", RFC 2462, December 1998.

Krishnan, et al. Informational [Page 15] RFC 4957 L2 Notifications for DNA August 2007

 [RFC2472]       Haskin, D. and E. Allen, "IP Version 6 over PPP",
                 RFC 2472, December 1998.
 [RFC3315]       Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins,
                 C., and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration
                 Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003.
 [RFC3971]       Arkko, J., Kempf, J., Zill, B., and P. Nikander,
                 "SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", RFC 3971,
                 March 2005.
 [RFC4135]       Choi, JH. and G. Daley, "Goals of Detecting Network
                 Attachment in IPv6", RFC 4135, August 2005.

7.2. Informative References

 [GPRS-CN]       "Technical Specification Group Core Network;
                 Internetworking between the Public Land Mobile
                 Network (PLMN) supporting packet based services and
                 Packet Data Networks (PDN) (Release 6)", 3GPP TS
                 29.061 version 6.1.0 2004-06.
 [GPRS-GSSA]     "Technical Specification Group Services and System
                 Aspect; General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) Service
                 description; Stage 2 (Release 6)", 3GPP TS 23.060
                 version 6.5.0 2004-06.
 [RFC2461]       Narten, T., Nordmark, E., and W. Simpson, "Neighbor
                 Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461,
                 December 1998.
 [RFC4068]       Koodli, R., "Fast Handovers for Mobile IPv6",
                 RFC 4068, July 2005.
 [RFC4881]       El Malki, K., "Low-Latency Handoffs in Mobile IPv4",
                 RFC 4881, June 2007.

Krishnan, et al. Informational [Page 16] RFC 4957 L2 Notifications for DNA August 2007

Authors' Addresses

 Suresh Krishnan (editor)
 Ericsson Research
 8400 Decarie Blvd.
 Town of Mount Royal, QC
 Nicolas Montavont
 GET ENST Bretagne
 2, rue de la chataigneraie
 Cesson-Sevigne  35576
 Phone: (33) 2 99 12 70 23
 Eric Njedjou
 France Telecom
 4, Rue du Clos Courtel BP 91226
 Cesson Sevigne  35512
 Phone: +33 299124878
 Siva Veerepalli
 5775 Morehouse Drive
 San Diego, CA  92131
 Phone: +1 858 658 4628
 Alper E. Yegin (editor)
 Phone: +90 533 348 2402

Krishnan, et al. Informational [Page 17] RFC 4957 L2 Notifications for DNA August 2007

Full Copyright Statement

 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
 This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
 contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
 retain all their rights.
 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an

Intellectual Property

 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
 made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
 this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at


 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
 Internet Society.

Krishnan, et al. Informational [Page 18]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc4957.txt · Last modified: 2007/08/03 19:20 (external edit)