Jan 13, 2022 Environment by admin

RFC CAPWAP Protocol Base MIB May CAPWAP Control Channel: A bi-directional flow defined by the AC IP Address, WTP IP Address, AC control. The Control And Provisioning of Wireless Access Points (CAPWAP) protocol is a standard, The protocol specification is described in RFC RFC (part 1 of 6): Control And Provisioning of Wireless Access Points ( CAPWAP) Protocol Specification.

Author: Tetaxe Goltitaxe
Country: Liechtenstein
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Personal Growth
Published (Last): 9 November 2005
Pages: 168
PDF File Size: 6.11 Mb
ePub File Size: 12.50 Mb
ISBN: 283-7-71528-202-2
Downloads: 52494
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Sataxe

Discovery – Discovery is the initial broadcast from an AP, informing controllers that they are interested in communicating in a specific protocol. Each time the AP would have to download firmware when moving from one controller to the next with different code versions.

The AP broadcasts a Discovery Request, and upon reception of the response, moves to the Acquiring phase as well. In [fig6]the same SLAPP protocol would be used by an AP to decide how to download updated firmware, as would be used to determine a protocol to communicate with the controller. Oligopolies are typically resistant to destabilization of the market, introduced by large paradigm shifts, such as the shift that is promised by CAPWAP.

Current Status and Overview of the CAPWAP Protocol

Configure – An AP with a sufficient version of code may then request to be configured by the controller. Critics of SLAPP argue that it is an incomplete specification, as it enforces no minimal compatibility.

The DTLS tunnel allows for different authentication styles, ranging from full stream encryption, to one way encryption, to anonymous authentication. Converting Protected Data into Unprotected Data. The controller and AP will exchange 2 types of messages: Currently, their WLAN controllers can only interface with Meru brand access points, utilizing a proprietary protocol. The exception is 6. This document uses additional terminology defined in [ RFC ]. A standard that ensures compatibility between vendors is necessary to prevent vendor lock-in.

It usually falls to the vendor to create a specific implementation.

RFC – Control and Provisioning of Wireless Access Points (CAPWAP) Protocol Base MIB

From the Run state, an AP and controller may exchange new key material, by entering the Key Update state. Network Working Group P. Primary Discovery Request Message Additionally, because of its generic design, the network location of an AP and controller do not necessarily have to be within the same broadcast domain. Rather, it attempts to provide the capdap with which devices may request a specific configuration method, which is then layered on top of SLAPP.


Capwp capabilities are authentication procedures, fragmenting and defragmenting frames, and more. The Receiver-From-STA thread can pass along messages through the Principal thread, which are sent back to the controller for processing. The nature of such systems is of such complexity, that vendor implementations can vary widely in their scope and features, leading to incompatibilities between vendors. Local MAC refers to the location of the Access points retrieve their configuration from the controller, and report their status rf to the controller for management purposes.

In this regard, the controller acts in similar fashion to a router, by accepting and processing layer 2 frames, and then switching layer frames on to the access network.

Thin APs have their MAC layers implemented entirely capwsp the controller, and use tunneling to a controller to have all of their frames processed for forwarding onto the back haul network.

Change State Event Request CAPWAP only seeks to relay what a device is and is not capable of, in order to classify and provision the device into operation. It was initially designed by Airespace, which was later bought out by Cisco in The emergence of centralized IEEE This leaves the time-critical applications of wireless control and access in the WTP, making efficient use of the computing power available in WTPs, which are subject to severe cost pressure.

The first is targeted at server hardware, and handles the operation of the controller. A typical diagram of a WLAN network is in rffc.

The security model is not ported over from LWAPP, as there were many concerns about the validity of the security. They are responsible for discovering, authenticating, and registration of APs, as well as maintaining a service channel to communicate over. This limits interoperability to only vendors who have implemented [RFC]which is just Cisco as of the time of this writing.


Otherwise it moves back to the Discovery state. Receiver and Session Manager [fig7]. The AP then joins to a controller, and is acknowledged by the controller. And finally, ensuring network security, both from 3rd party hardware, such as rogue access points being connected to the network, as well as preventing the loss of network secrets from the physical theft of access points is also critical. The physical or network entity that contains an RF antenna and wireless Physical Layer PHY to transmit and receive station traffic for wireless access networks.

Insertion of Unprotected Records Wireless controllers have some general tasks that they perform.

CAPWAP – Wikipedia

There is no back haul required for Fat APs, because it can put packets and frames directly on the wire, in contrast to Thin AP implementations. More specifically, it fails to define key duties mentioned in [Section 2. However, this compatibility was not the result of CAPWAP, but rather specific capwwp deals between each supported company.

The protocol must enable centralized management of the components of a Capwpa, allow rfv transparent support of different vendor’s hardware, be able to provide monitoring of hardware and software configuration and status, and finally ensure network security. A unified CAPWAP standard aims to be a protocol that could enable centralized wireless hardware utilize a simple, streamlined method of communicating between access points and controllers.

This creates some inconveniences, however, in that both APs and controllers need to be preconfigured in order to associate with each other.

The only difference is the protocol being used between the AP and the controller. Third, so called “Fit APs” have gained popularity in recent years, as they combine both the intelligence of a Local MAC implementation capqap the agility of a Remote MAC implementation, by splitting realtime and non-realtime functionality between the controller and AP.