<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>

<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [
<!ENTITY rfc4068 PUBLIC ''
'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4068.xml'>
<!ENTITY rfc4881 PUBLIC '' 
'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4881.xml'>
<!ENTITY rfc1661 PUBLIC ''
'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.1661.xml'>
<!ENTITY rfc2461 PUBLIC ''
'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2461.xml'>
<!ENTITY rfc1332 PUBLIC ''
'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.1332.xml'>
<!ENTITY rfc2472 PUBLIC ''
'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2472.xml'>
<!ENTITY rfc2462 PUBLIC ''
'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2462.xml'>
<!ENTITY rfc3315 PUBLIC ''
'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3315.xml'>
<!ENTITY rfc4135 PUBLIC ''
'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4135.xml'>
<!ENTITY rfc3971 PUBLIC ''
'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3971.xml'>
]>


<?rfc toc="yes" ?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes" ?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc rfcedstyle="yes"?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>

<rfc number="4957" category="info" >
	<front>
		<title abbrev="L2 Notifications for DNA">Link-Layer Event Notifications for Detecting Network Attachments</title>
		
    <author role="editor" initials="S.K." surname="Krishnan" fullname="Suresh Krishnan">
      <organization>Ericsson Research</organization>
      <address>
 	<postal>
	  <street>8400 Decarie Blvd.</street>
	  <city>Town of Mount Royal</city>
	  <region>QC</region>
	  <country>Canada</country>
	</postal>
	<email>suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

   <author initials="N.M" surname="Montavont" fullname="Nicolas Montavont">
   <organization>GET ENST Bretagne</organization>
   <address>
   <postal>
   <street>2, rue de la chataigneraie</street>
   <city>Cesson-Sevigne</city>
   <code>35576</code>
   <country>France</country>
   </postal>

   <phone>(33) 2 99 12 70 23</phone>
   <email>nicolas.montavont@enst-bretagne.fr</email>
   </address>
   </author>

   <author initials="E.N." surname="Njedjou" fullname="Eric Njedjou">
   <organization>France Telecom</organization>
   <address>
   <postal>
   <street> 4, Rue du Clos Courtel BP 91226</street>
   <city>Cesson Sevigne</city>
   <code>35512</code>
   <country>France</country>
   </postal>
   <phone>+33 299124878</phone>
   <email>eric.njedjou@orange-ftgroup.com</email>
   </address>
   </author>

   <author initials="S.V." surname="Veerepalli" fullname="Siva Veerepalli">
   <organization>Qualcomm</organization>
   <address>
   <postal>
   <street>5775 Morehouse Drive</street>
   <city>San Diego</city>
   <region>CA</region>
   <code>92131</code>
   <country>USA</country>
   </postal>
   <phone>+1 858 658 4628</phone>
   <email>sivav@qualcomm.com</email>
   </address>
   </author>


<author role="editor" initials="A.E." surname="Yegin" fullname="Alper
E. Yegin">
<organization abbrev="Samsung">Samsung</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street> </street>
<city>Istanbul</city>
<code></code>
<country>Turkey</country>
</postal>
<phone>+90 533 348 2402</phone>
<email>a.yegin@partner.samsung.com</email>
</address>
</author>

		
		<date month="July" year="2007"/>

<!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in
the title) for use on http://www.rfc-editor.org/search.html. -->

<keyword>example</keyword>

		<abstract>
			<t>
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. 
			</t>
		</abstract>
	</front>
	<middle>
		<section title="Introduction">

<t> 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).</t>

<t>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. </t>

<t>
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.
</t>

<t> 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. </t>

<t>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.</t>

<?rfc needLines="4"?>

<t>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 specifications. </t>

<t>The document limits itself to the minimum set of information that is necessary for solving the DNA problem <xref target="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 <xref target="RFC4881"/>, <xref target="RFC4068"/>, etc.</t>

