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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 RFC 5113

Extensible Authentication Protocol                              J. Arkko
(EAP)                                                           Ericsson
Internet-Draft                                                  B. Aboba
Intended status: Informational                                 Microsoft
Expires: September 6, 2007                                   J. Korhonen
                                                             TeliaSonera
                                                                 F. Bari
                                                       Cingular Wireless
                                                           March 5, 2007


                Network Discovery and Selection Problem
                    draft-ietf-eap-netsel-problem-06

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 6, 2007.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).









Arkko, et al.           Expires September 6, 2007               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft          Network Discovery and PS              March 2007


Abstract

   When multiple access network are available, users may have difficulty
   in selecting which network to connect to, and how to authenticate
   with that network.  This document defines the network discovery and
   selection problem, dividing it into multiple sub-problems.  Some
   constraints on potential solutions are outlined, and the limitations
   of several solutions (including existing ones) are discussed.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.1.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Problem Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     2.1.  Discovery of the Point of Attachment to the Network  . . .  7
     2.2.  Identity selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     2.3.  AAA routing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       2.3.1.  The Default Free Zone  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       2.3.2.  Route Selection and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       2.3.3.  Source Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     2.4.  Network Discovery  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   3.  Design Issues  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     3.1.  AAA Routing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     3.2.  Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     3.3.  Efficiency Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     3.4.  Scalability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     3.5.  Static Versus Dynamic Discovery  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   4.  Conclusions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   5.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   7.  Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
   8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     8.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     8.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
   Appendix A.  Existing Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
     A.1.  IETF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
     A.2.  IEEE 802 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
     A.3.  3GPP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
     A.4.  Other  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 36









Arkko, et al.           Expires September 6, 2007               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft          Network Discovery and PS              March 2007


1.  Introduction

   When multiple access network are available, users may have difficulty
   in selecting which network to connect to, and how to authenticate
   with that network.  The problem arises when any of the following
   conditions are true:

   o  More than one network attachment point is available, and the
      attachment points differ in capability or belong to different
      operators.  In this case, a user may have difficulty determining
      which attachment points offering the desired services it can
      successfully authenticate to.  In order to choose between multiple
      attachment points, it can be helpful to determine which realms are
      supported and the capabilities that the networks support.

   o  The user has multiple sets of credentials.  In this case, the user
      may not be able to determine which credentials to use with which
      attachment point, or even whether any credentials it possesses
      will allow it to authenticate successfully.  This can result in
      multiple unsuccessful authentication attempts for each attachment
      point, wasting valuable time and resulting in user frustration.
      For example, the user could have one set of credentials from a
      public service provider and set from an employer.  In order to
      choose between multiple attachment points, it can be helpful to
      provide additional information to enable the correct credentials
      to be determined.

   o  There are multiple potential roaming paths between the visited
      realm and the user's home realm, and service parameters or pricing
      differs between them.  In this case, the access network may not be
      able to determine the roaming path that best matches the user's
      preferences.  This can lead to the user being charged more than
      necessary, or not obtaining the desired services.  For example,
      the visited access realm could have both a direct relationship
      with the home realm and an indirect relationship through a roaming
      consortium.  Current AAA protocols may not be able to route the
      access request to the home AAA sever purely based on the realm
      within the Network Access Identifier (NAI) [RFC4282].  In
      addition, payload packets can be routed or tunneled differently,
      based on the roaming relationship path.  This may have an impact
      on the available services or their pricing.

   In Section 2 the network discovery and selection problem is defined
   and divided into subproblems, and some potential solution constraints
   are outlined in Section 3.  Section 4 provides conclusions and
   suggestions for future work.  Appendix A discusses existing solutions
   to portions of the problem.




Arkko, et al.           Expires September 6, 2007               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft          Network Discovery and PS              March 2007


1.1.  Terminology

   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 [RFC2119].

   Network Access Identifier (NAI)

      The Network Access Identifier (NAI) [RFC4282] is the user identity
      submitted by the client during network access authentication.  In
      roaming, the purpose of the NAI is to identify the user as well as
      to assist in the routing of the authentication request.  Please
      note that the NAI may not necessarily be the same as the user's
      e-mail address or the user identity submitted in an application
      layer authentication.

   Decorated NAI

      A NAI specifying a source route.  See RFC4282 [RFC4282] Section
      2.7 for more information.

   Realm

      The realm portion of an NAI [RFC4282].

   Network Selection

      Selection of an operator/ISP for network access.  Network
      Selection occurs prior to network access authentication.

   Network Discovery

      The mechanism used to discover available networks.  The discovery
      mechanism may be passive or active, and depends on the access
      technology.  In passive network discovery, the node listens for
      network announcements; in active network discovery the node
      solicits network announcements.  It is possible for an access
      technology to utilize both passive and active network discovery
      mechanisms.

   Realm Selection

      The selection of the realm (and corresponding NAI) used to access
      the network.







Arkko, et al.           Expires September 6, 2007               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft          Network Discovery and PS              March 2007


   Access Technology Selection

      This refers to the selection between access technologies e.g.
      802.11, UMTS, WiMAX.  The selection will be dependent upon the
      access technologies supported by the device and the availability
      of networks supporting those technologies.

   Bearer Selection

      For some access technologies (e.g.  UMTS), there can be a
      possibility for delivery of a service (e.g. voice) by using either
      a circuit switched or a packet switched bearer.  The Bearer
      selection refers to selecting one of the bearer types for service
      delivery.  The decision can be based on support of the bearer type
      by the device and the network as well as user subscription and
      operator preferences.

   Network Access Server

      The device that peers connect to in order to obtain access to the
      network.  In PPTP terminology, this is referred to as the PPTP
      Access Concentrator (PAC), and in L2TP terminology, it is referred
      to as the L2TP Access Concentrator (LAC).  In IEEE 802.11, it is
      referred to as an Access Point.

   Roaming Capability

      Roaming capability can be loosely defined as the ability to use
      any one of multiple Internet Service Providers (ISPs), while
      maintaining a formal, customer-vendor relationship with only one.
      Examples of cases where roaming capability might be required
      include ISP "confederations" and ISP-provided corporate network
      access support.

   Station (STA)

      A device that contains an IEEE 802.11 conformant medium access
      control (MAC) and physical layer (PHY) interface to the wireless
      medium (WM).

   Access Point (AP)

      An entity that has station functionality and provides access to
      distribution services via the wireless medium (WM) for associated
      stations.






Arkko, et al.           Expires September 6, 2007               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft          Network Discovery and PS              March 2007


   Basic Service Set (BSS)

      A set of stations controlled by a single coordination function.

   Extended Service Set (ESS)

      A set of one or more interconnected basic service sets (BSSs) with
      the same Service Set Identifier (SSID) and integrated local area
      networks (LANs), which appears as a single BSS to the logical link
      control layer at any station associated with one of those BSSs.
      This refers to a mechanism that a node uses to discover the
      networks that are reachable from a given access network.

   Within the context of network selection and discovery the term
   'network' is sometimes used interchangeably with the term 'realm'.
   It should be noted that a realm can be reachable from more than one
   access network types and selection of a realm may not imply certain
   network capabilities.

































