[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06

V6OPS WG                                                   S. Gundavelli
Internet-Draft                                                M. Grayson
Intended status: Informational                                     Cisco
Expires: October 25, 2013                                       P. Seite
                                                 France Telecom - Orange
                                                                  Y. Lee
                                                                 Comcast
                                                          April 23, 2013


     Service Provider Wi-Fi Services Over Residential Architectures
           draft-gundavelli-v6ops-community-wifi-svcs-06.txt

Abstract

   The tremendous growth in Wi-Fi technology adoption over the last
   decade has met the ultimate possible goal of 100% adoption rate.  All
   most every new mobile device is now equipped with IEEE 802.11-based
   wireless interface and with pre-configured policy to prefer Wi-Fi to
   cellular access.  Matching this evolution is every service provider's
   desire to offer Wi-Fi based broadband services; a new business
   opportunity even for fixed line operators.  Operators are exploring
   options to monetize their existing networks, most with nation-wide
   footprint, to build a high-speed Wi-Fi service that can be the basis
   for offering new wireless broadband services.  This document
   identifies the requirements for supporting these new Wi-Fi community
   services and the mobility tools which have been standardized in IETF
   that can be used for enabling these architectures.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on October 25, 2013.

Copyright Notice




Gundavelli, et al.      Expires October 25, 2013                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft       Service Provider Wi-Fi Services          April 2013


   Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.







































Gundavelli, et al.      Expires October 25, 2013                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft       Service Provider Wi-Fi Services          April 2013


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Conventions and Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.1.  Conventions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.  Deployment Models  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   4.  Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.1.  IPv6 Addressing Model for SP WiFI Architectures  . . . . .  9
     4.2.  Subscriber Authentication & Service Authorization  . . . .  9
     4.3.  Location-based Services  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.4.  Local Services Access & Internet Traffic Offload . . . . . 10
     4.5.  Web-based Authentication Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     4.6.  Transparent Auto Login (TAL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     4.7.  Multiple WLAN SSID Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     4.8.  Multiple Home Network Service (APN) Access . . . . . . . . 11
     4.9.  CPE Identity and Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     4.10. Mobility within the WLAN Access Network  . . . . . . . . . 11
     4.11. Mobility across WLAN and Macro Access  . . . . . . . . . . 12
     4.12. Differentiated Services for Users behind RG  . . . . . . . 12
     4.13. Lawful Intercept (LI)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     4.14. Subscriber Management and Charging . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     4.15. Handling the Walk-by Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     4.16. Overlapping IPv4 Address Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     4.17. Service Provisioning & Monitoring  . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   5.  Solution Approaches & Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     5.1.  PMIPv6 MAG on the RG: Layer-3 Encapsulation between
           CPE and Access Gateway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     5.2.  Ethernet-over-IP Support on the RG: Layer-2
           Encapsulation between CPE and Access Gateway . . . . . . . 15
     5.3.  Local Aggregation for Subscriber Control and Internet
           Offload  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     5.4.  Mobility Chaining: Integration with Mobile Packet Core . . 15
   6.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   7.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   8.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   9.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     9.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     9.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17











Gundavelli, et al.      Expires October 25, 2013                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft       Service Provider Wi-Fi Services          April 2013


1.  Introduction

   The tremendous growth in Wi-Fi technology adoption over the last
   decade has met the ultimate possible goal of 100% adoption rate.  All
   most every new mobile device is now equipped with IEEE 802.11-based
   wireless interface and these devices are typically pre-configured
   with a policy to prefer Wi-Fi to cellular access.  This so called,
   "cheap access based on unlicensed spectrum", is no longer considered
   an unreliable access, but with all the available protocol tools and
   with maturity in technology, building a reliable broadband service
   that can meet the committed service-level agreements is proving to be
   a non-issue.