<t>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. </t>

</section>
<section title="Terminology">
<t>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.
</t>


<t>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. 
</t>

<t> BSSID: Basic Service Set Identification</t>
<t> DNA: Detecting Network Attachment</t>
<t> GPRS: General Packet Radio Service </t>
<!-- [rfced] although it is used by GSM, we believe GPRS stands for "General
  Packet Radio Service", not "GSM Packet Radio System". -->

<t> PDP: Packet Data Protocol</t>
<t> SSID: Service Set Identifier</t>
</section>


<?rfc needLines="6"?>

<section title="Link-Layer Event Notifications">

<t>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. </t>

<t>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.</t>


<t>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. </t>

<t> 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. 
</t>

<t>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.</t>

<?rfc needLines="4"?>

<t>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.</t>
<t>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 <xref target="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.</t>
    
<t>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. </t>

<t>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. </t>

<?rfc needLines="6"?>

<section title="GPRS/3GPP">

   <t>GSM Packet Radio System (GPRS) provides packet-switched data transmission
 over a cellular network <xref target="GPRS"/><xref target="GPRS-LINK"/>.</t>

   <t>The GPRS architecture consists of a Radio Access Network and a packet
   domain Core Network.</t>

<t> <list style="hanging">
   <t hangText="-">The GPRS Radio Access Network is composed of Mobile Terminals (MTs),
   a Base Station Subsystem and Serving GPRS Support Nodes (SGSNs).</t>

   <t hangText="-">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.</t>
</list></t>

   <t>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. 
<!-- [rfced] suggested replacement of the previous sentence:
   Then the MT goes through address autoconfiguration and negotiates a
   tunneling mechanism [[with the GGSN?]].  The MT's IP packets can
   then 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.</t>

   <t>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.</t>

   <t>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. <!-- [rfced]
   As indicated where? --></t>


<t>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 <!-- [rfced] Do you mean MT? --> 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 <xref target="RFC2462"/><xref target="GPRS-CN"/>
   or stateful  <xref target="RFC3315"/> <xref target="GPRS-GSSA"/>
   address configuration). Therefore, no IPv6-related auxiliary 
   information is provided to the IP layer.</t>

</section>

<?rfc needLines="6"?>

<section title="cdma2000/3GPP2">

<t>cdma2000-based 3GPP2 packet data services provide mobile users wide area high-speed access to packet switched networks <xref target="CDMA2K"/>. Some of the major components of the 3GPP2 packet network architecture consist of:</t>

<t><list style="hanging">
<t hangText="-">Mobile Station (MS), which allows mobile access to packet-switched networks over a wireless connection. </t>

<t hangText="-">Radio Access Network, which consists of the Base Station Transceivers, Base Station Controllers, and the Packet Control Function. </t>

<t hangText="-">Network Access Server known as the Packet Data Switching Node (PDSN). The PDSN also serves as default IP gateway for the IP MS. </t>
</list></t>

<t>3GPP2 networks use the Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP
  <xref target="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 <xref target="RFC1332"/>, IPV6CP
  <xref target="RFC2472"/>) must reach the Opened state. When these states are reached in PPP, a link up event notification is delivered to the IP layer.  </t>

<t>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). </t>

</section>	

<?rfc needLines="6"?>

<section title="IEEE 802.11/WiFi">

   <t>IEEE 802.11-based WiFi networks are the wireless extension of the
   Local Area Networks.  Currently available standards are IEEE 802.11b
   <xref target="IEEE-802.11b"/>, IEEE 802.11g <xref target="IEEE-802.11g"/>, and IEEE 802.11a
   <xref target="IEEE-802.11a"/>.  The specifications define both the
   MAC layer and the
   physical layer.  The MAC layer is the same for all these
   technologies.</t>

   <t>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 <xref target="IEEE-802.11i"/>), successful completion of the 4-way handshake
   between the STA and AP commences the availability of IP service.
   The link up 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.</t>