Arkko, et al.           Expires September 6, 2007               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft          Network Discovery and PS              March 2007


2.  Problem Definition

   The network discovery and selection problem can be broken down into
   multiple sub-problems.  These include:

   o  Discovery of points of attachment.  This involves the discovery of
      points of attachment in the vicinity, as well as their
      capabilities.

   o  Identifier selection.  This involves selection of the NAI (and
      credentials) used to authenticate to the selected point of
      attachment.

   o  AAA routing.  This involves routing of the AAA conversation back
      to the home AAA server, based on the realm of the selected NAI.

   o  Payload routing.  This involves the routing of data packets, in
      the situation wh ere mechanisms more advanced than destination-
      based routing are required.  While this problem is interesting, it
      is not discussed further in this document.

   o  Network capability discovery.  This involves discovering the
      capabilities of an access network, such as whether certain
      services are reachable through the access network and type of
      charging policy.

   Alternatively, the problem can be divided to the discovery, decision,
   and the selection components.  The AAA routing problem, for instance,
   involves all components: discovery (which mediating networks are
   available?), decision (choose the "best" one), and selection (client
   tells the network which mediating network it has decided to choose)
   components.

2.1.  Discovery of the Point of Attachment to the Network

   Traditionally, discovery of points of attachment has been handled by
   link layer or out-of-band mechanisms.  For example, the IEEE 802.11
   specification [IEEE.802.11-2003] provides support for both passive
   (Beacon) and active (Probe Request/Response) discovery mechanisms;
   [Fixingapsel] studied the effectiveness of these mechanisms.  The GSM
   specifications also provide for discovery of points of attachment, as
   does the CARD [RFC4066] protocol developed by the IETF SEAMOBY WG.

   RFC 2194 [RFC2194] describes the pre-provisioning of dialup roaming
   clients, which typically included a list of potential phone numbers,
   updated by the provider(s) with which the client had a contractual
   relationship.  RFC 3017 [RFC3017] describes the IETF Proposed
   Standard for the Roaming Access XML DTD.  This covers not only the



Arkko, et al.           Expires September 6, 2007               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft          Network Discovery and PS              March 2007


   attributes of the Points of Presence (POPs) and Internet Service
   Providers (ISPs), but also hints on the appropriate NAI to be used
   with a particular POP.  The RFC supports dial-in and X.25 access, but
   has extensible address and media type fields.

   In IEEE 802.11 WLANs, the Beacon and Probe Request/Response mechanism
   provides a way for Stations to discover Access Points (APs), as well
   as the capabilities of those APs.  Among the Information Elements
   (IEs) included within the Beacon and Probe Response is the SSID, a
   non-unique identifier of the network to which an Access Point is
   attached.  The Beacon/Probe facility therefore enables network
   discovery, as well as the discovery of points of attachment and the
   capabilities of those points of attachment.

   As noted in [Velayos], the IEEE 802.11 Beacon mechanism does not
   scale well; with a Beacon interval of 100ms, and 10 APs in the
   vicinity, approximately 32 percent of an 802.11b AP's capacity is
   used for beacon transmission.  In addition, since Beacon/Probe
   Response frames are sent by each AP over the wireless medium,
   stations can only discover APs within range, which implies
   substantial coverage overlap for roaming to occur without
   interruption.  Another issue with the Beacon and Probe Request/
   Response mechanism is that it is either insecure or its security can
   be assured only as part of authenticating to the network (e.g.
   verifying the advertised capabilities within the 4-way handhskae).

   A number of enhancements have been proposed to the Beacon/Probe
   Response mechanism in order to improve scalability and performance in
   roaming scenarios.  These include allowing APs to announce
   capabilities of neighbor APs as well as their own [IEEE.802.11k].
   More scalable mechanisms for support of "virtual APs" within IEEE
   802.11 have also been proposed [IEEE.802.11v]; generally these
   proposals collapse multiple "virtual AP" advertisements into a single
   advertisement.

   Higher layer mechanisms can also be used to improve scalability,
   since by running over IP they can utilize facilities such as
   fragmentation which may not be available at the link layer.  For
   example, in IEEE 802.11, Beacon frames cannot use fragmentation
   because they are multicast frames.

   While a single IEEE 802.11 network may only utilize a single SSID, it
   may cover a wide geographical area, and as a result, may be
   segmented, utilizing multiple prefixes.  It is possible that a single
   SSID may be advertised on multiple channels, and may support multiple
   access mechanisms, including Universal Access Method (UAM) and IEEE
   802.1X [IEEE.8021X].  A single SSID also may support dynamic VLAN
   access as described in [RFC3580], or may support authentication to



Arkko, et al.           Expires September 6, 2007               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft          Network Discovery and PS              March 2007


   multiple home AAA servers supporting different realms.  As a result,
   users of a single point of attachment, connecting to the same SSID
   may not have the same set of services available.

2.2.  Identity selection

   As networks proliferate, it becomes more and more likely that a user
   may have multiple identities and credential sets, available for use
   in different situations.  For example, the user may have an account
   with one or more Public WLAN providers; a corporate WLAN; and one or
   more wireless WAN providers.

   Typically, the user will choose an identity and corresponding
   credential set based on the network chooses to connect to, perhaps
   with additional assistance provided by the chosen authentication
   mechanism.  For example, if EAP-TLS is the authentication mechanism
   used with a particular network, then the user will select the
   appropriate EAP-TLS client certificate based in part on the list of
   trust anchors provided by the EAP-TLS server.

   However, in access networks where roaming is enabled, the mapping
   between an access network and an identity/credential set may not be
   one to one.  For example, it is possible for multiple identities to
   be usable on an access network or for a given identity to be usable
   on a single access network, which may or may not be available.

   Figure 1 illustrates a situation where a user identity may not be
   usable on a potential access network.  In this case access network 1
   enables access to users within the realm "isp1.example.com" whereas
   access network 3 enables access to users within the realm
   "corp2.example.com"; access network 2 enables access to users within
   both realms.



















Arkko, et al.           Expires September 6, 2007               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft          Network Discovery and PS              March 2007


          ?  ?                 +---------+       +------------------+
           ?                   | Access  |       |                  |
           O_/             _-->| Network |------>| isp1.example.com |
          /|              /    |    1    |    _->|                  |
           |              |    +---------+   /   +------------------+
         _/ \_            |                 /
                          |    +---------+ /
   User "subscriber@isp1. |    | Access  |/
     example.com"      -- ? -->| Network |
   also known             |    |    2    |\
     "employee123@corp2.  |    +---------+ \
     example.com"         |                 \
                          |    +---------+   \_  +-------------------+
                          \_   | Access  |     ->|                   |
                            -->| Network |------>| corp2.example.com |
                               |   3     |       |                   |
                               +---------+       +-------------------+


         Figure 1: Two credentials, three possible access networks


   In this situation, a user only possessing an identity within the
   "corp2.example.com" realm can only successfully authenticate to
   access networks 2 or 3; a user possessing an identity within the
   "isp1.example.com" realm can only successfully authenticate to access
   networks 1 or 2; a user possessing identities within both realms can
   connect to any of the access networks.  The question is: how does the
   user figure out which access networks it can successfully
   authenticate to, preferrably prior to choosing a point of attachment?

   Traditionally, hints useful in identity selection have been provided
   out-of-band.  For example, the XML DTD described in [RFC3017] enables
   a client to select between potential point of attachment as well as
   to select the NAI and credentials to use in authenticating with it.

   Where all points of attachment within an access network enable
   authentication utilizing a set realms, selection of an access network
   provides knowledge of the identities that a client can use to
   successfully authenticate.  For example, in an access network, the
   set of supported realms corresponding to network name can be pre-
   configured.

   Of course, it may not be possible to determine the available access
   networks prior to authentication.  For example, in 802.11, not all
   SSIDs are broadcast, so that the station may need to probe to locate
   a "hidden" SSID.  Also, within IKEv2 [RFC4306], the responder
   identity (typically the security gateway) is provided as a part of



Arkko, et al.           Expires September 6, 2007              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft          Network Discovery and PS              March 2007


   the IKEv2 exchange.

