<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" []>
<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?>
<?rfc strict="yes" ?>
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="4"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes" ?>
<?rfc compact="yes" ?>
<?rfc subcompact="no" ?>
<?rfc iprnotified="no" ?>

<rfc category="info"
     docName="draft-petrescu-ipv6-over-80211p-04.txt"
     ipr="trust200902">

  <!-- category values: std, bcp, info, exp, and historic ipr values:
       trust200902, noModificationTrust200902,
       noDerivativesTrust200902, or pre5378Trust200902 you can add the
       attributes updates="NNNN" and obsoletes="NNNN" they will
       automatically be output with "(if approved)" -->

  <front>

    <title abbrev="IPv6-over-80211p">
      Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.11 Networks Outside
      the Context of a Basic Service Set
    </title>

    <author initials='A.' surname="Petrescu" fullname='Alexandre Petrescu'>
      <organization>CEA, LIST</organization>
      <address>
	<postal>
	  <street>
	    CEA Saclay
	  </street>
	  <city>
	    Gif-sur-Yvette
	  </city>
	  <region>
	    Ile-de-France
	  </region>
	  <code>
	    91190
	  </code>
	  <country>
	    France
	  </country>
	</postal>
	<phone>
	  +33169089223
	</phone>
	<email>
	  Alexandre.Petrescu@cea.fr
	</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <!-- <author initials='P.' surname="Pfister" fullname='Pierre Pfister'> -->
    <!--   <organization>only at -00</organization> -->
    <!--   <address> -->
    <!-- 	<postal> -->
    <!-- 	  <street> -->
    <!-- 	  </street> -->
    <!-- 	  <city> -->
    <!-- 	  </city> -->
    <!-- 	  <region> -->
    <!-- 	  </region> -->
    <!-- 	  <code> -->
    <!-- 	  </code> -->
    <!-- 	  <country> -->
    <!-- 	  </country> -->
    <!-- 	</postal> -->
    <!-- 	<phone> -->
    <!-- 	</phone> -->
    <!-- 	<email> -->
    <!-- 	  pierre.pfister@polytechnique.org -->
    <!-- 	</email> -->
    <!--   </address> -->
    <!-- </author> -->

    <author initials='N.' surname="Benamar" fullname='Nabil Benamar'>
      <organization>Moulay Ismail University</organization>
      <address>
	<postal>
	  <street>
	  </street>
	  <city>
	  </city>
	  <region>
	  </region>
	  <code>
	  </code>
	  <country>
	    Morocco
	  </country>
	</postal>
	<phone>
	  +212670832236
	</phone>
	<email>
	  benamar73@gmail.com
	</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author initials='T.' surname="Leinmueller" fullname='Tim Leinmueller'>
      <organization>DENSO INTERNATIONAL EUROPE</organization>
      <address>
	<postal>
	  <street>
	  </street>
	  <city>
	  </city>
	  <region>
	  </region>
	  <code>
	  </code>
	  <country>
	    Deutschland
	  </country>
	</postal>
	<phone>
	</phone>
	<email>
	  t.leinmueller@denso-auto.de
	</email>
      </address>
    </author>    

    <date/>

    <!-- Meta-data Declarations -->

    <area>Internet</area>

    <workgroup>Network Working Group</workgroup>

    <!-- WG name at the upperleft corner of the doc, IETF is fine for
         individual submissions.  If this element is not present, the
         default is "Network Working Group", which is used by the RFC
         Editor as a nod to the history of the IETF. -->

    <keyword>
      IPv6 over 802.11p, OCB, IPv6 over 802.11 OCB
    </keyword>

    <!-- Keywords will be incorporated into HTML output files in a
         meta tag but they have no effect on text or nroff output. If
         you submit your draft to the RFC Editor, the keywords will be
         used for the search engine. -->

    <abstract>
      <t>
	In order to transmit IPv6 packets on IEEE 802.11 networks run
	outside the context of a basic service set (OCB, earlier
	"802.11p") there is a need to define a few parameters such as
	the recommended Maximum Transmission Unit size, the header
	format preceding the IPv6 header, the Type value within it,
	and others.  This document describes these parameters for IPv6
	and IEEE 802.11 OCB networks; it portrays the layering of IPv6
	on 802.11 OCB similarly to other known 802.11 and Ethernet
	layers - by using an Ethernet Adaptation Layer.
      </t>
      <t>
	In addition, the document attempts to list what is different
	in 802.11 OCB (802.11p) compared to more 'traditional'
	802.11a/b/g/n layers, layers over which IPv6 protocols run ok.
	Most notably, the operation outside the context of a BSS (OCB)
	has impact on IPv6 handover behaviour and on IPv6 security.
      </t>
      <t>
	An example of an IPv6 packet captured while transmitted over
	an IEEE 802.11 OCB link (802.11p) is given.
      </t>
    </abstract>
  </front>

  <middle>
    <section title="Introduction">
	<t>
	  This document describes the transmission of IPv6 packets on
	  IEEE Std 802.11 OCB networks (earlier known as 802.11p).
	  This involves the layering of IPv6 networking on top of the
	  IEEE 802.11 MAC layer (with an LLC layer).  Compared to
	  running IPv6 over the Ethernet MAC layer, there is no
	  modification required to the standards: IPv6 works fine
	  directly over 802.11 OCB too (with an LLC layer).
	</t>

	<t>
	  The term "802.11p" is an earlier definition.  As of year
	  2012, the behaviour of "802.11p" networks has been rolled in
	  the document IEEE Std 802.11-2012.  In this document the
	  term 802.11p disappears.  Instead, each 802.11p feature is
	  conditioned by a flag in the Management Information Base.
	  That flag is named "OCBActivated".  Whenever OCBActivated is
	  set to true the feature it relates to represents an earlier
	  802.11p feature.  For example, an 802.11 STAtion operating
	  outside the context of a basic service set has the
	  OCBActivated flag set.  Such a station, when it has the flag
	  set, it uses ta BSS identifier equal to ff:ff:ff:ff:ff.
	</t>

	<t>
	  In the following text we use the term "802.11p" to mean
	  802.11-2012 OCB.
	</t>

	<t>
	  As an overview, we illustrate how an IPv6 stack runs over
	  802.11p by layering different protocols on top of each
	  other.  The IPv6 Networking is layered on top of the IEEE
	  802.2 Logical-Link Control (LLC) layer; this is itself
	  layered on top of the 802.11p MAC; this layering
	  illustration is similar to that of running IPv6 over 802.2
	  LLC over the 802.11 MAC, or over Ethernet MAC.
	</t>

	<t> 
	  <figure align="center">
	    <artwork align="center">
	      <![CDATA[
		       +-----------------+      +-----------------+
		       |       ...       |      |       ...       |
		       +-----------------+      +-----------------+
		       | IPv6 Networking |      | IPv6 Networking |
		       +-----------------+      +-----------------+
		       |    802.2 LLC    |  vs. |    802.2 LLC    |
		       +-----------------+      +-----------------+
		       |   802.11p MAC   |      |   802.11b MAC   |
		       +-----------------+      +-----------------+
		       |   802.11p PHY   |      |   802.11b PHY   |
		       +-----------------+      +-----------------+
	      ]]>
	    </artwork>
	  </figure>
	</t>
	
	<t>
	  But, there are several deployment considerations to optimize
	  the performances of running IPv6 over 802.11p (e.g. in the
	  case of handovers between 802.11p Access Points, or the
	  consideration of using the IP security layer).
	</t>

	<t>
	  We briefly introduce the vehicular communication scenarios
	  where IEEE 802.11p links are used.  This is followed by a
	  description of differences in specification terms, between
	  802.11p and 802.11a/b/g/n (and the same differences
	  expressed in terms of requirements to software
	  implementation are listed in <xref
	  target="software-changes"/>.)
	</t>