   Matching this evolution is every service provider's desire to offer
   Wi-Fi based broadband services; a new business opportunity even for
   both fixed and mobile operators.  The demand for bandwidth is only
   growing with the availability of new smart devices, new technology
   applications and with all the content in the Internet.  Furthermore,
   an increasing percentage of mobile consumption is happening in the
   home and so DSL/Cable operators are exploring options to monetize
   their existing networks, most with nation-wide footprint, to build a
   high-speed, nation-wide Wi-Fi service that can be the basis for
   offering new wireless broadband services and for building roaming
   agreements with traditional mobile operators, who are unable to meet
   the mobile subscriber growth due to the finite licensed spectrum
   available for macro-cell deployments.  Every residential CPE device
   that the operator owns can now be enabled to provide Wi-Fi service
   and new community Wi-Fi hotspots can be built in any location where
   there is fixed line coverage.  A wireless service based on unlicensed
   spectrum, and leveraging existing transport is a huge incentive for
   operators to enter this new market.

   To support these business goals, operators are looking at mobility
   architectures for supporting various requirements.  Not all
   requirements are well understood, and neither are the implications
   with the chosen solution approaches for each of those requirements.
   The choice of the architecture has an implication on the CPE
   evolution and on the core infrastructure feature requirements.
   Therefore, the sole purpose and the goal of this document is to
   present all the requirements, identify the protocol tools and any
   potential gaps.  This analysis is important for enabling the network
   vendors and the mobile operators to make the right design choices and
   leverage the existing tools that the mobility groups in IETF have
   already developed and discourage them from adopting proprietary, non-
   standard mechanisms or developing redundant alternatives.






Gundavelli, et al.      Expires October 25, 2013                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft       Service Provider Wi-Fi Services          April 2013


                 ==   ==    ==    ==   ==    ==
             ==                                   ==
          ==           Wi-Fi Service Cloud           ==
       ==               (Public SSID)                   ==
    ==                                                     ==
       ==                                               ==
          ==                                         ==
             ==                                   ==
    - - - - - - - - -  - - - - - - - - -  - - - - - - - - -
      - - - - - - -      - - - - - - -      - - - - - - -
        - - - - -          - - - - -          - - - - -
          - - -              - - -              - - -
            -                  -                  -
     (Public SSID)       (Public SSID)      (Public SSID)
    +------------+      +------------+      +------------+
    | Residential|      |  Provider  |      | Residential|
    |Access Point|      |Access Point|      |Access Point|
    +------------+      +------------+      +------------+
    (Private SSID)                          (Private SSID)
           -                                      -
         - - -                                  - - -
       - - - - -                              - - - - -
     - - - - - - -                          - - - - - - -
   - - - - - - - - -                       - - - - - - - -


              Figure 1: Wi-Fi Cloud Over Residential Gateways


2.  Conventions and Terminology

2.1.  Conventions

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

2.2.  Terminology

   This document uses the following abbreviations and definitions:

   Community Wi-Fi Service

      It is a Wi-Fi based broadband service offered by a service
      provider.  The Wi-Fi Access Points that are part of this service
      are owned and managed by the operator, and physically located in
      carrier premises.  These operator owned CPE's typically have a
      large Wi-Fi coverage area, operated on a higher signal power.



Gundavelli, et al.      Expires October 25, 2013                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft       Service Provider Wi-Fi Services          April 2013


      There could also be the residential Access Points that are part of
      this service, located in the subscriber homes, that are part of
      this service and allowing community access to a public SSID along
      with a private SSID for their personal access.

   Wi-Fi Operator

      A service provider that offers Community Wi-Fi services.  Wi-Fi
      operator can be a wireline operator, mobile operator or an
      operator offering both wireline and mobile services.

   Residential Gateway (RG)

      It is a network device that is located in the Customer premises
      and is also referred to as Residential CPE (Customer Premises
      Equipment).  This device is connected to service providers network
      and defines the demarcation point between the provider and the
      customer.  In the context of this document this is hosting the
      802.11 Access Point function.

   WLAN controller (WLC)

      It is an entity responsible for performing radio resource
      management (RRM) on the Access Points, system-wide mobility policy
      enforcement and centralized forwarding function for the user
      traffic.

   Mobile Gateway

      It is network entity anchoring IP traffic in the mobile core
      network.  This entity allocates an IP address which is
      topologically valid in the mobile network and may act as a
      mobility anchor if handover between mobile and Wi-Fi is supported.

   Home/Roaming User

      The home user is the owner of the network where the Residential
      Gateway is located and is paying for the service associated with
      that Residential Gateway.  A Roaming User is a visitor from the
      operator's home network, or from a partner's network and is
      allowed to access broadband services using that Residential
      Gateway and over a Public SSID.