   It is also possible for hints to be embedded within credentials.  In
   [RFC4334], usage hints are provided within certificates used for
   wireless authentication.  This involves extending the client's
   certificate to include the SSIDs with which the certificate can be
   used.

   However, there may be situations in which an access network may not
   accept a static set of realms at every point of attachment.  For
   example, as part of a roaming agreement only points of attachment
   within a given region or country may be made available.  In these
   situations, mechanisms such as hints embedded within credentials or
   pre-configuration of access network to realm mappings may not be
   sufficient.  Instead, it is necessary for the client to discover
   usable identities dynamically.

   This is the problem that RFC 4284 [RFC4284] attempts to solve, using
   the EAP-Request/Identity to communicate a list of supported realms.
   However, the problems inherent in this approach are many, as
   discussed in Appendix A.1.

2.3.  AAA routing

   Once the identity has been selected, the AAA infrastructure needs to
   route the access request back to the home AAA server.  Typically the
   routing is based on the Network Access Identifier (NAI) defined in
   [RFC4282].

   Where the NAI does not encode a source route, the routing of requests
   is determined by the AAA infrastructure.  As described in [RFC2194]
   most roaming implementations are relatively simple, relying on static
   realm routing table which determine the next based on the NAI realm
   included within the User-Name attribute.  Within RADIUS, the IP
   address of the home AAA server is typically determined based on
   static mappings of realms to IP addresses maintained within RADIUS
   proxies.

   Diameter [RFC3588] supports mechanisms for intra and inter-domain
   service discovery including support for DNS as well as service
   discovery protocols such as SLPv2 [RFC2608].  As a result, it may not
   be necessary to configure static tables mapping realms to the IP
   addresses of Diameter agents.  However, while this simplifies
   maintenance of the AAA routing infrastructure, it does not
   necessarily simplify roaming relationship path selection.

   As noted in RFC 2607 [RFC2607], RADIUS proxies are deployed not only
   for routing purposes, but also to mask a number of inadequacies in



Arkko, et al.           Expires September 6, 2007              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft          Network Discovery and PS              March 2007


   the RADIUS protocol design, such as the lack of standardized
   retransmission behavior and the need for shared secret provisioning
   between each AAA client and server.

   Diameter [RFC3588] supports certificate-based authentication (using
   either TLS or IPsec) as well as Redirect functionality, enabling a
   Diameter client to obtain a referral to the home server from a
   Diameter redirect server, so that the client can contact the home
   server directly.  In situations in which a trust model can be
   established, these Diameter capabilities can enable a reduction in
   the length of the roaming relationship path.

   However, in practice there are a number of pitfalls.  In order for
   certificate-based authentication to enable communication between a
   NAS or local proxy and the home AAA server, trust anchors need to be
   configured, and certificates need to be selected.  The AAA server
   certificate needs to chain to a trust anchor configured on the AAA
   client, and the AAA client certificate needs to chain to a trust
   anchor configured on the AAA server.  Where multiple potential
   roaming relationship paths are available, this will reflect itself in
   multiple certificate choices, transforming the path selection problem
   into a certificate selection problem.  Depending on the functionality
   supported within the certificate selection implementation, this may
   not make the problem easier to solve.  For example, in order to
   provide the desired control over the roaming path, it may be
   necessary to implement custom certificate selection logic, which may
   be difficult to introduce within a certificate handling
   implementation designed for general purpose usage.

   As noted in [RFC4284], it is also possible to utilize an NAI for the
   purposes of source routing.  In this case, the client provides
   guidance to the AAA infrastructure as to how it would like the access
   request to be routed.  An NAI including source routing information is
   said to be "decorated"; the decoration format is defined in
   [RFC4282].

   When decoration is utilized, the EAP peer provides the decorated NAI
   within the EAP-Response/Identity, and as described in [RFC3579], the
   NAS copies the decorated NAI included in the EAP-Response/Identity
   into the User-Name attribute included within the access request.  As
   the access request transits the roaming relationship path, AAA
   proxies determine the next hop based on the realm included within the
   User-Name attribute, in the process successively removing decoration
   from the NAI included in the User-Name attribute.  In contrast, the
   decorated NAI included within the EAP-Response/Identity encapsulated
   in the access request remains untouched.  As a result, when the
   access request arrives at the AAA home server, the decorated NAI
   included in the EAP-Response/Identity may differ from the NAI



Arkko, et al.           Expires September 6, 2007              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft          Network Discovery and PS              March 2007


   included in the User-Name attribute (which may have some or all of
   the decoration removed).  For the purpose of identity verification,
   the EAP server utilizes the NAI in the User-Name attribute, rather
   than the NAI in the EAP-Response/Identity.

   Over the long term, it is expected that the need for NAI "decoration"
   and source routing will disappear.  This is somewhat analogous to the
   evolution of email delivery.  Prior to the widespread proliferation
   of the Internet, it was necessary to gateway between SMTP-based mail
   systems and alternative delivery technologies, such as UUCP and
   FidoNet.  Prior to the implementation of email gateways utilizing MX
   RR routing, email address-based source-routing was used extensively.
   However, over time the need for email source-routing disappeared.

2.3.1.  The Default Free Zone

   AAA clients on the edge of the network, such as NAS devices and local
   AAA proxies, typically maintain a default realm route, providing a
   default next hop for realms not otherwise taken into account within
   the realm routing table.  This permits devices with limited resources
   to maintain a small realm routing table.  Deeper within the AAA
   infrastructure, AAA proxies may be maintained with a "default free"
   realm table, listing next hops for all known realms, but not
   providing a default realm route.

   While dynamic realm routing protocols are not in use within AAA
   infrastructure today, even if such protocols were to be introduced,
   it is likely that they would be deployed solely within the core AAA
   infrastructure, but not on NAS devices, which are typically resource
   constrained.

   Since NAS devices do not maintain a full realm routing table, they do
   not have knowledge of all the realms reachable from the local
   network.  The situation is analogous to that of Internet hosts or
   edge routers which do not participate in the BGP mesh.  In order for
   an Internet host to determine whether it an reach a destination on
   the Internet, it is necessary to send a packet to the destination.

   Similarly, when a user provides an NAI to the NAS, the NAS does know
   apriori whether the realm encoded in the NAI is reachable or not; it
   simply forwards the access request to the next hop on the roaming
   relationship path.  Eventually the access request reaches the
   "default free" zone, where a core AAA proxy determines whether the
   realm is reachable or not.  As described in [RFC4284], where EAP
   authentication is in use, the core AAA proxy can send an Access-
   Reject, or it can send an Access-Challenge encapsulating an EAP-
   Request/Identity containing realm hints based on the content of the
   "default free" realm routing table.



Arkko, et al.           Expires September 6, 2007              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft          Network Discovery and PS              March 2007


   There are a number of intrinsic problems with this approach.  Where
   the "default free" routing table is large, it may not fit within a
   single EAP packet, and the core AAA proxy may not have a mechanism
   for selecting the most promising entries to include.  Even where the
   "default free" realm routing table would fit within a single EAP-
   Request/Identity packet, the core AAA router may not choose to
   include all entries, since the list of realm routes could be
   considered confidential information not appropriate for disclosure to
   hosts seeking network access.  Therefore it cannot be assumed that
   the list of "realm hints" included within the EAP-Request/Identity is
   complete.  Given this, a NAS or local AAA proxy snooping the EAP-
   Request/Identity cannot rely on it to provide a complete list of
   reachable realms.  The "realm hint" mechanism described in [RFC4284]
   is not a dynamic routing protocol.