	<t>
	  The document then concentrates on the parameters of layering
	  IPv6 over 802.11p as over Ethernet: MTU, Frame Format,
	  Interface Identifier, Address Mapping, State-less Address
	  Auto-configuration.  The values of these parameters are
	  precisely the same as IPv6 over Ethernet <xref
	  target="RFC2464"/>: the recommended value of MTU to be 1500
	  octets, the Frame Format containing the Type 0x86DD, the
	  rules for forming an Interface Identifier, the Address
	  Mapping mechanism and the Stateless Address
	  Auto-Configuration.
	</t>
	<t>
	  As an example, these characteristics of layering IPv6
	  straight over LLC over 802.11p MAC are illustrated by
	  dissecting an IPv6 packet captured over a 802.11p link; this
	  is described in the section titled "Example of IPv6 Packet
	  captured over an IEEE 802.11p link".
	</t>
	
	<t>
	  A few points can be considered as different, although they
	  do not seem required in order to have a working
	  implementation of IPv6-over-802.11p.  These points are
	  consequences of the OCB operation which is particular to
	  802.11p (Outside the Context of a BSS).  The handovers
	  between OCB links need specific behaviour for IP Router
	  Advertisements, or otherwise 802.11p's Time Advertisement,
	  or of higher layer messages such as the 'Basic Safety
	  Message' (in the US) or the 'Cooperative Awareness Message'
	  (in the EU) or the 'WAVE Routing Advertisement' ; second,
	  the IP security should be considered of utmost importance,
	  since OCB means that 802.11p is stripped of all 802.11
	  link-layer security; a small additional security aspect
	  which is shared between 802.11p and other 802.11 links is
	  the privacy concerns related to the address formation
	  mechanisms.  These two points (OCB handovers and security)
	  are described each in a section of its own: OCB handovers in
	  <xref target="ocb-handovers"/> and security in <xref
	  target="Security"/>.
	</t>

	<t>
	  In standards, the operation of IPv6 as a 'data plane' over
	  802.11p is specified in <xref
	  target='ieeep1609.3-D9-2010'/>.  For example, it mentions
	  that "Networking services also specifies the use of the
	  Internet protocol IPv6, and supports transport protocols
	  such as UDP and TCP. [...]  A Networking Services
	  implementation shall support either IPv6 or WSMP or both."
	  and "IP traffic is sent and received through the LLC
	  sublayer as specified in [...]".  Also, the operation of
	  IPv6 over a GeoNetworking layer and over G5 is described in
	  <xref target='etsi-302663-v1.2.1p-2013'/>.
	</t>

	<t>
	  In the published literature, three documents describe
	  aspects related to running IPv6 over 802.11p: <xref
	  target="vip-wave"/>, <xref target="ipv6-80211p-its"/> and
	  <xref target="ipv6-wave"/>.
	</t>	

      </section>
      
      <section title="Terminology">
	<t>
	  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
	  <xref target="RFC2119">RFC 2119</xref>.
	</t>
	<t>
	  RSU: Road Side Unit.
	</t>
	<t>
	  OCB: Outside the Context of a Basic Service Set identifier.
	</t>
      </section>

      <section title="Communication Scenarios where IEEE 802.11p Links are Used">
	<t>
	  The IEEE 802.11p Networks are used for vehicular
	  communications, as 'Wireless Access in Vehicular
	  Environments'.  The IP communication scenarios for these
	  environments have been described in several documents, among
	  which we refer the reader to one recently updated <xref
	  target='I-D.petrescu-its-scenarios-reqs'/>, about scenarios
	  and requirements for IP in Intelligent Transportation Systems.
	</t>
      </section>

      <section title="Aspects introduced by 802.11p to 802.11">
	<t>
	  The link 802.11p is specified in IEEE Std 802.11p(TM)-2010
	  <xref target="ieee802.11p-2010"/> as an amendment to the
	  802.11 specifications, titled "Amendment 6: Wireless
	  Access in Vehicular Environments".  Since then, these
	  802.11p amendments have been included in IEEE
	  802.11(TM)-2012 <xref target="ieee802.11-2012"/>, titled
	  "IEEE Standard for Information
	  technology--Telecommunications and information exchange
	  between systems Local and metropolitan area
	  networks--Specific requirements Part 11: Wireless LAN
	  Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY)
	  Specifications"; the modifications are diffused throughout
	  various sections (e.g. 802.11p's Time Advertisement
	  message is described in section 'Frame formats', and the
	  operation outside the context of a BSS described in
	  section 'MLME').
	</t>
	<t>
	  In document 802.11-2012, specifically anything referring
	  "OCBActivated", or "outside the context of a basic service
	  set" is actually referring to the 802.11p aspects
	  introduced to 802.11.  Note in earlier 802.11p documents
	  the term "OCBEnabled" was used instead.
	</t>

	<t>
	  In order to delineate the aspects introduced by 802.11p to
	  802.11, we refer to the earlier <xref
	  target="ieee802.11p-2010"/>.  The amendment is concerned
	  with vehicular communications, where the wireless link is
	  similar to that of Wireless LAN (using a PHY layer
	  specified by 802.11a/b/g/n), but which needs to cope with
	  the high mobility factor inherent in scenarios of
	  communications between moving vehicles, and between
	  vehicles and fixed infrastructure deployed along roads.
	  Whereas 'p' is a letter just like 'a, b, g' and 'n' are,
	  'p' is concerned more with MAC modifications, and a little
	  with PHY modifications; the others are mainly about PHY
	  modifications.  It is possible in practice to combine a
	  'p' MAC with an 'a' PHY by operating outside the context
	  of a BSS with OFDM at 5.4GHz.
	</t>

	<t>
	  The 802.11p links are specified to be compatible as much
	  as possible with the behaviour of 802.11a/b/g/n and future
	  generation IEEE WLAN links.  From the IP perspective, an
	  802.11p MAC layer offers practically the same interface to
	  IP as the WiFi and Ethernet layers do (802.11a/b/g/n and
	  802.3).
	</t>

	<t>
	  To support this similarity statement (IPv6 is layered on
	  top of LLC on top of 802.11p similarly as on top of LLC on
	  top of 802.11a/b/g/n, and as on top of LLC on top of
	  802.3) it is useful to analyze the 802.11p differences
	  compared to non-p 802.11 specifications.  Whereas the
	  802.11p amendment specifies relatively complex and
	  numerous changes to the MAC layer (and very little to the
	  PHY layer), we note here only a few characteristics which
	  may be important for an implementation transmitting IPv6
	  packets on 802.11p links.
	</t>

	<t>
	  In the list below, the only 802.11p fundamental points
	  which influence IPv6 are the OCB operation and the
	  12Mbit/s maximum which may be afforded by the IPv6
	  applications.
	</t>