   <t>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.</t>

   <t>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. 
   </t>
</section>	

<?rfc needLines="6"?>

<section title="IEEE 802.3 CSMA/CD">

<t>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 <xref target="IEEE-802.3"/>.
In order to provide connection of different LANs together into
a larger network, 802.3 LANs are often bridged together <xref target="IEEE-802.1D"/>.
</t>

<t>
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.
</t>

<t>
In Ethernet networks, hosts are connected by wires or by optic fibre
<!-- [rfced] suggest: by wire or by fiber optic cable -->
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.
</t>

<t>
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).
</t>

<?rfc needLines="6"?>

<section title="Link Integrity Tests in 802.3 Networks">

<t>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 <xref target="IEEE-802.3"/>.
</t>

<t>
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 <xref target="IEEE-802.3"/>.
</t>

<t>
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 packets.
</t>

<t>
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.
</t>

</section>

<?rfc needLines="6"?>

<section title="IEEE 802.1D Bridging and Its Effects on Link-layer Event Notifications">


<t>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 <xref target="IEEE-802.1D"/>; this
  leads to the blocking of ports (i.e., not forwarding), where required.
</t>

<t>
By default, the spanning tree protocol does not know whether
a particular newly connected piece of Ethernet will cause a
loop.
</t>

<t>
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.
</t>

<t>
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.
</t>

<t>
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 bridges.
</t>

<t>
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.
</t>

<t>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.</t>

<t>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.</t>

<t>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 <xref target="IEEE-802.1D"/>), since at least two BPDU hello messages would
have been lost.  Upon this timeout, a link up notification is
generated, if one has not been already.</t>

<t>
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.
</t>

<t>
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 <xref target="IEEE-802.1D"/>.
</t>
</section>


<?rfc needLines="6"?>

<section title="802.1AB Link-Layer Discovery Protocol">


<t>The recently defined 802.1AB Link-Layer Discovery Protocol
(LLDP) provides information to devices that are directly
adjacent to them on the local LAN <xref target="IEEE-802.1ab"/>.
</t>

<!-- [rfced] Please clarify what "them" refers to in the sentence above.-->

<t>
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.
</t>

<t>
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 notification.
</t>

<t>
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.
</t>

<t>
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.
</t>

<t>
Because the protocol is new and not widely deployed, it is
unclear how this protocol will eventually affect DNA in IPv4
or IPv6 networks.
</t>

</section> 

<?rfc needLines="6"?>

<section title="Other Heuristics">

<t>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 network. </t>
</section>

<?rfc needLines="6"?>

<section title="Summary">

<t>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.
</t>
</section>
</section>
</section>	
	
<?rfc needLines="6"?>

		<section title="Security Considerations">
<t>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.</t>

<t>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 <xref target="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 <xref target="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.</t>

<?rfc needLines="6"?>

		</section>
		
<section title="Contributors">
<t>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. </t>
</section>		
		
<?rfc needLines="6"?>

		<section title="Acknowledgements">
<t>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.

</t>
   </section>
	</middle>
	<back>
		<references title="Normative References">
	 &rfc1661;
	 &rfc1332;
	 &rfc2472;
	 &rfc2462;
	 &rfc3315;
	 &rfc4135;
	 &rfc3971;	 
<reference anchor="GPRS">
      <front>
        <title>Digital cellular telecommunications system (Phase 2+); General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) Service description; Stage 2</title>
        <author>
									<organization></organization>
								</author>
								<date year=""></date>			
      </front>
      <seriesInfo name="3GPP" value="TS 03.60 version 7.9.0 Release 98" />
    </reference>	 
	 
<reference anchor="GPRS-LINK">
      <front>
        <title>Digital cellular telecommunications system (Phase 2+); Radio subsystem link control</title>
        <author>
									<organization></organization>
								</author>
								<date year=""></date>
      </front>
      <seriesInfo name="3GPP" value="GSM 03.05 version 7.0.0 Release 98" />
    </reference>	 
	 