2.3.2.  Route Selection and Policy

   Along with lack of a dynamic AAA routing protocol, today's AAA
   infrastructure lacks mechanisms for route selection and policy.  As a
   result, multiple routes may exist to a destination realm, without a
   mechanism for the selection of a preferred route.

   In Figure 2, Roaming Groups 1 and 3 both include a route to the realm
   "a.example.com".  However, these realm routes are not disseminated to
   the NAS along with associated metrics, and as a result there is no
   mechanism for implementation of dynamic routing policies (such as
   selection of realm routes by shortest path, or preference for routes
   originating a given proxy).

                                       +---------+
                                       |         |----> "a.example.com"
                                       | Roaming |
                      +---------+      | Group 1 |
                      |         |----->| Proxy   |----> "b.example.com"
   user "joe@         | Access  |      +---------+
    a.example.com"--->| Provider|
                      |   NAS   |      +---------+
                      |         |----->|         |----> "a.example.com"
                      +---------+      | Roaming |
                                       | Group 2 |
                                       | Proxy   |----> "c.example.com"
                                       +---------+

                Figure 2: Multiple routes to a destination realm

   In the example in Figure 2, access through Roaming Group 1 may be
   less expensive than access through Roaming Group 2, and as a result
   it would be desirable to prefer Roaming Group 1 as a next hop for an



Arkko, et al.           Expires September 6, 2007              [Page 14]


Internet-Draft          Network Discovery and PS              March 2007


   NAI with a realm of"a.example.com".  However, the only way to obtain
   this result would be to manually configure the NAS realm routing
   table with the following entries:

      Realm            Next Hop
      -----            --------
      b.example.com    Roaming Group 1
      c.example.com    Roaming Group 2
      Default          Roaming Group 1

   While manual configuration may be practical in situations where the
   realm routing table is small and entries are static, Where the list
   of supported realms change frequently, or the preferences change
   dynamically, manual configuration will not be manageable.

2.3.3.  Source Routing

   Due the limitations of current AAA routing mechanisms, there are
   situations in which better control over AAA routing behavior is
   required.  Utilizing NAI-based source routing, a decorated NAI can be
   used to influence the roaming relationship path.  Since the AAA
   proxies on the roaming relationship path are constrained by existing
   relationships, NAI-based source routing is not source routing in the
   classic sense; it merely suggests preferences among already
   established realm routes.  If a realm route does not exist or is not
   feasible, then NAI-based source routing cannot establish it.

   While in principle source routing can provide users with better
   control over AAA routing decisions, there are a number of practical
   problems to be overcome.  In order to enable the client to construct
   optimal source routes, it is necessary for it to be provided with a
   complete and up to date realm routing table.  However, if a solution
   to this problem was readily available, then it could be applied to
   the AAA routing infrastructure, enabling the selection of routes
   without the need for user intervention.

   As noted in [Eronen04], only a limited number of parameters can be
   updated dynamically.  For example, quality of service or pricing
   information typically will be pre-provisioned or made available on
   the web rather than being updated on a continuous basis.  Where realm
   names are communicated dynamically, the "default free" realm list is
   unlikely to be provided in full since this table could be quite
   large.  Given the constraints on the availability of information, the
   construction of source routes typically needs to occur in the face of
   incomplete knowledge.

   In addition, there are few mechanisms available to audit whether the
   requested source route is honored by the AAA infrastructure.  For



Arkko, et al.           Expires September 6, 2007              [Page 15]


Internet-Draft          Network Discovery and PS              March 2007


   example, an access network could advertise a realm route to
   costsless.example.com, while instead routing the access-request
   through costsmore.example.com.  While the decorated NAI would be made
   available to the home AAA server in the EAP-Response/Identity, the
   home AAA server might have a difficult time verifying that the source
   route requested in the decorated NAI was actually honored by the AAA
   infrastructure.  Similarly, it could be difficult to determine
   whether QoS or other routing requests were actually provided as
   requested.  To some extent, this problem may be addressed as part of
   the business arrangements between roaming partners, which may provide
   minimum service level guarantees.

   Given the potential issues with source routing, conventional AAA
   routing mechanisms are to be preferred wherever possible.  Where an
   error is encountered, such as an attempt to authenticate to an
   unreachable realm, "realm hints" can be provided as described
   [RFC4284].  However, this approach has severe scalability
   limitations, as outlined in Appendix A.1.

2.4.  Network Discovery

   Network capabilities can provide information useful in the selection
   of an access network.  These include characteristics of the network
   beyond those of individual points of attachment.  Network
   capabilities which can be discovered include:


   o  Access network identifier (e.g.  IEEE 802.11 SSID)

   o  Roaming relationships between the access network provider and
      other network providers and associated costs

   o  Authentication mechanisms

   o  Quality of Service capability

   o  Cost

   o  Service parameters, such as the existence of middleboxes

   Network discovery focuses on the discovery of the services offered by
   networks, not just the capabilities of individual points of
   attachment.  Typically it is desirable to acquire information on
   access networks prior to authentication, particularly in situations
   where successful authentication depends on that information.

   Reference [IEEE.11-04-0624] classifies the possible steps at which
   IEEE 802.11 networks can acquire this information:



Arkko, et al.           Expires September 6, 2007              [Page 16]


Internet-Draft          Network Discovery and PS              March 2007


   o  Pre-association

   o  Post-association (or pre-authentication)

   o  Post-authentication

   In the interest of minimizing connectivity delays, the information
   required for network selection needs to be provided prior to
   authentication.  By the time authentication occurs, the node has
   typically selected the access network, the NAI to be used to
   authenticate, as well as the point of attachment.  Should it learn
   information during the authentication process that would cause it to
   revise one or more of those decisions, the node will need to select a
   new network, point of attachment, and/or identity, and then go
   through the authentication process all over again.  Such a process is
   likely to be both time consuming and unreliable.



































Arkko, et al.           Expires September 6, 2007              [Page 17]


Internet-Draft          Network Discovery and PS              March 2007


3.  Design Issues

   The following factors should be taken into consideration while
   evaluating solutions for problem of network selection and discovery:

3.1.  AAA Routing

   Solutions to the AAA routing issues discussed in Section 2.3 need to
   apply to a wide range of AAA messages, and should not restrict the
   introduction of new AAA or access network functionality.  For
   example, AAA routing mechanisms should work for access requests and
   responses as well as accounting requests and responses and server-
   initiated messages.  Solutions should not restrict the development of
   new AAA attributes, access types, or performance optimizations (such
   as fast handoff support).

3.2.  Backward Compatibility

   Solutions need to maintain backward compatibility.  In particular:

   o  Selection-aware clients need to interoperate with legacy NAS
      devices and AAA servers.

   o  Selection-aware AAA infrastructure needs to interoperate with
      legacy clients and NAS devices.

   For example, selection-aware clients should not transmit packets
   larger than legacy NAS devices or AAA servers can handle.  Where
   protocol extensions are required, changes should be required to as
   few infrastructure elements as possible.  For example, extensions
   that require upgrades to existing NAS devices will be more difficult
   to deploy than proposals that are incrementally deployable based on
   phased upgrades of clients or AAA servers.