   Access Point Name (APN)







Gundavelli, et al.      Expires October 25, 2013                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft       Service Provider Wi-Fi Services          April 2013


      Its the name of a packet data network.  This APN concept was first
      introduced in GPRS by 3GPP to enable legacy Intelligent Networking
      (IN) approaches to be applied to the newly deployed IP packet data
      services.  In roaming deployments, the APN construct was visible
      to the visited network and allowed legacy IN charging solutions to
      be supported.  Defining an application specific APN then allowed
      application charging to be supported.

   Addressing Models

      The term Per-MN-Prefix model [RFC5213] is used to refer to an
      addressing model where there is a unique network prefix or
      prefixes assigned for each mobile node.  The term Shared-Prefix
      model [RFC5213] is used to refer to an addressing model where the
      prefix(es) are shared by more than one node.


3.  Deployment Models

   Figure 2 illustrates the most common residential and hotspots Wi-Fi
   deployment models.






























Gundavelli, et al.      Expires October 25, 2013                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft       Service Provider Wi-Fi Services          April 2013


          _----_           _----_           _----_
        _(      )_       _(      )_       _(      )_
       (Operator-1)     (Operator-2)     (Operator-3)
        (_      _)       (_      _)       (_      _)
           -+--             -+--            '-+--'
        +--------+       +--------+       +--------+
        | Mobile |       | Mobile |       | Mobile |
        |gateway |       |gateway |       |gateway |
        +--------+       +--------+       +--------+
             |                |                |
             +-------------.  |  .-------------+
                           |  |  |
                           |  |  |
                           |  |  |
                           |  |  |
                          +--------+             _----_
       +---+              |        |           _(      )_
       |AAA|. . . . . . . | Access |----------( Internet )
       +---+       ...... | Aggreg |           (_      _)
         |         .      | Gateway|             '----'
     +--------+    .      +--------+
     |Web Auth|.....       |  |   |
     | Portal |            |  |   +-------------+
     +--------+            |  |                 |
                           |  |              +-----+
           +---------------+  |              | AR  |
           |               +-----+           +-----+
        +-----+            | WLC |        * ---------*
        | CPE |            |     |        (    LAN    )
        |(RG  |            +-----+        * ---------*
        +-----+            /    \             /    \
           .           +----+  +----+     +----+  +----+
          / \          |WiFi|  |WiFi|     |WiFi|  |WiFi|
         MN MN         | AP |  | AP |     | AP |  | AP |
                       +----+  +----+     +----+  +----+
      Community          .                  .
       WiFi user        / \                / \
                       MN MN              MN MN


                  Figure 2: WLAN Service for Retail Model


4.  Requirements







Gundavelli, et al.      Expires October 25, 2013                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft       Service Provider Wi-Fi Services          April 2013


4.1.  IPv6 Addressing Model for SP WiFI Architectures

   The selection of the richt IPv6 addressing model for the SP WiFI
   architectures is an important consideration.  There are these two
   IPv6 addressing models:

   o  Unique-Prefix Model - As per this addressing model, home network
      prefix(es) assigned to a mobile node are for its exclusive use and
      no other node shares an address from that prefix (other than the
      Subnet-Router anycast address [RFC4291] that is used by the IPv6
      access router hosting that prefix on that link).  There could be
      multiple unique IPv6 prefixes assigned to each mobile node.

   o  Shared-Prefix model - The IPv6 prefix that is assigned to the
      mobile node is a shared prefix.  There can be more than one mobile
      node that can be using IPv6 addresses from that prefix.

   3GPP architecture supports Unique-Prefix model for the mobile node's
   PDN connections.  This decision was largely influenced by the IETF
   recommendation to 3GPP to support this specific addressing model.  In
   the context of SP WIFI, there are clearly scenarios where a mobile
   node may perform an inter-technology handover from the macro network
   to the WLAN access network and handoff the session and is important
   that the addressing model is the same in both the access
   architectures.  Even in deployment models where such handovers are no
   envisioned, such as an WLAN access aggregation architecture with no
   mobile packet core integration, there are sufficient reasons for
   adopting the Unique Prefix model.