	<t>
	  <list style='symbols'>
	    <t>
	      Operation Outside the Context of a BSS (OCB): the
	      802.11p links are operated without a Basic Service Set
	      (BSS).  This means that the messages Beacon,
	      Association Request/Response, Authentication
	      Request/Response, and similar, are not used.  The used
	      identifier of BSS (BSSID) has a hexadecimal value
	      always ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff (48 '1' bits, or the
	      'wildcard' BSSID), as opposed to an arbitrary BSSID
	      value set by administrator
	      (e.g. 'My-Home-AccessPoint').  The OCB operation -
	      namely the lack of beacon-based scanning and lack of
	      authentication - has potentially strong impact on the
	      use of protocol Mobile IPv6 and protocols for IP layer
	      security.
	    </t>
	    <t>
	      Timing Advertisement: is a new message defined in
	      802.11p, which does not exist in 802.11a/b/g/n.  This
	      message is used by stations to inform other stations
	      about the value of time.  It is similar to the time as
	      delivered by a GNSS system (Galileo, GPS, ...) or by a
	      cellular system.  This message is optional for
	      implementation.  At the date of writing, an
	      experienced reviewer considers that currently no field
	      testing has used this message.  Another implementor
	      considers this feature implemented in an initial
	      manner.  In the future, it is speculated that this
	      message may be useful for very simple devices which
	      may not have their own hardware source of time
	      (Galileo, GPS, cellular network), or by vehicular
	      devices situated in areas not covered by such network
	      (in tunnels, underground, outdoors but shaded by
	      foliage or buildings, in remote areas, etc.)
	    </t>	      
	    <t>
	      Frequency range: this is a characteristic of the PHY
	      layer, with almost no impact to the interface between
	      MAC and IP.  However, it is worth considering that the
	      frequency range is regulated by a regional authority
	      (ARCEP, ETSI, FCC, etc.); as part of the regulation
	      process, specific applications are associated with
	      specific frequency ranges.  In the case of 802.11p,
	      the regulator associates a set of frequency ranges, or
	      slots within a band, to the use of applications of
	      vehicular communications, in a band known as "5.9GHz".
	      This band is "5.9GHz" which is different than the
	      bands "2.4GHz" or "5GHz" used for the Wireless LAN.
	      But, as with Wireless LAN, the operation of 802.11p in
	      "5.9GHz" bands is exempt from owning a license in EU
	      (in US the 5.9GHz is a licensed band of spectrum; for
	      the the fixed infrastructure an explicit FCC is
	      required; for an onboard device a 'licensed-by-rule'
	      concept applies: rule certification conformity is
	      required); however technical conditions are different
	      than those of the bands "2.4GHz" or "5GHz".  On one
	      hand, the allowed power levels, and implicitly the
	      maximum allowed distance between vehicles, is of 33dBm
	      for 802.11p (in Europe), compared to 20 dBm for
	      Wireless LAN 802.11a/b/g/n; this leads to maximum
	      distance of approximately 1km, compared to
	      approximately 50m.  On another hand, specific
	      conditions related to congestion avoidance, jamming
	      avoidance, and radar detection are imposed on the use
	      of DSRC (in US) and on the use of frequencies for
	      Intelligent Transportation Systems (in EU), compared
	      to Wireless LAN (802.11a/b/g/n).
	    </t>
	    <t>
	      Explicit prohibition of IPv6 on some channels relevant
	      for the PHY of IEEE 802.11p, as opposed to IPv6 not
	      being prohibited on any channel on which 802.11a/b/g/n
	      runs; for example, IPv6 is prohibited on the 'Control
	      Channel' (number 178 at FCC/IEEE, and 180 at ETSI);
	      for a detailed analysis of IEEE and ETSI prohibition
	      of IP in particular channels see <xref
	      target='IP-channel'/>.
	    </t>
	    <t>
	      'Half-rate' encoding: as the frequency range, this
	      parameter is related to PHY, and thus has not much
	      impact on the interface between the IP layer and the
	      MAC layer.  The standard IEEE 802.11p uses OFDM
	      encoding at PHY, as other non-b 802.11 variants do.
	      This considers 20MHz encoding to be 'full-rate'
	      encoding, as the earlier 20MHz encoding which is used
	      extensively by 802.11b.  In addition to the full-rate
	      encoding, the OFDM rates also involve 5MHz and 10MHz.
	      The 10MHz encoding is named 'half-rate'.  The encoding
	      dictates the bandwidth and latency characteristics
	      that can be afforded by the higher-layer applications
	      of IP communications.  The half-rate means that each
	      symbol takes twice the time to be transmitted; for
	      this to work, all 802.11 software timer values are
	      doubled.  With this, in certain channels of the
	      "5.9GHz" band, a maximum bandwidth of 12Mbit/s is
	      possible, whereas in other "5.9GHz" channels a minimal
	      bandwidth of 1Mbit/s may be used.  It is worth
	      mentioning the half-rate encoding is an optional
	      feature characteristic of OFDM PHY (compared to
	      802.11b's full-rate 20MHz), used by 802.11a before
	      802.11p used it.  In addition to the half-rate (10MHz)
	      used by 802.11p in some channels, some other 802.11p
	      channels may use full-rate (20MHz) or quarter-rate(?)
	      (5MHz) encoding instead.
	    </t>
	    <t>
	      <list style='symbols'>
		<t>	      
		  It is worth mentioning that more precise
		  interpretations of the 'half-rate' term suggest
		  that a maximum throughput be 27Mbit/s (which is
		  half of 802.11g's 54Mbit/s), whereas 6Mbit/s or
		  12Mbit/s throughputs represent effects of further
		  802.11p-specific PHY reductions in the throughput
		  necessary to better accommodate vehicle-class
		  speeds and distance ranges.
		</t>
	      </list>
	    </t>
	    <t>
	      In vehicular communications where 802.11p links, there
	      are strong privacy concerns with respect to
	      addressing.  Whereas the 802.11p standard does not
	      specify anything in particular with respect to MAC
	      addresses, in these settings there exist a strong need
	      for dynamic change of these addresses (as opposed to
	      the non-vehicular settings - real wall protection -
	      where fixed MAC addresses do not currently pose same
	      privacy risks).  This is further described in section
	      <xref target="Security"/>.
	    </t>
	  </list>

	  Other aspects particular to 802.11p which are also
	  particular to 802.11 (e.g. the 'hidden node' operation)
	  may have an influence on the use of transmission of IPv6
	  packets on 802.11p networks.  The subnet structure which
	  may assumed in 802.11p networks is strongly influenced by
	  the mobility of vehicles.
	</t>
	
      </section>    

      <section 
	  title="Layering of IPv6 over 802.11p as over Ethernet">
	<t>
	</t>
	<section title="Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU)">
	  <t>
	    The default MTU for IPv6 packets on 802.11p is 1500
	    octets.  It is the same value as IPv6 packets on Ethernet
	    links, as specified in <xref target="RFC2464"/>.  This
	    value of the MTU respects the recommendation that every
	    link in the Internet must have a minimum MTU of 1280
	    octets (stated in <xref target="RFC2460"/>, and the
	    recommendations therein, especially with respect to
	    fragmentation).
	  </t>
	</section>
	<section title="Frame Format">
	  <t>
	    IPv6 packets are transmitted over 802.11p as standard
	    Ethernet packets.  As with all 802.11 frames, an Ethernet
	    adaptation layer is used with 802.11p as well.  This
	    Ethernet Adaptation Layer 802.11-to-Ethernet is described
	    in <xref target='aal'/>.  The Ethernet Type code
	    (EtherType) is 0x86DD (hexadecimal 86DD, or otherwise
	    #86DD).
	  </t>
	  <t>
	    The Frame format for transmitting IPv6 on 802.11p networks
	    is the same as transmitting IPv6 on Ethernet networks, and
	    is described in section 3 of <xref target='RFC2464'/>.
	    For sake of completeness, the frame format for
	    transmitting IPv6 over Ethernet is illustrated below:
	  </t>
	  <t> 
	    <figure align="center">
	      <artwork align="center">
		<![CDATA[

0                   1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|          Destination          |
+-                             -+
|            Ethernet           |
+-                             -+
|            Address            |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|             Source            |
+-                             -+
|            Ethernet           |
+-                             -+
|            Address            |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|             IPv6              |
+-                             -+
|            header             |
+-                             -+
|             and               |
+-                             -+
/            payload ...        /
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

(Each tic mark represents one bit.)
		]]>
	      </artwork>
	    </figure>
	  </t>	    

	  <section title='Ethernet Adaptation Layer'
		   anchor='aal'>
	    <t>
	      In general, an 'adaptation' layer is inserted between a
	      MAC layer and the Networking layer.  This is used to
	      transform some parameters between their form expected by
	      the IP stack and the form provided by the MAC layer.
	      For example, an 802.15.4 adaptation layer may perform
	      fragmentation and reassembly operations on a MAC whose
	      maximum Packet Data Unit size is smaller than the
	      minimum MTU recognized by the IPv6 Networking layer.
	      Other examples involve link-layer address
	      transformation, packet header insertion/removal, and so
	      on.
	    </t>
	    <t>
	      An Ethernet Adaptation Layer makes an 802.11 MAC look
	      to IP Networking layer as a more traditional Ethernet
	      layer.  At reception, this layer takes as input the IEEE
	      802.11 Data Header and the Logical-Link Layer Control
	      Header and produces an Ethernet II Header.  At sending,
	      the reverse operation is performed.
	    </t>
	    <t> 
	      <figure align="center">
		<artwork align="center">
		  <![CDATA[
			   +--------------------+-------------+-------------+---------+
			   | 802.11 Data Header | LLC Header  | IPv6 Header | Payload |
			   +--------------------+-------------+-------------+---------+