3.3.  Efficiency Constraints

   Solutions should be efficient as measured by channel utilization,
   bandwidth consumption, handoff delay, and energy utilization.
   Mechanisms that require depend on multicast frames need to be
   designed with care since multicast frames are often sent at the
   lowest supported rate and therefore consume considerable channel time
   as well as energy on the part of listening nodes.  Depending on the
   deployment, it is possible for bandwidth to be constrained both on
   the link, as well as in the backend AAA infrastructure.  As a result,
   chatty mechanisms such as keepalives or periodic probe packets are to
   be avoided.  Given the volume handled by AAA servers, solutions
   should also be conscious of adding to the load, particularly in cases
   where this could enable denial of service attacks.  For example, it



Arkko, et al.           Expires September 6, 2007              [Page 18]


Internet-Draft          Network Discovery and PS              March 2007


   would be a bad idea for a NAS to attempt to obtain an updated realm
   routing table by periodically sending probe EAP-Response/Identity
   packets to the AAA infrastructure in order to obtain "realm hints" as
   described in [RFC4284].  Not only would this add significant load to
   the AAA infrastructure (particularly in cases where the AAA server
   was already overloaded, thereby dropping packets resulting in
   retransmission by the NAS), but it would also not provide the NAS
   with a complete realm routing table, for reasons described in
   Section 2.3.

   Battery consumption is a significant constraint for handheld devices.
   Therefore mechanisms which require significant increases in packets
   transmitted, or the fraction of time during which the host needs to
   listen (such as proposals that require continuous scanning), are to
   be discouraged.  In addition, the solution should not significantly
   impact the time required to complete network attachment.

3.4.  Scalability

   Given limitations on frame sizes and channel utilization, it is
   important that solutions scale less than linearly in terms of the
   number of networks and realms supported.  For example, solutions such
   as [RFC4284] increase the size of advertisements in proportion to the
   number of entries in the realm routing table.  Similarly, "virtual
   AP" approaches introduce additional Beacons in proportion to the
   number of networks being advertised.  Neither approach scales to
   support a large number of networks and realms.

3.5.  Static Versus Dynamic Discovery

   "Phone-book" based approaches such as [RFC3017] can provide
   information for automatic selection decisions.  While this approach
   has been applied to wireless access, it typically can only be used
   successfully within a single operator or limited roaming partner
   deployment.  For example, were a "Phone-Book" approach to attempt to
   incorporate information from a large number of roaming partners, it
   could become quite difficult to keep the information simultaneously
   comprehensive and up to date.  As noted in [Priest04] and
   [I-D.groeting-eap-netselection-results], a large fraction of current
   WLAN access points operate on the default SSID, which may make it
   difficult to distinguish roaming partner networks by SSID.  In any
   case, in wireless networks dynamic discovery is a practical
   requirement since a node needs to know which APs are within range
   before it can connect.







Arkko, et al.           Expires September 6, 2007              [Page 19]


Internet-Draft          Network Discovery and PS              March 2007


4.  Conclusions

   This document describes the network selection and discovery problem.
   In the opinion of the authors, the major findings are as follows:

   o  There is a need for additional work on access network discovery,
      identifier selection, AAA routing, and payload routing.

   o  Credential selection and AAA routing are aspects of the same
      problem, namely identity selection.

   o  When considering selection among a large number of potential
      access networks and points of attachment, the issues described in
      the document become much harder to solve, in an automated way,
      particularly if there are constraints on handoff latency.

   o  The proliferation of network discovery technologies within IEEE
      802, IETF, and 3GPP has the potential to become a significant
      problem going forward.  Without a unified approach, multiple non-
      interoperable solutions may be deployed, resulting in
      fragmentation.

   o  New link layer designs should include the efficient distribution
      of network and realm information as a design requirement.

   o  It may not be possible to solve all aspects of the problem for
      legacy NAS devices on existing link layers.  Therefore a phased
      approach may be more realistic.  For example, a partial solution
      could be made available for existing link layers, with a more
      complete solution requiring support for extensions.

   With respect to specific mechanisms for access network discovery and
   selection:

   o  Studies such as [MACScale] and [Velayos], demonstrate that the
      IEEE 802.11 Beacon/Probe Response mechanism has substantial
      scaling issues, and as a result a single physical access point is
      in practice limited to less than a dozen virtual APs on each
      channel with IEEE 802.11b.

      The situation is improved substantially with successors such as
      IEEE 802.11a which enable additional channels, thus potentially
      increasing the number of potential virtual APs.

      However, even with these enhancements it is not feasible to
      advertise more than 50 different networks, and probably less in
      most circumstances.




Arkko, et al.           Expires September 6, 2007              [Page 20]


Internet-Draft          Network Discovery and PS              March 2007


      As a result, there appears to be a need to enhance the scalability
      of IEEE 802.11 network advertisements.

   o  Work is underway in IEEE 802.1, IEEE 802.21 and the IEEE 802.11u
      to provide enhanced discovery functionality.  Similarly, IEEE
      802.1af has discussed addition of network functionality to IEEE
      802.1X. However, neither IEEE 802.1ab nor IEEE 802.1af is likely
      to support fragmentation of advertisement frames, so that the
      amount of data that can be transported will be limited.

   o  While IEEE 802.11k provides support for the Neighbor Report, this
      only provides for gathering of information on neighboring 802.11
      APs, not points of attachment supporting other link layers.
      Solution to this problem would appear to require coordination
      across IEEE 802 as well as between standards bodies.

   o  Given that EAP does not support fragmentation of EAP-Request/
      Identity packets, the volume of "realm hints" that can be fit with
      these packets is limited.  In addition, within IEEE 802.11, EAP
      packets can only be exchanged within State 3 (associated and
      authenticated).  As a result, use of EAP for realm discovery may
      result in significant delays.  In addition, the ability of EAP to
      carry Quality of Service information
      [I-D.groeting-eap-netselection-results] appears limited.  As a
      result, we believe that use of EAP as described in [RFC4284] is
      not a sound long-term approach for solution of the realm discovery
      problem for mobile users where the information is needed for
      handoff purposes.  Instead, we believe it is more appropriate for
      this functionality to be handled within the link layer, so that
      the information can be available early in the handoff process.

   o  Where link layer approaches are not available, higher layer
      approaches can be considered.  A limitation of higher layer
      solutions is that they can only optimize the movement of already
      connected hosts, but cannot address scenarios where network
      discovery is required for successful attachment.

      Higher layer alternatives worth considering include the SEAMOBY
      CARD protocol [RFC4066], which enables advertisement of network
      device capabilities over IP and Device Discovery Protocol (DDP)
      [I-D.marques-ddp], which provides functionality equivalent to IEEE
      802.1ab using ASN.1 encoded advertisements sent to a link-local
      scope multicast address.








Arkko, et al.           Expires September 6, 2007              [Page 21]


Internet-Draft          Network Discovery and PS              March 2007


5.  IANA Considerations

   This document does not define any new name spaces to be managed by
   IANA.  This document does not either reserve any new numbers or names
   under any existing name space managed by IANA.














































Arkko, et al.           Expires September 6, 2007              [Page 22]


Internet-Draft          Network Discovery and PS              March 2007


6.  Security Considerations

   All aspects of the network discovery and selection problem are
   security related.  The security issues and requirements have been
   discussed in the previous sections.

   The security requirements for network discovery depend on the type of
   information being discovered.  Some of the parameters may have a
   security impact, such as the claimed name of the network the user
   tries to attach to.  Unfortunately, current EAP methods do not always
   make the verification of such parameters possible.  New EAP methods
   are doing it [I-D.josefsson-pppext-eap-tls-eap]
   [I-D.tschofenig-eap-ikev2], however, and there is even an attempt to
   provide a backwards compatible extensions to older methods
   [I-D.arkko-eap-service-identity-auth].