4.2.  Subscriber Authentication & Service Authorization

   Community Wi-Fi service is designed to be available for public
   access.  Wi-Fi operator must authenticate users before offering
   services to them.  Once a user is authenticated, Wi-Fi operator will
   authorize services based on the user identity.  There are many
   authentication mechanisms, such as 802.1x, Web-authentication, WISPr
   that the operator may deploy for this purpose.

4.3.  Location-based Services

   In many deployments, there is a need for the mobile operator to
   provide differentiated services and policing to the mobile nodes
   based on the access network to which they are attached.  Policy
   systems in mobility architectures such as PCC and ANDSF in 3GPP
   system allow configuration of policy rules with conditions based on
   the access network information.  For example, the service treatment
   for the mobile node's traffic may be different when they are attached
   to a access network owned by the home operator than when owned by a



Gundavelli, et al.      Expires October 25, 2013                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft       Service Provider Wi-Fi Services          April 2013


   roaming partner.  The service treatment can also be different based
   on the configured Service Set Identifiers (SSID) in case of IEEE
   802.11 based access networks.  Other examples of location services
   include the operator's ability to display a location specific Web
   Page, or apply tariff based on the location.

4.4.  Local Services Access & Internet Traffic Offload

   In the integrated WLAN-EPC architectures, the mobile node's IP
   traffic is always tunneled back from the access network to the mobile
   gateway in the home network.  However, with the exponential growth in
   the mobile data traffic, mobile operators are exploring new ways to
   offload some of the IP traffic flows at the nearest access edge where
   ever there is an internet peering point, as supposed to carrying it
   all the way to the mobility anchor in the home network.  Not all IP
   traffic need to be routed back to the home network, some of the non-
   essential traffic which does not require IP mobility support can be
   offloaded at the mobile access gateway in the access network.  This
   approach provides greater leverage and efficient usage of the mobile
   packet core which help lowering transport cost.

4.5.  Web-based Authentication Support

   Most Public Wireless LAN (PWLAN) deployments today use web-based
   authentication for authorizing the user for network access.  Web-
   based mode of authentication is considered a legacy mode, for its
   weak security properties, and there are efforts to replace it with
   802.1x-based security mechanisms.  However, a very high percentage of
   the PWLAN deployments are still using using this authentication mode
   and operators are not willing to move away from this mode any time
   soon.  The reason being, lack of support for 802.1x/EAP support on
   the 100's of millions of handsets that are out there, and for the
   lack of client software in the laptops running various operating
   systems versions.  This is forcing the operators to support web-based
   authentication.

4.6.  Transparent Auto Login (TAL)

   In many deployments, there is a need to support Transparent Auto
   Login capability.  This is essentially an approach for maintaining
   Authenticated state for a user, for a duration of time.  Once an
   authenticated user disconnects and re-attaches to the network, the
   network should allows instant access without forcing the user to re-
   authenticate.







Gundavelli, et al.      Expires October 25, 2013               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft       Service Provider Wi-Fi Services          April 2013


4.7.  Multiple WLAN SSID Support

   A Wi-Fi Operator may broadcast multiple SSIDs.  In case Residential
   Wi-Fi hotspots, there can be one set of private SSIDs specific to
   that home user and there can be another set of public SSIDs for wider
   community use.  In case of public hotspots, the operator can
   advertise the public SSID for its own subscribers and also public
   SSID's belonging to other operators with whom the operator has
   roaming relationships.

4.8.  Multiple Home Network Service (APN) Access

   The 3GPP system architecture supports the concept of an Access Point
   Name (APN).  An APN can identify a particular routing domain and can
   be used by 3GPP operators to segment user traffic.  APNs are included
   in the session establishment signaling sent by 3GPP User Equipments
   (UEs), identifying which routing domain they want to be connected to.
   Furthermore, 3GPP has defined a system architecture which supports
   the ability of a single UE to have simultaneous connectivity to a
   plurality of APNs, and be allocated multiple IPv4 addresses and/or
   IPv6 prefixes from the network.

   There is a need to ensure multiple APN access for a subscriber in the
   community Wi-Fi network.

