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.
| Author: | Shale Jur |
| Country: | Senegal |
| Language: | English (Spanish) |
| Genre: | Politics |
| Published (Last): | 25 February 2005 |
| Pages: | 249 |
| PDF File Size: | 6.83 Mb |
| ePub File Size: | 16.16 Mb |
| ISBN: | 809-3-95542-631-8 |
| Downloads: | 43101 |
| Price: | Free* [*Free Regsitration Required] |
| Uploader: | Turn |
It is important to realize that the definition of what a controller is is not clearly defined. Non-realtime capabilities are authentication procedures, fragmenting and frc frames, and more. This paper is organized as follows: An overview of the architecture and protocols use in access point AP to controller communication in enterprise grade wireless networks.
The significant cost of enterprise level WLAN deployment, coupled with both hardware and software differences on Controllers and Access Points breeds vendor lock-in. This would be a similar scenario to two controllers running different versions of code. The exception is 6. Please review these documents carefully, rc they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document.
One of the reasons for such little support is that the deployment is restricted to a Layer 2 boundary. Thus, OpenCAPWAP is only a proof of concept, as they are limited in the hardware that they may support, by a lack of common target hardware, as well as differencing Because the AP relies on the controller for its MAC layer, it is sensible to extend this to apply to firmware and configuration as well.
As shown in Figure 1the wireless frames received from a mobile device, which is referred to in this specification as a Station STAare directly encapsulated by the WTP and forwarded rfx the AC. In either case, the L2 wireless management frames are processed locally. The only difference is the protocol being used between the AP and the controller. It was initially designed by Airespace, which was later bought out by Cisco in Once the AP has received the configuration, it may enter the Run state.
Rather, it attempts rrfc provide the framework with which devices may request a specific configuration efc, which is then layered on top of SLAPP. However, this simplicity does not come at the expense of flexibility.
This state updates the encryption keys on both devices, which is used to encrypt all further messages, until a new key is requested. The AC may also provide centralized bridging, forwarding, and encryption of user traffic. The Receiver-From-STA thread can pass along messages through the Principal thread, which are sent back to the controller for processing. SLAPP attempted to solve a more general problem, not limiting itself to To enable shifting of the higher-level protocol processing from the WTP.
This creates some inconveniences, however, in that both APs and controllers need to be preconfigured in order to associate with each other. Some vendors have produced products that allow operation with multiple brands of AP, such as Aruba Network’s AirWave being able to provision and control Aruba, Cisco, and Meru access points.
The controller can then authenticate the AP, and negotiate its advertised capabilities, such as being Securing – This phase establishes an encrypted tunnel, over which a protocol can be agreed upon. The emergence of centralized IEEE Run – Both the controller and AP operate in the Run state.
Meru has made no plans public for enabling support for a standards compliant method of AP-controller interaction.
Overview of CAPWAP (Cisco Wireless LAN Controllers)
It usually falls to the vendor to create a specific implementation. This is accomplished by the AP broadcasting a Discovery Request. There are 3 types of AP threads, and no more than 3 threads may be active at any one time: To centralize the capwaap and policy enforcement functions for a wireless network. Critics of SLAPP argue that it rrfc an incomplete specification, as it enforces no minimal compatibility.
Configure – An AP with a sufficient version of code may then request to be configured by the controller. From the Run state, an AP and controller may exchange new key material, by entering the Key Update state. Firstly, it should enable a centralized management solution of the various hardware in a typical WLAN deployment.
You might encounter a deployment scenario as in Figurewhere you have a mixed deployment. Current vendor solutions and interoperability is also covered, and the current state and trends in the enterprise WLAN market are discussed.
The process by which an AP discovers a controller, validates firmware, and downloads firmware and configurations does not change. A single Receiver thread receives and processes any requests from APs. Please refer to the current edition of the “Internet Official Protocol Standards” STD 1 for the standardization state and status of this protocol.
Overview of CAPWAP (Cisco Wireless LAN Controllers)
However, this compatibility was not the result of CAPWAP, but rather specific licensing deals between each supported company. This protocol can be anything, as long as both sides agreed on it.
The creation of a vendor neutral protocol is a potential boon to consumers of enterprise grade managed wireless solutions. Third, monitoring the status of both hardware and software configurations is necessary to ensure a properly operating network.
More specifically, it fails to define key duties mentioned in [Section 2. However, some have been met with criticism. The Tfc then downloads the firmware, and once completed, enters the Reset state, and then attempts to rejoin a controller.
Consult [RFC] acpwap a full overview. Major vendors have also expressed doubt over the demand from customers for interoperable WLAN infrastructure. The nature of cspwap systems is of such complexity, that vendor implementations can vary widely in their scope and features, leading to incompatibilities between vendors. The AP forwards packets to the controller, and maintains normal operation. Many vendors use this to their advantage, and create product differentiation by including features into their wireless products, such as firewall capability in their controller hardware.
However, the Principal and Receiver thread share sent and received packets with each other.