<reference anchor="CDMA2K">
      <front>
        <title>cdma2000 Wireless IP Network Standard</title>
        <author>TIA
	  <organization></organization>
	</author>
        <author>EAI
	  <organization></organization>
	</author>
        <author>IS-835
	  <organization></organization>
	</author>

	<date month="December" year="2000"></date>
      </front>
      <seriesInfo name="" value="" />
    </reference>	 

<reference anchor="IEEE-802.1ae">
      <front>
        <title>IEEE Std 802.1AE, Local and Metropolitan Area Networks - Media Access Control (MAC) Security</title>
        <author>
        <organization>Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers</organization>
        </author>
        <date month="June" year="2006" />
      </front>
      <seriesInfo name="IEEE" value="Standard 802.1ae" />
    </reference>		

<reference anchor="IEEE-802.11a">
      <front>
        <title>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
</title>
        <author>
        <organization>Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers</organization>
        </author>
        <date month="September" year="1999" />
      </front>
      <seriesInfo name="IEEE" value="Standard 802.11a" />
    </reference>		
    
<reference anchor="IEEE-802.11b">
      <front>
        <title>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
</title>
        <author>
        <organization>Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers</organization>
        </author>
        <date month="August" year="1999" />
      </front>
      <seriesInfo name="IEEE" value="Standard 802.11b" />
    </reference>		
    
 
<reference anchor="IEEE-802.11g">
      <front>
        <title>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
</title>
        <author>
        <organization>Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers</organization>
        </author>
        <date month="June" year="2003" />
      </front>
      <seriesInfo name="IEEE" value="Standard 802.11g" />
    </reference> 
    
    
  
    
<reference anchor="IEEE-802.11i">
      <front>
        <title>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  
</title>
        <author>
        <organization>Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers</organization>
        </author>
        <date month="December" year="2004" />
      </front>
      <seriesInfo name="IEEE" value="802.11i" />
    </reference>  


<reference anchor="IEEE-802.1D">
<front>
<title>IEEE standard for local and metropolitan area networks - common 
specifications - Media access control (MAC) Bridges
</title>
        <author>
        <organization>Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers</organization>
        </author>
<date year='2004' />
</front>
<seriesInfo name='ISO/IEC IEEE Std' value='802.1D' />
</reference>



<reference anchor='IEEE-802.3'>
<front>
<title>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
</title>
<author>
        <organization>Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers</organization>
        </author>
<date year='2002' />
</front>
<seriesInfo name='ISO/IEC IEEE Std' value='802.3' />
</reference>


<reference anchor='IEEE-802.1ab'>
<front>
<title>Draft Standard for Local and Metropolitan Networks: Station and
Media Access Control Connectivity Discovery (Draft 13)
</title>
<author>
        <organization>Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers</organization>
        </author>

<date year='2004' />
</front>
<seriesInfo name='IEEE draft Std' value='802.1AB' />
</reference>





	 	
		</references>
		<references title="Informative References">

    &rfc2461;
    &rfc4068;
    &rfc4881;


<reference anchor="GPRS-GSSA">
      <front>
        <title>Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspect; General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) Service description; Stage 2 (Release 6)</title>
        <author>
									<organization></organization>
								</author>
								<date year=""></date>			
      </front>
      <seriesInfo name="3GPP" value="TS 23.060 version 6.5.0 2004-06" />
    </reference>	 

<reference anchor="GPRS-CN">
      <front>
        <title>Technical Specification Group Core Network; Internetworking between the Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) supporting packet based services and Packet Data Networks (PDN) (Release 6)</title>
        <author>
									<organization></organization>
								</author>
								<date year=""></date>			
      </front>
      <seriesInfo name="3GPP" value="TS 29.061 version 6.1.0 2004-06" />
    </reference>	 


		</references>
		
	</back>
</rfc>

