List Info

Thread: BSSID-WLAN mappings
BSSID-WLAN mappings
user name
 2006-04-17 17:06:21 

  


  

    There are also security issues when there is not a 1:1 
mapping of WLAN to BSSID.  Without this restriction, a station will not 
have any assurance that traffic it believes is encrypted and protected according 
to the policy of the WLAN to which it is associated is not being decrypted by an 
oracle (the AP) and rebroadcast to other stations without the same requirements 
for abiding with the same security policies.

 


We should not be implementing, or requiring an CAPWAP 
implementation to implement a method that lowers the security of the 
WLAN.


 -Bob
  


 






From: Puneet [mailto:pb.ietfgmail.com] 

Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2006 4:47 PM
To: Saravanan 
Govindan
Cc: capwapfrascone.com
Subject: Re: [Capwap] 
BSSID-WLAN mappings



Hi Saravanan,

I see your point, but this seems to address a 
very specific deployment scenario (service providers sharing WLAN equipment). If 
nothing else in the CAPWAP messages is dependent on this, then this should be a 
recommendation instead of a mandate. That way the protocol remains inclusive, 
and also meets its objective.

I think it is very important that existing 
implementations are not excluded just because they dont seem to meet one 
specific need in a specific deployment 
scenario.

Thanks,
Puneet




On 4/15/06, Saravanan 
Govindan <hotmail.com">saravananghotmail.com> 
wrote:

Hi 
  Puneet,

My concern regarding the BSSID - WLAN mapping is based on the 
  mandatory
Objective "Logical Groups" (Section 5.1.1 of CAPWAP 
  Objectives).

The Objective requires that WTP traffic be kept logically 
  distinct among 
logical groups. This arises from the commercial need of 
  service providers
sharing WLAN infrastructure equipment. Service providers 
  want their traffic
to be distinguished both over the wireless environment 
  (e.g. BSSIDS) and 
over the AC-WTP environment (e.g. WLANs).

The 
  BSSID-WLAN mapping issue is the technical requirement coming from 
  this
commercial need. It allows an AC - or WTP - to decide how logical 
  groups are
separated over the wireless and AC-WTP segments. So by making 
  this mapping, 
CAPWAP frames of different logical groups (WLANs) can be 
  distinctly
exchanged.

I agree with others that this mapping should 
  not exclude any implementation
- my concern is that the mapping be 
  including in the first place. 
  

Cheers,

Saravanan




>&nbsp; ------------------------------
> 
  *From Puneet [mailto:gmail.com">pb.ietfgmail.com]
> *Sent Friday, 
  April 14, 2006 12:29 AM 
> *To frascone.com">capwapfrascone.com
> *Subject 
  [Capwap] BSSID-WLAN mappings
&gt;
> the BSSID description in Section 
  11.9.1 'WTP Radio Configuration' notes
> that a WTP that supports 16 
  WLANS MUST have 16 MAC addresses reserved for 
> it. Why? ie. what part 
  of the protocol does not work if we have multiple
&gt; SSIDs on a single 
  BSSID? (whether thats good design or bad is a different
> matter). Since 
  the WLAN ID could be used in all such places to convey 
WLAN
> 
  information back to the AC, why do we need to mandate this 1:1 
  BSSID-WLAN
> mapping?
&gt;
> Thanks,
&gt; 
  Puneet
>;
> 
  _________________________________________________________________ 
> To 
  unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
>; http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap
>;
> 
  Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get 
  an advanced look at the new version of MSN Messenger. 
http://messenger.msn.com.sg/Beta/Default.aspx



  

  
  
   
     
    






 [1]











   
 





about | contact  Other archives ( Real Estate discussion Medical topics )