   The security requirements for network selection depend on whether the
   selection is considered as a command or a hint.  For instance, the
   selection that the user provided may be ignored if it relates to AAA
   routing and the access network can route the AAA traffic to the
   correct home network using other means in any case.






























Arkko, et al.           Expires September 6, 2007              [Page 23]


Internet-Draft          Network Discovery and PS              March 2007


7.  Contributors

   The editors of this document would like to especially acknowledge the
   contributions of Farid Adrangi, Farooq Bari, Michael Richardson, Pasi
   Eronen, Mark Watson, Mark Grayson, Johan Rune, and Tomas Goldbeck-
   Lowe.

   Input for the early versions of this draft has been gathered from
   many sources, including the above persons as well as 3GPP and IEEE
   developments.  We would also like to thank Alper Yegin, Victor Lortz,
   Stephen Hayes, and David Johnston for comments.








































Arkko, et al.           Expires September 6, 2007              [Page 24]


Internet-Draft          Network Discovery and PS              March 2007


8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [RFC1035]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
              specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.

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

   [RFC3588]  Calhoun, P., Loughney, J., Guttman, E., Zorn, G., and J.
              Arkko, "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 3588, September 2003.

   [RFC3017]  Riegel, M. and G. Zorn, "XML DTD for Roaming Access Phone
              Book", RFC 3017, December 2000.

   [RFC3748]  Aboba, B., Blunk, L., Vollbrecht, J., Carlson, J., and H.
              Levkowetz, "Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)",
              RFC 3748, June 2004.

   [RFC4334]  Housley, R. and T. Moore, "Certificate Extensions and
              Attributes Supporting Authentication in Point-to-Point
              Protocol (PPP) and Wireless Local Area Networks (WLAN)",
              RFC 4334, February 2006.

   [RFC4282]  Aboba, B., Beadles, M., Arkko, J., and P. Eronen, "The
              Network Access Identifier", RFC 4282, December 2005.

   [RFC4306]  Kaufman, C., "Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2) Protocol",
              RFC 4306, December 2005.

   [RFC3280]  Housley, R., Polk, W., Ford, W., and D. Solo, "Internet
              X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and
              Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile", RFC 3280,
              April 2002.

8.2.  Informative References

   [RFC3579]  Aboba, B. and P. Calhoun, "RADIUS (Remote Authentication
              Dial In User Service) Support For Extensible
              Authentication Protocol (EAP)", RFC 3579, September 2003.

   [RFC2194]  Aboba, B., Lu, J., Alsop, J., Ding, J., and W. Wang,
              "Review of Roaming Implementations", RFC 2194,
              September 1997.

   [RFC2607]  Aboba, B. and J. Vollbrecht, "Proxy Chaining and Policy
              Implementation in Roaming", RFC 2607, June 1999.



Arkko, et al.           Expires September 6, 2007              [Page 25]


Internet-Draft          Network Discovery and PS              March 2007


   [RFC2608]  Guttman, E., Perkins, C., Veizades, J., and M. Day,
              "Service Location Protocol, Version 2", RFC 2608,
              June 1999.

   [RFC3580]  Congdon, P., Aboba, B., Smith, A., Zorn, G., and J. Roese,
              "IEEE 802.1X Remote Authentication Dial In User Service
              (RADIUS) Usage Guidelines", RFC 3580, September 2003.

   [RFC4284]  Adrangi, F., Lortz, V., Bari, F., and P. Eronen, "Identity
              Selection Hints for the Extensible Authentication Protocol
              (EAP)", RFC 4284, January 2006.

   [RFC2486]  Aboba, B. and M. Beadles, "The Network Access Identifier",
              RFC 2486, January 1999.

   [I-D.arkko-eap-service-identity-auth]
              Arkko, J. and P. Eronen, "Authenticated Service Identities
              for the Extensible Authentication Protocol  (EAP)",
              draft-arkko-eap-service-identity-auth-04 (work in
              progress), October 2005.

   [I-D.groeting-eap-netselection-results]
              Tschofenig, H., "Network Selection Implementation
              Results", draft-groeting-eap-netselection-results-00 (work
              in progress), July 2004.

   [I-D.josefsson-pppext-eap-tls-eap]
              Josefsson, S., Palekar, A., Simon, D., and G. Zorn,
              "Protected EAP Protocol (PEAP)",
              draft-josefsson-pppext-eap-tls-eap-07 (work in progress),
              October 2003.

   [I-D.marques-ddp]
              Enns, R., Marques, P., and D. Morrell, "Device Discovery
              Protocol (DDP)", draft-marques-ddp-00 (work in progress),
              May 2003.

   [I-D.tschofenig-eap-ikev2]
              Tschofenig, H. and D. Kroeselberg, "EAP IKEv2 Method (EAP-
              IKEv2)", draft-tschofenig-eap-ikev2-10 (work in progress),
              February 2006.

   [IEEE.8021X]
              Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, "Local
              and Metropolitan Area Networks: Port-Based Network Access
              Control", IEEE Standard 802.1X, September 2001.

   [IEEE.802.11-2003]



Arkko, et al.           Expires September 6, 2007              [Page 26]


Internet-Draft          Network Discovery and PS              March 2007


              Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,
              "Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical
              Layer (PHY) Specifications", IEEE Standard 802.11, 2003.

   [IEEE-11-03-154r1]
              Aboba, B., "Virtual Access Points", IEEE Contribution 11-
              03-154r1, May 2003.

   [IEEE-11-03-0827]
              Hepworth, E., "Co-existence of Different Authentication
              Models", IEEE Contribution 11-03-0827 2003.

   [IEEE.11-04-0624]
              Berg, S., "Information to Support Network Selection", IEEE
              Contribution 11-04-0624 2004.

   [11-05-0822-03-000u-tgu-requirements]
              Moreton, M., "TGu Requirements", IEEE Contribution 11-05-
              0822-03-000u-tgu-requirements, August 2005.

   [3GPPSA2WLANTS]
              3GPP, "3GPP System to Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN)
              interworking; System Description; Release 6; Stage 2",
              3GPP Technical Specification 23.234 v 6.6.0,
              September 2005.

   [3GPP-SA3-030736]
              Ericsson, "Security of EAP and SSID based network
              advertisements", 3GPP Contribution S3-030736,
              November 2003.

   [3GPP.23.122]
              3GPP, "Non-Access-Stratum (NAS) functions related to
              Mobile Station (MS) in idle mode", 3GPP TS 23.122 6.5.0,
              October 2005.

   [WWRF-ANS]
              Eijk, R., Brok, J., Bemmel, J., and B. Busropan, "Access
              Network Selection in a 4G Environment and the Role of
              Terminal and Service Platform", 10th WWRF, New York,
              October 2003.

   [WLAN3G]   Ahmavaara, K., Haverinen, H., and R. Pichna, "Interworking
              Architecture between WLAN and 3G Systems", IEEE
              Communications Magazine, November 2003.

   [INTELe2e]
              Intel, "Wireless LAN (WLAN) End to End Guidelines for



Arkko, et al.           Expires September 6, 2007              [Page 27]


Internet-Draft          Network Discovery and PS              March 2007


              Enterprises and Public Hotspot Service Providers",
              November 2003.

   [Velayos]  Velayos, H. and G. Karlsson, "Techniques to Reduce IEEE
              802.11b MAC Layer Handover Time", Laboratory for
              Communication Networks, KTH, Royal Institute of
              Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, TRITA-IMIT-LCN R 03:02,
              April 2003.

