Control And Provisioning of Wireless Access Points (CAPWAP) Protocol Specification, March Canonical URL: txt; File. RFC (part 1 of 6): Control And Provisioning of Wireless Access Points ( CAPWAP) Protocol Specification. Control and Provisioning of Wireless Access Points (CAPWAP) is a standard and interoperable RFC defines the actual CAPWAP protocol specifications.
|Published (Last):||6 July 2004|
|PDF File Size:||11.69 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||18.24 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
A Fat AP understands and speaks layer 2 and possible layer 3 protocols, and is addressable on the network. To provide an extensible protocol that is not bound to a specific wireless technology.
RFC – part 1 of 6
The paper covers the current architecture of enterprise WLAN deployments, as well as proposed protocols that attempt to simplify their management and configuration, and allow inter-vendor compatibility of access points APs and controllers.
Research In Motion D. Because SLAPP supports both layer 2 and 3, access points may be capwao completely different routed networks as capdap controller, or even across the Internet. These 3 MAC layer concepts will be discussed in greater detail in [Section 2. You might encounter a deployment scenario as in Figurewhere you have a mixed deployment. Major vendors have also expressed doubt over the demand from customers for interoperable WLAN infrastructure. Converting Protected Data into Unprotected Data.
The migration towards a unified standard will be long, and not necessarily even happen, because each vendor already supports its own proprietary protocols, and sees little motivation to commoditize their AP hardware by introducing CAPWAP across the industry. LWAPP tried to solve the specific problem of associating APs to controllers, and managing firmware and configuration updates.
This paper is organized as follows: The first is targeted at cpwap hardware, and handles the operation of the controller. Conventions Used in This Document In the typical centralized architecture, one or more controllers manage a set number of deployed access points. The AP handles the encryption of traffic between itself and its clients, with the controller provided keys. Vendors such as Trapeze criticized the specification, as it makes assumptions about the topology of the network that the WLAN will be deployed on, as well as assumptions about the complexity and functionality implemented by the AP, by allowing only Local and Split MAC implementations.
The creation of a vendor neutral protocol is a potential boon to consumers of enterprise grade managed wireless solutions. The Principal thread creates a Receiver thread, to handle the responses from the controller. 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.
The controller and AP will exchange 2 types of messages: This limits interoperability to only vendors who have implemented [RFC]which is just Cisco as of the time of this writing.
A cpwap CAPWAP standard aims to be a protocol that could enable centralized wireless hardware utilize a simple, streamlined method of communicating between access points and controllers.
One of the main differences is the use of DTLS. In either case, the L2 wireless management frames are processed locally.
Thin APs have their MAC layers implemented entirely on the controller, and use tunneling to a controller to have all of their frames processed for forwarding onto the back haul network. The AP would only implement the Rtc points retrieve their configuration from the controller, and report their status back to the controller for management purposes.
The cost per unit is much lower than Fat APs, as the only logic necessary for functioning is the radio hardware and a simple wired interface, with memory to store firmware. Thin APs may be found in AP-controller style deployments.
The Receiver-From-STA thread can pass along messages through the Principal thread, which are sent back to the controller for processing. Once received, the controller moves cxpwap the Cpawap phase without responding yet.
More specifically, it fails to define key duties gfc in [Section 2. This document uses additional terminology defined in [ RFC ]. The state machine in [fig6] show the 4 states attainable during protocol negotiation by a device.
Receiver and Session Manager [fig7].
Overview of CAPWAP (Cisco Wireless LAN Controllers)
However, the implementations are proprietary and have different views on where functionality in the network should be. An overview of the cqpwap and protocols use in access point AP to controller communication in enterprise grade wireless networks. The AP then joins to a controller, and is acknowledged by the controller.