^
|
802.11-to-Ethernet Adaptation Layer
|
v

+---------------------+-------------+---------+
| Ethernet II Header  | IPv6 Header | Payload |
+---------------------+-------------+---------+
		  ]]>
		</artwork>
	      </figure>
	    </t>
	    <t>
	      The Receiver and Transmitter Address fields in the
	      802.11 Data Header contain the same values as the
	      Destination and the Source Address fields in the
	      Ethernet II Header, respectively.  The value of the Type
	      field in the LLC Header is the same as the value of the
	      Type field in the Ethernet II Header.  The other fields
	      in the Data and LLC Headers are not used by the IPv6
	      stack.
	    </t>
	  </section>
	</section>
	<section title='Link-Local Addresses'>
	  <t>
	    The link-local address of an 802.11p interface is formed
	    in the same manner as on an Ethernet interface.  This
	    manner is described in section 5 of <xref
	    target='RFC2464'/>.
	  </t>
	</section>
	<section title="Address Mapping">
	  <t>
	    For unicast as for multicast, there is no change from the
	    unicast and multicast address mapping format of Ethernet
	    interfaces, as defined by sections 6 and 7 of <xref
	    target='RFC2464'/>.
	  </t>
	  <t>
	    (however, there is discussion about geography, networking
	    and IPv6 multicast addresses: geographical dissemination
	    of IPv6 data over 802.11p may be useful in traffic jams,
	    for example).
	  </t>
	</section>
	<section title='Stateless Autoconfiguration'>
	  <t>
	    The Interface Identifier for an 802.11p interface is
	    formed using the same rules as the Interface Identifier
	    for an Ethernet interface; this is described in section 4
	    of <xref target='RFC2464'/>.
	    No changes are needed, but some care must be taken when
	    considering the use of the SLAAC procedure.
	  </t>
	  <t>
	    For example, the Interface Identifier for an 802.11p
	    interface whose built-in address is, in hexadecimal:
	  </t>
	  
	  <t> 
	    <figure align="center">
	      <artwork align="center">
		<![CDATA[
			 30-14-4A-D9-F9-6C
		]]>
	      </artwork>
	    </figure>
	  </t>
	  <t>
	    would be
	  </t>
	  <t> 
	    <figure align="center">
	      <artwork align="center">
		<![CDATA[
			 32-14-4A-FF-FE-D9-F9-6C.
		]]>
	      </artwork>
	    </figure>
	  </t>

	  <t>
	    The bits in the the interface identifier have no generic
	    meaning and the identifier should be treated as an opaque
	    value.  The bits 'Universal' and 'Group' in the identifier
	    of an 802.11p interface are significant, as this is a IEEE
	    link-layer address.  The details of this significance are
	    described in <xref target="I-D.ietf-6man-ug"/>.
	  </t>

	  <t>
	    As with all Ethernet and 802.11 interface identifiers, the
	    identifier of an 802.11p interface may involve privacy
	    risks.  A vehicle embarking an On-Board Unit whose egress
	    interface is 802.11p may expose itself to eavesdropping
	    and subsequent correlation of data; this may reveal data
	    considered private by the vehicle owner.  The address
	    generation mechanism should consider these aspects, as
	    described in <xref
	    target='I-D.ietf-6man-ipv6-address-generation-privacy'/>.
	  </t>
	</section>

	<section title='Subnet Structure'>
	  <t>
	    In this section the subnet structure may be described: the
	    addressing model (are multi-link subnets considered?),
	    address resolution, multicast handling, packet forwarding
	    between IP subnets.  Alternatively, this section may be
	    spinned off into a separate document.
	  </t>

	  <t>
	    The 802.11p networks, much like other 802.11 networks, may
	    be considered as 'ad-hoc' networks.  The addressing model
	    for such networks is described in <xref
	    target='RFC5889'/>.
	  </t>
	  
	  <t>
	    The SLAAC procedure makes the assumption that if a packet
	    is retransmitted a fixed number of times (typically 3, but
	    it is link dependent), any connected host receives the
	    packet with high probability.  On ad-hoc links (when
	    802.11p is operated in OCB mode, the link can be
	    considered as 'ad-hoc'), both the hidden terminal problem
	    and mobility-range considerations make this assumption
	    incorrect.  Therefore, SLAAC should not be used when
	    address collisions can induce critical errors in upper
	    layers.
	  </t>

	  <t>
	    Some aspects of multi-hop ad-hoc wireless communications
	    which are relevant to the use of 802.11p (e.g. the
	    'hidden' node) are described in <xref
	    target="I-D.baccelli-multi-hop-wireless-communication"
	    />.
	  </t>

	  <t>
	    When operating in OCB mode, it may be appropriate to use a
	    6LoWPAN adaptation layer <xref target='RFC6775'/>.
	    However, it should be noted that the use 6lowpan
	    adaptation layer is comparable with the use of Ethernet to
	    802.11 adaptation layer.
	  </t>

	</section>
      </section>

      <section title="Handovers between OCB links"
	       anchor="ocb-handovers">
	<t>
	  A station operating IEEE 802.11p in the 5.9 GHz band in US or
	  EU is required to send data frames outside the context of a
	  BSS.  In this case, the station does not utilize the IEEE
	  802.11 authentication, association, or data confidentiality
	  services.  This avoids the latency associated with
	  establishing a BSS and is particularly suited to
	  communications between mobile stations or between a mobile
	  station and a fixed one playing the role of the default router
	  (e.g. a fixed Road-Side Unit a.k.a RSU acting as an
	  infrastructure router).
	</t>

	<t>
	  The process of movement detection is described in section
	  11.5.1 of <xref target='RFC6275'/>.  In the context of
	  802.11p deployments, detecting movements between two
	  adjacent RSUs becomes harder for the moving stations: they
	  cannot rely on Layer-2 triggers (such as L2
	  association/de-association phases) to detect when they leave
	  the vicinity of an RSU and move within coverage of another
	  RSU.  In such case, the movement detection algorithms
	  require other triggers.  We detail below the potential other
	  indications that can be used by a moving station in order to
	  detect handovers between OCB ("Outside the Context of a
	  BSS") links.
	</t>

	<t>
	  A movement detection mechanism may take advantage of
	  positioning data (latitude and longitude).
	</t>

	<t>
      	  Mobile IPv6 <xref target='RFC6275'/> specifies a new Router
      	  Advertisement option called the "Advertisement Interval
      	  Option". It can be used by an RSU to indicate the maximum
      	  interval between two consecutive unsolicited Router
      	  Advertisement messages sent by this RSU. With this option, a
      	  moving station can learn when it is supposed to receive the
      	  next RA from the same RSU. This can help movement detection:
      	  if the specified amount of time elapses without the moving
      	  station receiving any RA from that RSU, this means that the
      	  RA has been lost. It is up to the moving node to determine
      	  how many lost RAs from that RSU constitutes a handover
      	  trigger.
	</t>

	<t>
      	  In addition to the Mobile IPv6 "Advertisement Interval
      	  Option", the Neighbor Unreachability Detection (NUD) <xref
      	  target='RFC4861'/> can be used to determine whether the RSU
      	  is still reachable or not. In this context, reachability
      	  confirmation would basically consist in receiving a Neighbor
      	  Advertisement message from a RSU, in response to a Neighbor
      	  Solicitation message sent by the moving station. The RSU
      	  should also configure a low Reachable Time value in its RA
      	  in order to ensure that a moving station does not assume an
      	  RSU to be reachable for too long.
	</t>

	<t>
          The Mobile IPv6 "Advertisement Interval Option" as well as
          the NUD procedure only help knowing if the RSU is still
          reachable by the moving station.  It does not provide the
          moving station with information about other potential RSUs
          that might be in range.  For this purpose, increasing the RA
          frequency could reduce the delay to discover the next RSU.
          The Neighbor Discovery protocol <xref target='RFC4861'/>
          limits the unsolicited multicast RA interval to a minimum of
          3 seconds (the MinRtrAdvInterval variable). This value is
          too high for dense deployments of Access Routers deployed
          along fast roads.  The protocol Mobile IPv6 <xref
          target="RFC6275"/> allows routers to send such RA more
          frequently, with a minimum possible of 0.03 seconds (the
          same MinRtrAdvInterval variable): this should be preferred
          to ensure a faster detection of the potential RSUs in range.
	</t>