   [Fixingapsel]
              Judd, G. and P. Steenkiste, "Fixing 802.11 Access Point
              Selection", Sigcomm Poster Session 2002.

   [Eronen03]
              Eronen, P., "Network Selection Issues", presentation to
              EAP WG at IETF 58, November 2003.

   [Priest04]
              Priest, J., "The State of Wireless London", July 2004.

   [MACScale]
              Heusse, M., "Performance Anomaly of 802.11b", LSR-IMAG
              Laboratory, Grenoble, France, IEEE Infocom 2003.

   [Eronen04]
              Eronen, P. and J. Arkko, "Role of authorization in
              wireless network security", Extended abstract presented in
              the DIMACS workshop, November 2004.

   [3GPPSA3WLANTS]
              3GPP, "3GPP Technical Specification Group Service and
              System Aspects; 3G Security; Wireless Local Area Network
              (WLAN) interworking security (Release 6); Stage 2",
              3GPP Technical Specification 33.234 v 6.6.0, October 2005.

   [3GPPCT1WLANTS]
              3GPP, "3GPP System to Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN)
              interworking; User Equipment (UE) to network protocols;
              Stage 3 (Release 6)", 3GPP Technical Specification 24.234
              v 6.4.0, October 2005.

   [IEEE.802.11k]
              Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, "Draft
              Ammendment to Standard for Telecommunications and
              Information Exchange Between Systems - LAN/MAN Specific
              Requirements - Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control
              (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications: Radio
              Resource Management", IEEE IEEE 802.11k, D4.1, July 2006.



Arkko, et al.           Expires September 6, 2007              [Page 28]


Internet-Draft          Network Discovery and PS              March 2007


   [IEEE.802.11v]
              Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, "Draft
              Amemdment to Standard  for Information Technology -
              Telecommunications and Information Exchange Between
              Systems - LAN/MAN Specific Requirements - Part 11:
              Wireless Medium Access Control (MAC) and physical layer
              (PHY) specifications: Wireless Network Management",
              IEEE IEEE 802.11v, D0.08, January 2007.

   [IEEE.802.21]
              Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, "Draft
              IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks:
              Media Independent Handover Services", IEEE IEEE 802.21,
              D03.00, December 2006.

   [3GPPCT4WLANTS]
              3GPP, "3GPP system to Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN)
              interworking; Stage 3 (Release 6)", 3GPP Technical
              Specification 29.234 v 6.4.0, October 2005.

   [RFC4066]  Liebsch, M., Singh, A., Chaskar, H., Funato, D., and E.
              Shim, "Candidate Access Router Discovery (CARD)",
              RFC 4066, July 2005.




























Arkko, et al.           Expires September 6, 2007              [Page 29]


Internet-Draft          Network Discovery and PS              March 2007


Appendix A.  Existing Work

A.1.  IETF

   Several IETF WGs have dealt with aspects of the network selection
   problem, including the AAA, EAP, PPP, RADIUS, ROAMOPS, and RADEXT
   WGs.

   ROAMOPS WG developed the NAI, originally defined in [RFC2486], and
   subsequently updated in [RFC4282].  Initial roaming implementations
   are described in [RFC2194], and the use of proxies in roaming is
   addressed in [RFC2607].  The SEAMOBY WG developed CARD [RFC4066],
   which assists in discovery of suitable base stations.  PKIX WG
   produced [RFC3280], which addresses issues of certificate selection.
   The AAA WG developed more sophisticated access routing,
   authentication and service discovery mechanisms within Diameter
   [RFC3588].

   Adrangi et al.  [RFC4284] defines the use of the EAP-Request/Identity
   to provide "realm hints" useful for identity selection.  The NAI
   syntax described in [RFC4282] enables the construction of source
   routes.  Together, these mechanisms enable the user to determine
   whether it possesses an identity and corresponding credential
   suitable for use with an EAP-capable NAS.  This is particularly
   useful in situations where the lower layer provides limited
   information (such as in wired IEEE 802 networks where IEEE 802.1X
   currently does not provide for advertisement of networks and their
   capabilities).

   However, advertisement mechanisms based on the use of the EAP-
   Request/Identity have scalability problems.  As noted in [RFC3748]
   Section 3.1, the minimum EAP MTU is 1020 octets, so that an EAP-
   Request/Identity is only guaranteed to be able to include 1015 octets
   within the Type-Data field.  Since RFC 1035 [RFC1035] enables FQDNs
   to be up to 255 octets in length, this may not enable the
   announcement of many realms.  The use of network identifiers other
   than domain names is also possible.

   As noted in [Eronen03], the use of the EAP-Request/Identity for realm
   discovery has substantial negative impact on handoff latency, since
   this may result in a station needing to initiate an EAP conversation
   with each Access Point in order to receive an EAP-Request/Identity
   describing which realms are supported.  Since IEEE 802.11-2003 does
   not support use of Class 1 data frames in State 1 (unauthenticated,
   unassociated) within an Extended Service Set (ESS), this implies
   either that the APs must support 802.1X pre-authentication (optional
   in IEEE 802.11i-2004) or that the station must associate with each AP
   prior to sending an EAPOL-Start to initiate EAP.  This will



Arkko, et al.           Expires September 6, 2007              [Page 30]


Internet-Draft          Network Discovery and PS              March 2007


   dramatically increase handoff latency.

   Thus, rather than thinking of [RFC4284] as a effective network
   discovery mechanism, it is perhaps better to consider the use of
   "realm hints" as an error recovery technique, to be used to inform
   the EAP peer that AAA routing has failed, and perhaps to enable
   selection of an alternate identity which can enable successful
   authentication.  Where "realm hints" are only provided in event of a
   problem, rather than as a staple network discovery technique, it is
   probably best to enable "realm hints" to be sent by core AAA proxies
   in the "default free" zone.  This way, it will not be necessary for
   NASes to send realm hints, which would require them to maintain a
   complete and up to date realm routing table, something which cannot
   be easily accomplished given the existing state of AAA routing
   technology.

   If realm routing tables are manually configured on the NAS, then
   changes in the "default free" realm routing table will not
   automatically be reflected in the realm list advertised by the NAS.
   As a result, a realm advertised by the NAS might not in fact be
   reachable, or the NAS might neglect to advertise one or more realms
   that were reachable.  This could result in multiple EAP-Identity
   exchanges, with the initial set of realm hints supplied by the NAS
   subsequently updated by realm hints provided by a core AAA proxy.  In
   general, originating realm hints on core AAA proxies appears to be a
   more sound approach, since it provides for "fate sharing" -
   generation of realm hints by the same entity (the core AAA proxy)
   that will eventually need to route the request based on the hints.
   This approach is also preferred from a management perspective, since
   only core AAA proxies would need to be updated; no updates would be
   required to NAS devices.

A.2.  IEEE 802

   There has been work in several IEEE 802 working groups relating to
   network discovery:

   o  [IEEE.802.11-2003] defines the Beacon and Probe Response
      mechanisms within IEEE 802.11.  Unfortunately, Beacons may be sent
      only at a rate within the base rate set, which typically consists
      of the lowest supported rate, or perhaps the next lowest rate.
      Studies such as [MACScale] have identified MAC layer performance
      problems, and [Velayos] has identified scaling issues from a
      lowering of the Beacon interval.

   o  [IEEE-11-03-0827] discusses the evolution of authentication models
      in WLANs, and the need for the network to migrate from existing
      models to new ones, based on either EAP layer indications or



Arkko, et al.           Expires September 6, 2007              [Page 31]


Internet-Draft          Network Discovery and PS              March 2007


      through the use of SSIDs to represent more than the local network.
      It notes the potential need for management or structuring of the
      SSID space.

