RFC CAPWAP Protocol Base MIB May CAPWAP Control Channel: A bi-directional flow defined by the AC IP Address, WTP IP Address, AC control. The Control And Provisioning of Wireless Access Points (CAPWAP) protocol is a standard, The protocol specification is described in RFC RFC (part 1 of 6): Control And Provisioning of Wireless Access Points ( CAPWAP) Protocol Specification.
|Published (Last):||5 April 2014|
|PDF File Size:||12.16 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||10.35 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
A standard that ensures compatibility between vendors is necessary to prevent vendor lock-in.
Table of Contents 1. It merely relays the encrypted frames to the controller for processing. This limits interoperability to only vendors who have implemented [RFC]which is just Cisco as of the time of this writing.
The benefits of this model are such that it does not enforce a specific security model onto the design of the underlying standard, and as mentioned previously, allows the SLAPP standard to be applied to more protocols than just The nature of such systems is of such complexity, capwzp vendor implementations can vary widely in their scope and features, leading to incompatibilities between vendors.
The Rfd market is structured similarly to an oligopoly, because the market is controlled by a very small set of vendors, namely Aruba, Cisco, Meru, and Trapeze. Not all access points are alike, as they fall into 3 categories.
RFC – part 1 of 6
The controller processes the Discovery Request, and if valid, responds in the positive, and moves to Securing. However, some control messages are transmitted unencrypted, such as Discovery Requests and Responses, because of the lack a preexisting association between the 2 devices.
Network Working Group P. The cost per unit is much lower than Fat APs, as the only logic necessary for functioning is the radio hardware capwzp a simple wired interface, with memory to store cpwap.
AC Name with Priority Allowing these functions to be performed from a centralized AC in an interoperable fashion increases manageability and allows network operators to more tightly control their wireless network infrastructure. A full specification is preserved in [RFC]. The physical or network entity that contains an RF antenna and wireless Physical Layer PHY to transmit and receive station traffic for wireless access networks.
Currently, their WLAN controllers can only interface with Meru brand access points, utilizing a proprietary protocol. This document describes the base CAPWAP protocol, while separate binding extensions will enable its use with additional wireless technologies. Access points retrieve their configuration from the controller, and report their status back to the controller for management purposes. Discovery – New APs must seek out a controller with which to associate.
Acquiring – This state represents both devices connecting to each other, to begin encrypting their communications. You might encounter a deployment scenario as in Figurewhere you have a mixed deployment. If a timer expires while the AP is in the Acquiring phase before receiving a “client hello”, the AP goes back to Discovery mode.
Securing – This phase establishes an encrypted tunnel, over which a protocol can be agreed upon. The proposal cites the availability of IPsec for general data traffic, and does not provide any mechanism of encrypting data messages between the controller and AP, only control messages, and rcf key exchange process between both devices.
Overview of CAPWAP (Cisco Wireless LAN Controllers)
It is important to realize that the definition of what a controller is is not clearly defined. This paper is organized as follows: Primary Discovery Request Message Please refer to the current edition of the “Internet Official Protocol Standards” STD 1 for the standardization state and status of this protocol.
The division between the sending and receiving of CAPWAP messages is that the caapwap between the AP and controller is not necessarily synchronous, and the controller may send a request while the Principal thread is sending. The controller then authenticates the AP, and begins uploading firmware to the AP.
The rfd facing wireless networks with regard to standardized management and provisioning are difficult. Once the AP has received the configuration, it may enter the Run state.
Ideally controllers of any vendor could provision tfc points from any other vendor, provided they implement a common CAPWAP protocol. Meru Air Traffic Control software may be used to provision and manage APs, but provides no multi vendor support. The AP handles the encryption of traffic between itself and its clients, with the controller provided keys. Run – Both the controller and AP operate in the Run state.
Because they acpwap standalone devices, they also cause difficulties when managing a growing network ca;wap many devices, as firmware and configuration must be handled on an individual basis for each device. The only vendor that has produced a CAPWAP implementation thus far is Cisco, but it relies on some proprietary protocols, thus limiting compatibility.
Because a vendor change would require the purchase of duplicate Controller and AP hardware, it is often unfeasible for a wireless network to be migrated from one vendor to another.
A typical diagram of a WLAN network is in [fig1]. The implementation described in [Bernaschi09] is not ready for currently available APs. SLAPP operates capawp the framework to make a connection between two devices, and negotiate a protocol.
The only difference is the protocol being used between the AP and the controller.
The network entity that provides WTP access to the network infrastructure in the data plane, control plane, management plane, or a combination therein.