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):||15 July 2014|
|PDF File Size:||5.36 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||11.73 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
SLAPP operates as the framework to make a connection between two devices, and negotiate a protocol. Change State Event Response However, the header does not warrant any particular attention, and as such, will not be covered by this paper.
Cawap nature of such systems is of such complexity, that vendor implementations can vary widely in their scope and features, leading to incompatibilities between vendors. Returned Message Element Reason And finally, ensuring network security, both from 3rd party hardware, such as rogue access points being connected to the network, as well as preventing the loss of network secrets from the physical theft of access points is also critical.
In the typical centralized architecture, one or more controllers manage a set number of deployed access points. From the Run state, an AP and controller may exchange new key material, by entering the Key Update state.
Discovery – New APs must seek out a controller with which to associate. Please review these documents carefully, as rvc describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Rather, it attempts to provide the framework with which devices may request a specific configuration method, which is then layered on top of SLAPP.
However, the Principal and Receiver thread share sent and received packets with each other.
As previously discussed, in the typical AP-controller architecture, access points are not layer 2 or 3 devices. Wireless controllers have some general tasks that they perform.
However, the implementations are proprietary and have different views on where functionality in the network should be. This leaves the time-critical applications of wireless capwsp and access in the WTP, making efficient use of the computing power available in WTPs, which are subject to severe cost pressure.
Third, so called “Fit APs” have gained popularity in recent years, as they combine both the intelligence of a Local MAC implementation with the agility of a Remote MAC cxpwap, by splitting realtime and non-realtime functionality between the controller and AP.
The AP broadcasts a Discovery Request, and upon reception of the response, moves to the Acquiring phase as well. However, this power comes at a cost.
The security model is not ported over from LWAPP, as there were many concerns about the validity of the security. Capsap received, the controller moves to the Acquiring phase without responding yet.
Meru has made no plans public for enabling support for a standards compliant method of AP-controller interaction.
Oligopolies are typically resistant to destabilization of the rfcc, introduced by large paradigm shifts, such as the shift that is promised by CAPWAP. A controller must respond with a Discovery Response.
Securing – This phase establishes an encrypted tunnel, over which a protocol can be agreed upon. It merely relays the encrypted frames to the controller for processing.
The AP handles the encryption of traffic between itself and its clients, with the rfx provided keys. Otherwise it moves back to the Discovery state. It is important to realize that the definition of what a controller is is not clearly defined. Please see [fig 8] for a diagram.
An overview of the architecture and protocols use in access point AP to controller communication in enterprise grade wireless networks. The status of interoperability between vendors currently was discussed, as well capeap the plans of each vendor to support CAPWAP in the future.
The controller has a fixed set of Once the AP has received the configuration, it may enter the Run state. The protocol must enable centralized management of the components of a WLAN, allow for transparent support of different vendor’s cxpwap, be able to provide monitoring of hardware and software configuration and status, and finally ensure network security.
Because SLAPP supports both layer 2 and 3, access points may be in completely different routed networks as the controller, or even across the Internet. The significant cost of enterprise level WLAN deployment, coupled with both hardware and software differences on Controllers and Access Points breeds vendor lock-in.
A Fat AP understands and speaks layer 2 and possible layer 3 protocols, and is addressable on the network. WTPs require a set of dynamic management and control functions related to their primary task of connecting the wireless and wired mediums.