4.9.  CPE Identity and Authorization

   There are two known models with respect to CPE roll out.  The
   consumer may purchase a device off the shelf and plugin to the
   network, or the operator at the time of service creation may have
   shipped a new device with the pre-provisioned service configuration.
   In either case, the operator needs to be able to identify the device
   based on the IP address and associate that to a given location.

   The Wi-Fi network performs access control of UEs, via the CPE acting
   as AAA supplicant.  As a result, the mobile network does not
   authenticate directly the user but shall trust the CPE performing the
   authentication.

4.10.  Mobility within the WLAN Access Network

   The mobile node should have the ability to roam within the Wi-Fi
   domain.  Depending on the deployment model, the mobile node may roam
   across different IP subnets.  To survive to such handover, some
   applications (e.g.  VPN, streaming) need the IP address to be
   preserved.

   A WLAN network may include a large number of Wi-Fi base stations.  In



Gundavelli, et al.      Expires October 25, 2013               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft       Service Provider Wi-Fi Services          April 2013


   some occasions, two or more Wi-Fi base stations may cover the same
   area.  When a subscriber receives Wi-Fi service in this overlapped
   area, the device may bounce between different base stations.  This is
   typical Proximity problem.  In this scenario, it is important for the
   WLAN to offer mobility to the subscriber as such the subscriber can
   continue the services without changing its IP address.

4.11.  Mobility across WLAN and Macro Access

   A mobile node should have the ability to handover from macro network
   to the Wi-Fi network and be able to retain IP address configuration
   and be able to access the home operator services.

4.12.  Differentiated Services for Users behind RG

   A Wi-Fi operator enabling Hotspot Services on a residential gateway
   is required to ensure the service levels for the home user is not
   impacted as a result of opening up the service for public usage.  The
   home user should always have preferred access over public users and
   the operator may be bound to meet the Service Level Agreements.  This
   essentially requires the operator to be able to differentiate the
   service flows and apply differentiated service treatment.  The
   operator should be able to enforce QoS policing and labeling of
   packets to enforce QoS differentiation.

   A single operator has deployed both a fixed access network and a
   mobile access network.  In this scenario, the operator may wish a
   harmonized QoS management on both accesses.  However the fixed access
   network does not implement a QoS control framework.  So, the operator
   may choose to rely on the mobile network, specifying the standard
   framework to provide a QoS control, to enforce the QoS policy from
   the mobile gateway to the Wi-Fi Access network.

4.13.  Lawful Intercept (LI)

   Lawful Intercept [RFC2119] stands for legally authorized interception
   and monitoring of communications to and from a subscriber under
   Surveillance by a Law Enforcement Agency.  In most of the countries,
   there are legal obligations for Service Providers to facilitate the
   intercept of any subscriber's communication if requested by law
   enforcement agencies.  Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement
   Act (CALEA), the United States wiretapping law passed in 1994 is an
   example for such legal mandates.  This section talks about Lawful
   Intercept solution requirements that are operators are required to
   support when offering WLAN services.

   The following are the key considerations with respect to supporting
   Lawful Intercept capability in Wi-Fi architectures.



Gundavelli, et al.      Expires October 25, 2013               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft       Service Provider Wi-Fi Services          April 2013


   o  The operator should have the ability to capture IP traffic from
      any of the mobile nodes for which the operator is offering Wi-Fi
      services.

   o  The ability to identify the Geo-location of the mobile node to the
      nearest WLAN access point.

   o  The ability to track the mobile node's roaming within the network,
      even when there are no active IP flows.

   o  The ability to pre-provision Lawful Intercept for an inactive
      mobile node so that that the capture of IP traffic can be
      initiated anytime new IP flows associated to that mobile node are
      detected.

   o  Lawful Intercept (LI) should be undetectable by the intercept
      subject

   o  Mechanisms should be in place to limit unauthorized personnel from
      performing or knowing about lawfully authorized intercepts

   o  If the information being intercepted is encrypted by the service
      provider and the service provider has access to the keys, then the
      information should be decrypted before delivery to the Law
      Enforcement Agency (LEA) or the encryption keys should be passed
      to the Law Enforcement Agency to allow them to decrypt the
      information.

