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 December 2006|
|PDF File Size:||2.2 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||8.91 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
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 cawap. The challenges facing wireless networks with regard to standardized management and provisioning are difficult.
Information on RFC » RFC Editor
Contributing Authors This capawp lists and acknowledges the authors of significant text and concepts included in this specification. It usually falls to the vendor to create a specific implementation. Fapwap centralize the authentication and policy enforcement functions for a wireless network. The status of interoperability between vendors currently was discussed, as well as the plans of each vendor to support CAPWAP in the future.
To enable shifting of the higher-level protocol processing from the WTP. The controller awaits a Discovery Request from an AP. Because SLAPP supports both layer 2 and 3, access points may be in completely different routed networks as the capwwap, or even across the Internet. More specifically, it fails to 54155 key duties mentioned in [Section 2. Critics of SLAPP argue that it is an incomplete specification, as it enforces no minimal compatibility.
However, this power comes at a cost. The controller acts as a management station, configuration station, and potentially a router.
In some vendor’s access points, even wireless encryption is not even capwp at the AP. The only difference is the protocol being used between the AP and the controller. The security model is not ported over from LWAPP, as there were many concerns about the validity of the security. More consideration has been placed on ensuring that CAPWAP is secure, by taking advantage of the security offered by requiring full encryption with authentication between the controller and AP.
Reading the RFCs also places you in a position to better digest the material covered in this topic. 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 processes the Discovery Request, and if valid, responds in the positive, and moves 515 Securing.
Current Status and Overview of the CAPWAP Protocol
There are 6 main portions of a controller’s duties. It was seen as overly complex, as well as lacking in security, as portions of the control stream are unencrypted, and the entire data stream between controller and AP are unencrypted.
Meru Air Traffic Control software may be used to provision and manage APs, but provides no multi vendor support. The AP would only implement the The WLAN 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.
Major vendors have also expressed doubt over the demand from customers for interoperable WLAN infrastructure. This document uses additional terminology defined in [ RFC ].
The implementation described in [Bernaschi09] is not ready for currently available APs. There are two types of threads that may be instantiated on the controller: Instead, SLAPP proposed a generic protocol for an AP style device to seek out a controller, and establish an encrypted connection, over which a protocol would be agreed upon, and carried out.
The state machine in [fig6] show the 4 states attainable during protocol negotiation by a device. Negotiated Control Protocol – Here both devices begin communicating in the previously agreed-upon protocol.
SLAPP attempted to solve a more general problem, not limiting itself to Once the AP has received the configuration, it may enter the Run state. During this initialization, as well as operation, periodic control messages must be exchanged between the AP and the controller, for management and statistical purposes.
Thus, the entire process of deploying an AP can be implemented in a vendor neutral format, from finding an initial controller, to deploying firmware updates, to configuration and access point redirection. Currently, their Rfcc controllers can only interface with Meru brand access points, utilizing a proprietary protocol. In this regard, the controller acts in similar fashion to a router, by accepting and processing layer 2 frames, and then switching layer frames on to the access network.
Change State Event Response