      The paper also notes that virtual APs have scalability issues.  It
      does not compare these scalability issues to those of alternative
      solutions, however.

   o  [IEEE-11-03-154r1] discusses mechanisms currently used to provide
      "Virtual AP" capabilities within a single physical access point.
      A "Virtual AP" appears at the MAC and IP layers to be distinct
      physical AP.  As noted in the paper, full compatibility with
      existing 802.11 station implementations can only be maintained if
      each virtual AP uses a distinct MAC address (BSSID) for use in
      Beacons and Probe Responses.  This draft does not discuss scaling
      issues in detail, but recommends that only a limited number of
      virtual APs be supported by a single physical access point.  The
      simulations presented in [Velayos] appear to confirm this
      conclusion; with a Beacon interval of 100 ms, once more than 8
      virtual APs are supported on a single channel, more than 20% of
      bandwidth is used for Beacons alone.  This would indicate a limit
      of approximately 20 virtual APs per physical AP.

   o  IEEE 802.11u is working on realm discovery and network selection
      [11-05-0822-03-000u-tgu-requirements].  This includes a mechanism
      for enabling a station to determine the identities it can use to
      authenticate to an access network, prior to associating with that
      network.  As noted earlier, solving this problem requires the AP
      to maintain an up to date "default free" realm routing table,
      which is not feasible without dynamic routing support within the
      AAA infrastructure.  Similarly, apriori discovery of features
      supported within home realms (such as enrollment) is also
      difficult to implement in a scalable way, absent support for
      dynamic routing.  Determination of network capabilities (such as
      QoS support) is considerably simpler, since these depend solely on
      the hardware and software contained within the AP.

   o  IEEE 802.21 [IEEE.802.21] is developing standards to enable
      handover between heterogeneous link layers, including both IEEE
      802 and non-IEEE 802 networks.  To enable this, a general
      mechanism for capability advertisement is being developed, which
      could conceivably benefit aspects of the network selection
      problem, such as realm discovery.  For example, IEEE 802.21 is
      developing Information Elements (IEs) which may assist with
      network selection, including information relevant to both layer 2
      and layer 3.  Query mechanisms (including both XML and TLV
      support) are also under development.




Arkko, et al.           Expires September 6, 2007              [Page 32]


Internet-Draft          Network Discovery and PS              March 2007


A.3.  3GPP

   The 3GPP stage 2 technical specification [3GPPSA2WLANTS] covers the
   architecture of 3GPP Interworking WLAN (I-WLAN) with 2G and 3G
   networks.  This specification also discusses realm discovery and
   network selection issues.  The I-WLAN realm discovery procedure
   borrows ideas from the cellular Public Land-based Mobile Network
   (PLMN) selection principles, known as "PLMN Selection".

   In 3GPP PLMN selection [3GPP.23.122], the mobile node monitors
   surrounding cells and prioritizes them based on signal strength
   before selecting a new potential target cell.  Each cell broadcasts
   its PLMN.  A mobile node may automatically select cells that belong
   to its Home PLMN, Registered PLMN or an allowed set of Visited PLMNs.
   The PLMN lists are prioritized and stored in the SIM.  In the case of
   manual PLMN selection, the mobile node lists the PLMNs it learns from
   surrounding cells and enables the user to choose the desired PLMN.
   After the PLMN has been selected, cell prioritization takes place, in
   order to select the appropriate target cell.

   [WLAN3G] discuss the new realm (PLMN) selection requirements
   introduced by I-WLAN roaming, which supports automatic PLMN
   selection, not just manual selection.  Multiple network levels may be
   present, and the hotspot owner may have a contract with a provider
   who in turn has a contract with a 3G network, which may have a
   roaming agreement with other networks.

   The I-WLAN specification requires that network discovery be performed
   as specified in the relevant WLAN link layer standards.  In addition
   to network discovery, it is necessary to select intermediary realms
   to enable construction of source routes.  In 3GPP, the intermediary
   networks are PLMNs, and it is assumed that an access network may have
   a roaming agreement with more than one PLMN.  The PLMN may be a Home
   PLMN (HPLMN) or a Visited PLMN (VPLMN), where roaming is supported.
   GSM/UMTS roaming principles are employed for routing AAA requests
   from the VPLMN to the Home Public Land-based Mobile Network (HPLMN)
   using either RADIUS or Diameter.  The procedure for selecting the
   intermediary network has been specified in the stage 3 technical
   specifications [3GPPCT1WLANTS] and [3GPPCT4WLANTS].

   In order to select the PLMN, the following procedure is required:

   o  The user may choose the desired HPLMN or VPLMN manually or let the
      WLAN User Equipment (WLAN UE) choose the PLMN automatically, based
      on user and operator defined preferences.

   o  AAA messages are routed based on the decorated or undecorated NAI.




Arkko, et al.           Expires September 6, 2007              [Page 33]


Internet-Draft          Network Discovery and PS              March 2007


   o  EAP is utilized as defined in [RFC3748] and [RFC3579].

   o  PLMN advertisement and selection is based on [RFC4284], which
      defines only realm advertisement.  The document refers to the
      potential need for extensibility, though EAP MTU restrictions make
      this difficult.

   The I-WLAN specification states that realm hints are only provided
   when an unreachable realm is encountered.  Where VPLMN control is
   required, this is handled via NAI decoration.  The station may
   manually trigger PLMN advertisement by including an unknown realm
   (known as the Alternative NAI) within the EAP-Response/Identity.  A
   realm guaranteed not to be reachable within 3GPP networks is utilized
   for this purpose.

   The I-WAN security requirements are described in the 3GPP stage 3
   technical specification [3GPPSA3WLANTS].  The security requirements
   for PLMN selection are discussed in 3GPP contribution
   [3GPP-SA3-030736], which concludes that both SSID and EAP-based
   mechanisms have similar security weaknesses.  As a result, it
   recommends that PLMN advertisements be considered hints.

A.4.  Other

   [INTELe2e] discusses the need for realm selection where an access
   network may have more than one roaming relationship path to a home
   realm.  It also describes solutions to the realm selection problem
   based on EAP, SSID and PEAP-based mechanisms.

   Eijk et al [WWRF-ANS] discusses the realm and network selection
   problem.  The authors concentrate primarily on discovery of access
   networks meeting a set of criteria, noting that information on the
   realm capabilities and reachability inherently resides in home AAA
   servers, and therefore it is not readily available in a central
   location, and may not be easily obtained by NAS devices.
















Arkko, et al.           Expires September 6, 2007              [Page 34]


Internet-Draft          Network Discovery and PS              March 2007


Authors' Addresses

   Jari Arkko
   Ericsson
   Jorvas  02420
   Finland

   Email: jari.arkko@ericsson.com


   Bernard Aboba
   Microsoft
   One Microsoft Way
   Redmond, WA  98052
   USA

   Email: aboba@internaut.com


   Jouni Korhonen
   TeliaSonera
   Teollisuuskatu 13
   Sonera  FIN-00051
   Finland

   Email: jouni.korhonen@teliasonera.com


   Farooq Bari
   Cingular Wireless
   7277 164th Avenue N.E.
   Redmond  WA  98052
   USA

   Email: farooq.bari@cingular.com
















Arkko, et al.           Expires September 6, 2007              [Page 35]


Internet-Draft          Network Discovery and PS              March 2007


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
   THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
   OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
   THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).





Arkko, et al.           Expires September 6, 2007              [Page 36]


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