	<t> 
          If multiple RSUs are in the vicinity of a moving station at
          the same time, the station may not be able to choose the
          "best" one (i.e. the one that would afford the moving
          station spending the longest time in its vicinity, in order
          to avoid too frequent handovers).  In this case, it would be
          helpful to base the decision on the signal quality (e.g.
          the RSSI of the received RA provided by the radio driver).
          A better signal would probably offer a longer coverage.  If,
          in terms of RA frequency, it is not possible to adopt the
          recommendations of protocol Mobile IPv6 (but only the
          Neighbor Discovery specification ones, for whatever reason),
          then another message than the RA could be emitted
          periodically by the Access Router (provided its
          specification allows to send it very often), in order to
          help the Host determine the signal quality.  One such
          message may be the 802.11p's Time Advertisement, or higher
          layer messages such as the "Basic Safety Message" (in the
          US) or the "Cooperative Awareness Message " (in the EU),
          that are usually sent several times per second.  Another
          alternative replacement for the IPv6 Router Advertisement
          may be the message 'WAVE Routing Advertisement' (WRA), which
          is part of the WAVE Service Advertisement and which may
          contain optionally the transmitter location; this message is
          described in section 8.2.5 of <xref
          target='ieeep1609.3-D9-2010'/>.
	</t>

	<t>
	  Once the choice of the default router has been performed by
	  the moving node, it can be interesting to use Optimistic DAD
	  <xref target='RFC4429'/> in order to speed-up the address
	  auto-configuration and ensure the fastest possible Layer-3
	  handover.
	</t>

	<t>
	  To summarize, efficient handovers between OCB links can be
	  performed by using a combination of existing mechanisms. In
	  order to improve the default router unreachability detection,
	  the RSU and moving stations should use the Mobile IPv6
	  "Advertisement Interval Option" as well as rely on the NUD
	  mechanism. In order to allow the moving station to detect
	  potential default router faster, the RSU should also be able
	  to be configured with a smaller minimum RA interval such as
	  the one recommended by Mobile IPv6. When multiple RSUs are
	  available at the same time, the moving station should perform
	  the handover decision based on the signal quality. Finally,
	  optimistic DAD can be used to reduce the handover delay.
	</t>

	<t>
	  The Received Frame Power Level (RCPI) defined in IEEE Std
	  802.11-2012, conditioned by the dotOCBActived flag, is an
	  information element which contains a value expressing the
	  power level at which that frame was received.  This value
	  may be used in comparing power levels when triggering IP
	  handovers.
	</t>

	<!-- <t> -->
	<!-- The minimum time separating sending two Router Advertisements -->
	<!-- is limited by the value of the MinRtrAdvInterval router -->
	<!-- configuration variable, as specified by <xref -->
	<!-- target="RFC4861"/>.  This value is 3 seconds.  This value is -->
	<!-- too high for dense deployments of Access Routers deployed -->
	<!-- along fast roads.  The Mobile IPv6 specification <xref -->
	<!-- target="RFC6275"/> allows for a minimum time separating -->
	<!-- sending two Router Advertisements to 0.03 seconds (the -->
	<!-- MinRtrAdvInterval variable.) -->
	<!-- </t> -->

	<!-- <t> -->
	<!-- If it is not possible to implement the Mobile IPv6 -->
	<!-- specification (and must stick to the ND specification only, -->
	<!-- for whatever reason), then another message than the Router -->
	<!-- Advertisement, could be emitted periodically by the Access -->
	<!-- Router (provided its specification allows to send it very -->
	<!-- often), in order to help the Host determine the power levels. -->
	<!-- In some stack implementations and some versions of particular -->
	<!-- operating systems, the Host is able to attach a RadioTap -->
	<!-- header to any message it receives.  This header contains the -->
	<!-- value of the strength of the signal received.  One such -->
	<!-- message may be the 802.11p's Time Advertisement (even though -->
	<!-- itself does not contain that value). -->
	<!-- </t> -->

      </section>

      <!-- Possibly a 'Contributors' section ... -->

      <section 
	  title="Example IPv6 Packet captured over a IEEE 802.11p link">
	<t>
	  We remind that a main goal of this document is to make the
	  case that IPv6 works fine over 802.11p networks.
	  Consequently, this section is an illustration of this
	  concept and thus can help the implementer when it comes to
	  running IPv6 over IEEE 802.11p.  By way of example we show
	  that there is no modification in the headers when
	  transmitted over 802.11p networks - they are transmitted
	  like any other 802.11 and Ethernet packets.
	</t>
	<t>
	  We describe an experiment of capturing an IPv6 packet
	  captured on an 802.11p link.  In this experiment, the packet
	  is an IPv6 Router Advertisement.  This packet is emitted by
	  a Router on its 802.11p interface.  The packet is captured
	  on the Host, using a network protocol analyzer
	  (e.g. Wireshark); the capture is performed in two different
	  modes: direct mode and 'monitor' mode.  The topology used
	  during the capture is depicted below.
	</t>

	<t> 
	  <figure align="center">
	    <artwork align="center">
	      <![CDATA[
 ##########                    ########
 #        #                    #      #
 # Router #--------------------# Host #
 #        #    802.11p Link    #      #
 ##########                    ########
   /   \                         o  o  
	      ]]>
	    </artwork>
	  </figure>
	</t>

	<t>
	  During several capture operations running from a few moments
	  to several hours, no message relevant to the BSSID contexts
	  were captured (no Association Request/Response, Authentication
	  Req/Resp, Beacon).  This shows that the operation of 802.11p
	  is outside the context of a BSSID.
	</t>

	<t>
	  Overall, the captured message is precisely similar with a
	  capture of an IPv6 packet emitted on a 802.11b interface.  The
	  contents are precisely similar.
	</t>
	<t>
	  The popular wireshark network protocol analyzer is a free
	  software tool for Windows and Unix.  It includes a dissector
	  for 802.11p features along with all other 802.11 features
	  (i.e. it displays these features in a human-readable
	  format).
	</t>

	<section title="Capture in Monitor Mode">      

	  <t>
	    The IPv6 RA packet captured in monitor mode is illustrated
	    below.  The radio tap header provides more flexibility for
	    reporting the characteristics of frames.  The Radiotap Header
	    is prepended by this particular stack and operating system on
	    the Host machine to the RA packet received from the network
	    (the Radiotap Header is not present on the air).  The
	    implementation-dependent Radiotap Header is useful for
	    piggybacking PHY information from the chip's registers as data
	    in a packet understandable by userland applications using
	    Socket interfaces (the PHY interface can be, for example:
	    power levels, data rate, ratio of signal to noise).
	  </t>

	  <t>
	    The packet present on the air is formed by IEEE 802.11 Data
	    Header, Logical Link Control Header, IPv6 Base Header and
	    ICMPv6 Header.
	  </t>
	  <t> 
	    <figure align="center">
	      <artwork align="center">
		<![CDATA[

Radiotap Header v0
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Header Revision|  Header Pad   |    Header length              |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                         Present flags                         |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Data Rate     |             Pad                               |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

IEEE 802.11 Data Header
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|  Type/Subtype and Frame Ctrl  |          Duration             | 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                      Receiver Address...                       
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
... Receiver Address           |      Transmitter Address...    
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
... Transmitter Address                                        |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                            BSS Id...                           
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
... BSS Id                     |  Frag Number and Seq Number   |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+    

Logical-Link Control Header
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|      DSAP   |I|     SSAP    |C| Control field | Org. code...   
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
... Organizational Code        |             Type              |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

IPv6 Base Header
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Version| Traffic Class |           Flow Label                  |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|         Payload Length        |  Next Header  |   Hop Limit   |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                                                               |
+                                                               +
|                                                               |
+                         Source Address                        +
|                                                               |
+                                                               +
|                                                               |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                                                               |
+                                                               +
|                                                               |
+                      Destination Address                      +
|                                                               |
+                                                               +
|                                                               |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Router Advertisement
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|     Type      |     Code      |          Checksum             |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Cur Hop Limit |M|O|  Reserved |       Router Lifetime         |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                         Reachable Time                        |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                          Retrans Timer                        |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|   Options ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
		]]>
	      </artwork>
	    </figure>
	  </t>      

	  <t>
	    The value of the Data Rate field in the Radiotap header is set
	    to 6 Mb/s.  This indicates the rate at which this RA was
	    received.
	  </t>