4.14.  Subscriber Management and Charging

   It refers to the capability to manage network resources on a per
   subscriber, and eventually on a per-flow, basis.  Subscriber
   management should be able to maintain a user context associating the
   user identifier with specific network resource (e.g.  IP address,
   default router, mobility/traffic anchoring point,...), QoS profile,
   billing context and specific network functions (e.g. legal
   interception).  The user context includes traffic selectors if
   subscriber management is on a per flow basis.  Subscriber management
   should be done according to the user subscription, the user
   preferences and/or operator policies.

   The ability to charge the subscriber is the fundamental business
   requirement before an operator can deploy the Wi-Fi service.  The
   operator should have the ability to enforce charge the subscriber by
   usage and enforce quota policies.  This is the basis for keeping the
   service operational and managing inter-operator roaming agreements.





Gundavelli, et al.      Expires October 25, 2013               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft       Service Provider Wi-Fi Services          April 2013


4.15.  Handling the Walk-by Users

   In the case of community Wi-Fi, the network is an open network with
   the SSID visible to any wireless LAN device.  This essentially
   creates a situation where any walk-by user's mobile terminal
   automatically gets connected to the Wi-Fi network and results in a
   subscriber session creation.  The user may not be having any
   intention in connecting to the Wi-fi network and infact may not be
   using the mobile device, but the device gets attached to the network
   and a subscriber session and other network resources get locked up
   for that user session.  The situation is especially worse in public
   hotspots such as train stations, or Airports where there is high
   traffic.  This is important that this situation is correctly handled.

4.16.  Overlapping IPv4 Address Support

   The transition from IPv4 to IPv6 is a long process, and during this
   period of transition, the Wi-Fi operators will have to continue to
   offer IPv4 services.  However, these operators may not have
   sufficient public IPv4 addresses for all the Wi-Fi devices in their
   network.  For addressing this IPv4 exhaust issue, operators may have
   to leverage transitioning technologies such as NAT64, Dual-Stack
   Lite, 6rd or other approaches.  These operators may also choose to
   segment the network into regions and two regions may use overlapped
   IPv4 address space to provide IPv4 services to users.

   In a different scenario, a roaming user from a partners network, with
   an established mobility session with her home network, may be using a
   private IPv4 address and this IPv4 address may be overlapping with
   the address space that is being used in this access network.
   Furthermore, the IPv4 address space that is used for assignment to
   Wi-Fi subscribers should not conflict with the IPv4 addresses used on
   the Cable/DSL transport network.

   The Wi-Fi operator should be able to handle all these scenarios
   related to overlapping private IPv4 address usage.

4.17.  Service Provisioning & Monitoring

   Deployment of any community based Wi-Fi access will require
   additional Wi-Fi specific configuration on a per Residential Gateway
   basis.  In order to support scalable deployment, the Service
   Providers should be able to provision these configuration options
   remotely.  This remote provisioning frame work must support the
   following:






Gundavelli, et al.      Expires October 25, 2013               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft       Service Provider Wi-Fi Services          April 2013


   o  Secure provisioning of the RG with community WiFi parameters to
      minimize the theft of service

   o  Ability to separate the private home subscriber traffic from the
      community WiFi traffic in the access network

   o  Privacy and protection of private Residential subscriber traffic
      from the community WiFi users

   o  Ability to remotely shut down an Residential Gateway which has
      been hijacked by hackers and is being used for DoS attacks.

   o  Ability to temporarily disable services for the community based
      WiFi support while maintaining service to the Residential fixed
      broadband subscriber

   o  Seamless integration of the WiFi provisioning aspects of the
      Residential Gateway into the existing RG provisioning
      infrastructure implemented by the Fixed Broadband Providers

   o  Dynamic Service Monitoring Capability for managing the Wi-Fi
      Service.


5.  Solution Approaches & Considerations

   The following section identifies the different mobility approaches
   that Wi-Fi operator can leverage for deploying this Wi-Fi services.

5.1.  PMIPv6 MAG on the RG: Layer-3 Encapsulation between CPE and Access
      Gateway

5.2.  Ethernet-over-IP Support on the RG: Layer-2 Encapsulation between
      CPE and Access Gateway

5.3.  Local Aggregation for Subscriber Control and Internet Offload

5.4.  Mobility Chaining: Integration with Mobile Packet Core


6.  IANA Considerations

   This document does not require any IANA actions.