	  <t>
	    The value of the Transmitter address in the IEEE 802.11 Data
	    Header is set to a 48bit value.  The value of the destination
	    address is 33:33:00:00:00:1 (all-nodes multicast address).
	    The value of the BSS Id field is ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff, which is
	    recognized by the network protocol analyzer as being
	    "broadcast".  The Fragment number and sequence number fields
	    are together set to 0x90C6.
	  </t>

	  <t>
	    The value of the Organization Code field in the
	    Logical-Link Control Header is set to 0x0, recognized as
	    "Encapsulated Ethernet".  The value of the Type field is
	    0x86DD (hexadecimal 86DD, or otherwise #86DD), recognized
	    as "IPv6".
	  </t>

	  <t>
	    A Router Advertisement is periodically sent by the router to
	    multicast group address ff02::1. It is an icmp packet type
	    134. The IPv6 Neighbor Discovery's Router Advertisement
	    message contains an 8-bit field reserved for single-bit flags,
	    as described in <xref target="RFC4861"/>.
	  </t>

	  <t>
	    The IPv6 header contains the link local address of the router
	    (source) configured via EUI-64 algorithm, and destination
	    address set to ff02::1.  Recent versions of network protocol
	    analyzers (e.g. Wireshark) provide additional informations for
	    an IP address, if a geolocalization database is present. In
	    this example, the geolocalization database is absent, and the
	    "GeoIP" information is set to unknown for both source and
	    destination addresses (although the IPv6 source and
	    destination addresses are set to useful values). This "GeoIP"
	    can be a useful information to look up the city, country, AS
	    number, and other information for an IP address.
	  </t>

	  <t>
	    The Ethernet Type field in the logical-link control header is
	    set to 0x86dd which indicates that the frame transports an
	    IPv6 packet. In the IEEE 802.11 data, the destination address
	    is 33:33:00:00:00:01 which is he corresponding multicast MAC
	    address. The BSS id is a broadcast address of
	    ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff. Due to the short link duration between
	    vehicles and the roadside infrastructure, there is no need in
	    IEEE 802.11p to wait for the completion of association and
	    authentication procedures before exchanging data. IEEE 802.11p
	    enabled nodes use the wildcard BSSID (a value of all 1s) and
	    may start communicating as soon as they arrive on the
	    communication channel.
	  </t>

	</section>
	
	<section title="Capture in Normal Mode">
	  <t>
	    The same IPv6 Router Advertisement packet described above
	    (monitor mode) is captured on the Host, in the Normal mode,
	    and depicted below.
	  </t>
	  <t> 
	    <figure align="center">
	      <artwork align="center">
		<![CDATA[


Ethernet II Header
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                       Destination...                           
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
...Destination                 |           Source...            
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
...Source                                                      |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|          Type                 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

IPv6 Base Header
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Version| Traffic Class |           Flow Label                  |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|         Payload Length        |  Next Header  |   Hop Limit   |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                                                               |
+                                                               +
|                                                               |
+                         Source Address                        +
|                                                               |
+                                                               +
|                                                               |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                                                               |
+                                                               +
|                                                               |
+                      Destination Address                      +
|                                                               |
+                                                               +
|                                                               |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Router Advertisement
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|     Type      |     Code      |          Checksum             |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Cur Hop Limit |M|O|  Reserved |       Router Lifetime         |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                         Reachable Time                        |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                          Retrans Timer                        |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|   Options ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
		]]>
	      </artwork>
	    </figure>
	  </t>

	  <t>
	    One notices that the Radiotap Header is not prepended, and
	    that the IEEE 802.11 Data Header and the Logical-Link Control
	    Headers are not present.  On another hand, a new header named
	    Ethernet II Header is present.
	  </t>

	  <t>
	    The Destination and Source addresses in the Ethernet II header
	    contain the same values as the fields Receiver Address and
	    Transmitter Address present in the IEEE 802.11 Data Header in
	    the "monitor" mode capture.
	  </t>
	  <t>
	    The value of the Type field in the Ethernet II header is
	    0x86DD (recognized as "IPv6"); this value is the same value as
	    the value of the field Type in the Logical-Link Control Header
	    in the "monitor" mode capture.
	  </t>
	  <t>
	    The knowledgeable experimenter will no doubt notice the
	    similarity of this Ethernet II Header with a capture in normal
	    mode on a pure Ethernet cable interface.
	  </t>

	  <t>
	    It may be interpreted that an Adaptation layer is inserted in
	    a pure IEEE 802.11 MAC packets in the air, before delivering
	    to the applications.  In detail, this adaptation layer may
	    consist in elimination of the Radiotap, 802.11 and LLC headers
	    and insertion of the Ethernet II header.  In this way, it can
	    be stated that IPv6 runs naturally straight over LLC over the
	    802.11p MAC layer, as shown by the use of the Type 0x86DD, and
	    assuming an adaptation layer (adapting 802.11 LLC/MAC to
	    Ethernet II header).
	  </t>
	  
	</section>
	
      </section>    

      <section anchor="Security" title="Security Considerations">
	<t>
	  802.11p does not provide any cryptographic protection,
	  because it operates outside the context of a BSS (no
	  Association Request/Response, no Challenge messages).  Any
	  attacker can therefore just sit in the near range of
	  vehicles, sniff the network (just set the interface card's
	  frequency to the proper range) and perform attacks without
	  needing to physically break any wall.  Such a link is way
	  less protected than commonly used links (wired link or
	  protected 802.11).
	</t>

	<t>
	  At the IP layer, IPsec can be used to protect unicast
	  communications, and SeND can be used for multicast
	  communications. If no protection is used by the IP layer,
	  upper layers should be protected. Otherwise, the end-user or
	  system should be warned about the risks they run.
	</t>

	<t>
	  The WAVE protocol stack provides for strong security when
	  using the WAVE Short Message Protocol and the WAVE Service
	  Advertisement <xref target='ieeep1609.2-D17'/>.
	</t>

	<t>
	  As with all Ethernet and 802.11 interface identifiers, there
	  may exist privacy risks in the use of 802.11p interface
	  identifiers.  However, in outdoors vehicular settings, the
	  privacy risks are more important than in indoors settings.
	  New risks are induced by the possibility of attacker
	  sniffers deployed along routes which listen for IP packets
	  of vehicles passing by.  For this reason, in the 802.11p
	  deployments, there is a strong necessity to use protection
	  tools such as dynamically changing MAC addresses.  This may
	  help mitigate privacy risks to a certain level.  On another
	  hand, it may have an impact in the way typical IPv6 address
	  auto-configuration is performed for vehicles (SLAAC would
	  rely on MAC addresses amd would hence dynamically change the
	  affected IP address), in the way the IPv6 Privacy addresses
	  were used, and other effects.
	</t>

      </section>    

      <section anchor="IANA" title="IANA Considerations">
	<t>
	</t>
      </section>

      <section anchor="Contributors"
	       title="Contributors">
	<t>
	  Romain Kuntz contributed extensively the concepts described
	  in <xref target="ocb-handovers"/> about IPv6 handovers
	  between links running outside the context of a BSS (802.11p
	  links).
	</t>
      </section>

      <section anchor="Acknowledgements"
	       title="Acknowledgements">
	<t>
	  The authors would like to acknowledge Witold Klaudel, Ryuji
	  Wakikawa, Emmanuel Baccelli, John Kenney, John Moring,
	  Francois Simon, Dan Romascanu, Konstantin Khait, Ralph
	  Droms, Richard Roy, Ray Hunter, Tom Kurihara and Gloria
	  Gwynne.  Their supportive comments clarified certain issues
	  and generally helped to improve the document.
	</t>
	<t>
	  Pierre Pfister wrote an 802.11p driver for linux and
	  described how.
	</t>
      </section>
      

    </middle>

    <!--  *****BACK MATTER ***** -->

    <back>

      <references title="Normative References">
	<?rfc
	  include="http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119"
	?>
	<?rfc
	  include="http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2460"
	?>       
	<?rfc
	  include="http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2464"
	?>
	<?rfc
	  include="http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4861"
	?>
	<?rfc
	  include="http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4429"
	?>
	<?rfc
	  include="http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5889"
	?>		
	<?rfc
	  include="http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6275"
	?>
	<?rfc
	  include="http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6775"
	?>
	<?rfc
	  include="http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-6man-ug"
	?>
	<?rfc
	  include="http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-6man-ipv6-address-generation-privacy"
	?>            
      </references>

      <references title="Informative References">
	<reference anchor="ieee802.11p-2010" >
	  <front>
	    <title>
	      IEEE Std 802.11p(TM)-2010, IEEE Standard for Information
	      Technology - Telecommunications and information exchange
	      between systems - Local and metropolitan area networks -
	      Specific requirements, Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium
	      Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY)
	      Specifications, Amendment 6: Wireless Access in
	      Vehicular Environments; document freely available at URL
	      http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/download/802.11p-2010.pdf
	      retrieved on September 20th, 2013.
	    </title>
	    <author/>
	    <date/>
	  </front>
	</reference>

	<reference anchor="ieeep1609.2-D17">
	  <front>
	    <title>
	      IEEE P1609.2(tm)/D17 Draft Standard for Wireless Access
	      in Vehicular Environments - Security Services for
	      Applications and Management Messages.  pdf, length 2558
	      Kb.  Restrictions apply.
	    </title>
	    <author/>
	    <date/>
	  </front>
	</reference>	

	<reference anchor="ieeep1609.3-D9-2010">
	  <front>
	    <title>
	      IEEE P1609.3(tm)/D9, Draft Standard for Wireless Access in
	      Vehicular Environments (WAVE) - Networking Services,
	      August 2010.  Authorized licensed use limited to:
	      CEA. Downloaded on June 19, 2013 at 07:32:34 UTC from IEEE
	      Xplore. Restrictions apply, document at persistent link
	      http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/servlet/opac?punumber=5562705
	    </title>
	    <author/>
	    <date/>
	  </front>
	</reference>

	<reference anchor="ieeep1609.4-D9-2010">
	  <front>
	    <title>
	      IEEE P1609.4(tm)/D9 Draft Standard for Wireless Access in
	      Vehicular Environments (WAVE) - Multi-channel Operation.
	      Authorized licensed use limited to: CEA. Downloaded on
	      June 19, 2013 at 07:34:48 UTC from IEEE
	      Xplore. Restrictions apply.  Document at persistent link
	      http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/servlet/opac?punumber=5551097
	    </title>
	    <author/>
	    <date/>
	  </front>
	</reference>

	<reference anchor="ieee802.11-2012" >
	  <front>
	    <title>
	      802.11-2012 - IEEE Standard for Information
	      technology--Telecommunications and information exchange
	      between systems Local and metropolitan area
	      networks--Specific requirements Part 11: Wireless LAN
	      Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY)
	      Specifications.  Downloaded on October 17th, 2013, from
	      IEEE Standards, document freely available at URL
	      http://standards.ieee.org/findstds/standard/802.11-2012.html
	      retrieved on October 17th, 2013.
	    </title>
	    <author/>
	    <date/>
	  </front>
	</reference>

	<reference anchor="fcc-cc" >
	  <front>
	    <title>
	      'Report and Order, Before the Federal Communications
	      Commission Washington, D.C. 20554', FCC 03-324, Released
	      on February 10, 2004, document FCC-03-324A1.pdf,
	      document freely available at URL
	      http://www.its.dot.gov/exit/fcc_edocs.htm downloaded on
	      October 17th, 2013.
	    </title>
	    <author/>
	    <date/>
	  </front>
	</reference>

	<reference anchor="fcc-cc-172-184" >
	  <front>
	    <title>
	      'Memorandum Opinion and Order, Before the Federal
	      Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554', FCC
	      06-10, Released on July 26, 2006, document
	      FCC-06-110A1.pdf, document freely available at URL
	      http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-110A1.pdf
	      downloaded on June 5th, 2014.
	    </title>
	    <author/>
	    <date/>
	  </front>
	</reference>	

	<reference anchor="etsi-302663-v1.2.1p-2013" >
	  <front>
	    <title>
	      Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS); Access layer
	      specification for Intelligent Transport Systems
	      operating in the 5 GHz frequency band, 2013-07, document
	      en_302663v010201p.pdf, document freely available at URL
	      http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_en/302600_302699/302663/
	      01.02.01_60/en_302663v010201p.pdf downloaded on October
	      17th, 2013.
	    </title>
	    <author/>
	    <date/>
	  </front>
	</reference>

	<reference anchor="etsi-draft-102492-2-v1.1.1-2006" >
	  <front>
	    <title>
	      Electromagnetic compatibility and Radio spectrum Matters
	      (ERM); Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS); Part 2:
	      Technical characteristics for pan European harmonized
	      communications equipment operating in the 5 GHz
	      frequency range intended for road safety and traffic
	      management, and for non-safety related ITS applications;
	      System Reference Document, Draft ETSI TR 102 492-2
	      V1.1.1, 2006-07, document tr_10249202v010101p.pdf freely
	      available at URL
	      http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_tr/102400_102499/
	      10249202/01.01.01_60/tr_10249202v010101p.pdf downloaded
	      on October 18th, 2013.
	    </title>
	    <author/>
	    <date/>
	  </front>
	</reference>      		    
	
	<reference anchor="ipv6-wave" >
	  <front>
	    <title>
	      IPv6 Operation for WAVE - Wireless Access in Vehicular
	      Environments
	    </title>
	    <author initials="T."
		    surname="Clausen"
		    fullname="Thomas Clausen"/>
	    <author initials="E."
		    surname="Baccelli"
		    fullname="Emmanuel Baccelli"/>
	    <author initials="R."
		    surname="Wakikawa"
		    fullname="Ryuji Wakikawa"/>
	    <date month="September" year="2010" />
	  </front>
	  <seriesInfo name="Rapport de Recherche INRIA," 
		      value="number 7383" />
	  <seriesInfo name="URL: "
		      value="http://hal.inria.fr/inria-00517909/"/>
	  <seriesInfo name="Downloaded on: "
		      value="24 October 2013"/>
	  <seriesInfo name="Availability:"
		      value="free at some sites"/>
	</reference>
	
	<?rfc
	  include="http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.baccelli-multi-hop-wireless-communication"
	?>
	<?rfc include="http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.petrescu-its-scenarios-reqs" ?>

	<reference anchor="vip-wave">
	  <front>
	    <title>
	      VIP-WAVE: On the Feasibility of IP Communications in
	      802.11p Vehicular Networks
	    </title>
	    <author initials='S.' surname='Cespedes' fullname='Sandra
							       Cespedes'/>
	    <author initials='N.' surname='Lu' fullname='Ning Lu'/>
	    <author initials='X. S.' surname='Shen' fullname='Xuemin
							      (Sherman)
							      Shen'/> 
	    <date month="March" year="2013" />
	  </front>
	  <seriesInfo name="IEEE Transactions on Intelligent
			    Transportation Systems,"
		      value="Volume 14, Issue 1"/>
	  <seriesInfo name="URL and Digital Object Identifier: "
		      value="http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TITS.2012.2206387"/>
	  <seriesInfo name="Downloaded on: "
		      value="24 October 2013"/>
	  <seriesInfo name="Availability:"
		      value="free at some sites, paying at others"/>
	</reference>

	<reference anchor="ipv6-80211p-its" >
	  <front>
	    <title>
	      Experimentation Towards IPv6 over IEEE 802.11p with ITS
	      Station Architecture
	    </title>
	    <author initials="O."
		    surname="Shagdar"
		    fullname="Oyunchimeg Shagdar"/>
	    <author initials="M."
		    surname="Tsukada"
		    fullname="Manabu Tsukada"/>
	    <author initials="M."
		    surname="Kakiuchi"
		    fullname="Masatoshi Kakiuchi"/>
	    <author initials="T."
		    surname="Toukabri"
		    fullname="Thouraya Toukabri"/>
	    <author initials="T."
		    surname="Ernst"
		    fullname="Thierry Ernst"/> 	    	    
	    <date month="May" year="2012" />
	  </front>
	  <seriesInfo name="International Workshop on IPv6-based
			    Vehicular Networks," 
		      value="(colocated with IEEE Intelligent Vehicles
			     Symposium)" />
	  <seriesInfo name="URL: "
		      value="http://hal.inria.fr/hal-00702923/en"/>
	  <seriesInfo name="Downloaded on: "
		      value="24 October 2013"/>
	  <seriesInfo name="Availability:"
		      value="free at some sites, paying at others"/>
	</reference>      	
	