7.  Security Considerations

   This specification identifies the requirements for enabling Community



Gundavelli, et al.      Expires October 25, 2013               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft       Service Provider Wi-Fi Services          April 2013


   Wi-Fi Services over Residential architectures and the potential
   solution approaches for addressing those requirements.  The security
   analysis for each of those requirements are covered in those
   respective sections.


8.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Bill Choinski, John Coppola and
   Sangeeta Ramakrishnan for all the discussions related to Service
   Provider Wi-Fi Service requirements.  The authors would also like to
   thank Byju Pularikkal for all the discussions and text contributions
   related to Lawful Interception and Service Provisioning.


9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

9.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.gundavelli-netext-multiple-apn-pmipv6]
              Gundavelli, S., Grayson, M., Lee, Y., Deng, H., and H.
              Yokota, "Multiple APN Support for Trusted Wireless LAN
              Access", draft-gundavelli-netext-multiple-apn-pmipv6-01
              (work in progress), February 2012.

   [I-D.gundavelli-netext-pmipv6-wlan-applicability]
              Gundavelli, S., "Applicability of Proxy Mobile IPv6
              Protocol for WLAN Access Networks",
              draft-gundavelli-netext-pmipv6-wlan-applicability-03 (work
              in progress), April 2012.

   [I-D.ietf-netext-pmip6-qos]
              Liebsch, M., Seite, P., Yokota, H., Korhonen, J., and S.
              Gundavelli, "Quality of Service Option for Proxy Mobile
              IPv6", draft-ietf-netext-pmip6-qos-00 (work in progress),
              June 2012.

   [I-D.ietf-netext-pmipv6-sipto-option]
              Gundavelli, S., Zhou, X., Korhonen, J., and R. Koodli,
              "IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector Option for Proxy Mobile
              IPv6", draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-sipto-option-07 (work in
              progress), October 2012.




Gundavelli, et al.      Expires October 25, 2013               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft       Service Provider Wi-Fi Services          April 2013


   [I-D.liebsch-netext-pmip6-authiwk]
              Gundavelli, S., Liebsch, M., and P. Seite, "PMIPv6 inter-
              working with WiFi access authentication",
              draft-liebsch-netext-pmip6-authiwk-05 (work in progress),
              September 2012.

   [RFC2663]  Srisuresh, P. and M. Holdrege, "IP Network Address
              Translator (NAT) Terminology and Considerations",
              RFC 2663, August 1999.

   [RFC3924]  Baker, F., Foster, B., and C. Sharp, "Cisco Architecture
              for Lawful Intercept in IP Networks", RFC 3924,
              October 2004.

   [RFC4291]  Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
              Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006.

   [RFC5213]  Gundavelli, S., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V., Chowdhury, K.,
              and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 5213, August 2008.

   [RFC5844]  Wakikawa, R. and S. Gundavelli, "IPv4 Support for Proxy
              Mobile IPv6", RFC 5844, May 2010.

   [RFC6757]  Gundavelli, S., Korhonen, J., Grayson, M., Leung, K., and
              R. Pazhyannur, "Access Network Identifier (ANI) Option for
              Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 6757, October 2012.

   [TS23402]  3GPP, "Architecture enhancements for non-3GPP accesses",
              2010.


Authors' Addresses

   Sri Gundavelli
   Cisco
   170 West Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA  95134
   USA

   Email: sgundave@cisco.com











Gundavelli, et al.      Expires October 25, 2013               [Page 17]


Internet-Draft       Service Provider Wi-Fi Services          April 2013


   Mark Grayson
   Cisco
   11 New Square Park
   Bedfont Lakes, FELTHAM  TW14 8HA
   ENGLAND

   Email: mgrayson@cisco.com


   Pierrick Seite
   France Telecom - Orange
   4, rue du clos courtel BP 91226
   Cesson-Sevigne,   35512
   France

   Email: pierrick.seite@orange-ftgroup.com


   Yiu L. Lee
   Comcast
   One Comcast Center
   Philadelphia, PA  19103
   U.S.A.

   Email: yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com
   URI:   http://www.comcast.com

























Gundavelli, et al.      Expires October 25, 2013               [Page 18]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129b, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/