      </references>


      <section anchor='changelog'
	       title='ChangeLog'>
	<t>
	  The changes are listed in reverse chronological order, most
	  recent changes appearing at the top of the list.
	</t>

	<t>
	  From draft-petrescu-ipv6-over-80211p-02.txt to
	  draft-petrescu-ipv6-over-80211p-03.txt:
	  <list style='symbols'>
	    <t>
	      Added clarification about the "OCBActivated" qualifier
	      in the the new IEEE 802.11-2012 document; this IEEE
	      document integrates now all earlier 802.11p features;
	      this also signifies the dissapearance of an IEEE IEEE
	      802.11p document altogether.
	    </t>
	    <t>
	      Added explanation about FCC not prohibiting IP on
	      channels, and comments about engineering advice and
	      reliability of IP messages.
	    </t>
	    <t>
	      Added possibility to use 6lowpan adaptation layer when
	      in OCB mode.
	    </t>
	    <t>
	      Added appendix about the distribution of certificates to
	      vehicles by using IPv6-over-802.11p single-hop
	      communications.
	    </t>
	    <t>
	      Refined the explanation of 'half-rate' mode.
	    </t>
	    <t>
	      Added the privacy concerns and necessity of and
	      potential effects of dynamically changing MAC
	      addresses.
	    </t>
	  </list>	
	</t>
	<t>
	  From draft-petrescu-ipv6-over-80211p-01.txt to
	  draft-petrescu-ipv6-over-80211p-02.txt:
	  <list style='symbols'>
	    <t>
	      updated authorship.
	    </t>
	    <t>
	      added explanation about FCC not prohibiting IP on
	      channels, and comments about engineering advice and
	      reliability of IP messages.
	    </t>
	    <t>
	      added possibility to use 6lowpan adaptation layer when
	      in OCB mode.
	    </t>
	    <t>
	      added appendix about the distribution of certificates to
	      vehicles by using IPv6-over-802.11p single-hop
	      communications.
	    </t>
	    <t>
	      refined the explanation of 'half-rate' mode.
	    </t>
	    <t>
	      added the privacy concerns and necessity of and
	      potential effects of dynamically changing MAC
	      addresses.
	    </t>
	  </list>	
	</t>      	

	<t>
	  From draft-petrescu-ipv6-over-80211p-00.txt to
	  draft-petrescu-ipv6-over-80211p-01.txt:
	  <list style='symbols'>
	    <t>
	      updated one author's affiliation detail.
	    </t>
	    <t>
	      added 2 more references to published literature about
	      IPv6 over 802.11p.
	    </t>
	  </list>	
	</t>      

	<t>
	  From draft-petrescu-ipv6-over-80211p-00.txt to
	  draft-petrescu-ipv6-over-80211p-00.txt:
	  <list style='symbols'>
	    <t>
	      first version.
	    </t>
	  </list>	
	</t>      
      </section>
      <section title='Explicit Prohibition of IPv6 on Channels
		      Related to ITS Scenarios using 802.11p Networks
		      - an Analysis'
	       anchor='IP-channel'>

	  <section title="Interpretation of FCC and ETSI documents
	    with respect to running IP on particular channels">
	    <t>
	      <list style='symbols'>
		<t>
		  The FCC created the term "Control Channel" <xref
		  target='fcc-cc'/>.  For it, it defines the channel
		  number to be 178 decimal, and positions it with a 10MHz
		  width from 5885MHz to 5895MHz.  The FCC rules point to
		  standards document ASTM-E2213 (not freely available at
		  the time of writing of this draft); in an interpretation
		  of a reviewer of this document, this means not making
		  any restrictions to the use of IP on the control
		  channel.
		</t>
		<t>
		  The FCC created two more terms for particular channels
		  <xref target="fcc-cc-172-184" />, among others.  The
		  channel 172 (5855MHz to 5865MHz)) is designated
		  "exclusively for [V2V] safety communications for
		  accident avoidance and mitigation, and safety of life
		  and property applications", and the channel 184 (5915MHz
		  to 5925MHz) is designated "exclusively for high-power,
		  longer-distance communications to be used for
		  public-safety applications involving safety of life and
		  property, including road-intersection collision
		  mitigation".  However, they are not named "control"
		  channels, and the document does not mention any
		  particular restriction on the use of IP on either of
		  these channels.
		</t>
		<t>
		  On another hand, at IEEE, IPv6 is explicitely
		  prohibited on channel number 178 decimal - the FCC's
		  'Control Channel'.  The document <xref
		  target='ieeep1609.4-D9-2010'/> prohibits upfront the
		  use of IPv6 traffic on the Control Channel: 'data
		  frames containing IP datagrams are only allowed on
		  service channels'.  Other 'Service Channels' are
		  allowed to use IP, but the Control Channel is not.
		</t>
		<t>
		  In Europe, basically ETSI considers FCC's "Control
		  Channel" to be a "Service Channel", and defines a
		  "Control Channel" to be in a slot considered by FCC as
		  a "Service Channel".  In detail, FCC's "Control
		  Channel" number 178 decimal with 10MHz width (5885MHz
		  to 5895MHz) is defined by ETSI to be a "Service
		  Channel", and is named 'G5-SCH2' <xref
		  target='etsi-302663-v1.2.1p-2013'/>.  This channel is
		  dedicated to 'ITS Road Safety' by ETSI.  Other
		  channels are dedicated to 'ITS road traffic
		  efficiency' by ETSI.  The ETSI's "Control Channel" -
		  the "G5-CCH" - number 180 decimal (not 178) is
		  reserved as a 10MHz-width centered on 5900MHz (5895MHz
		  to 5905MHz) (the 5895MHz-5905MHz channel is a Service
		  Channel for FCC).  Compared to IEEE, ETSI makes no
		  upfront statement with respect to IP and particular
		  channels; yet it relates the 'In car Internet'
		  applications ('When nearby a stationary public
		  internet access point (hotspot), application can use
		  standard IP services for applications.') to the
		  'Non-safety-related ITS application' <xref
		  target='etsi-draft-102492-2-v1.1.1-2006'/>.  Under an
		  interpretation of an author of this Internet Draft,
		  this may mean ETSI may forbid IP on the 'ITS Road
		  Safety' channels, but may allow IP on 'ITS road
		  traffic efficiency' channels, or on other 5GHz
		  channels re-used from BRAN (also dedicated to
		  Broadband Radio Access Networks).
		</t>
		<t>
		  At EU level in ETSI (but not some countries in EU with
		  varying adoption levels) the highest power of
		  transmission of 33 dBm is allowed, but only on two
		  separate 10Mhz-width channels centered on 5900MHz and
		  5880MHz respectively.  It may be that IPv6 is not
		  allowed on these channels (in the other 'ITS' channels
		  where IP may be allowed, the levels vary between 20dBm,
		  23 dBm and 30 dBm; in some of these channels IP is
		  allowed).  A high-power of transmission means that
		  vehicles may be distanced more (intuitively, for 33 dBm
		  approximately 2km is possible, and for 20 dBm
		  approximately 50meter).
		</t>
	      </list>
	    </t>
	  </section>

	  <section title="Interpretations of Latencies of IP datagrams">
	    <t>
	      IPv6 may be "allowed" on any channel.  Certain
	      interpretations consider that communicating IP datagrams
	      may involve longer latencies than non-IP datagrams; this
	      may make them little adapted for safety applications
	      which require fast reaction.  Certain other views
	      disagree with this, arguing that IP datagrams are
	      transmitted at the same speed as any other non-IP
	      datagram and may thus offer same level of reactivity for
	      safety applications.
	    </t>
	  </section>

      </section>
      
      <section title="Changes Needed on a software driver 802.11a to become a
		      802.11p driver"
	       anchor="software-changes"> 
	<t>
	  The 802.11p amendment modifies both the 802.11 stack's
	  physical and MAC layers but all the induced modifications can
	  be quite easily obtained by modifying an existing 802.11a
	  ad-hoc stack.
	</t>

	<t>
	  Conditions for a 802.11a hardware to be 802.11p compliant:
	  <list style='symbols'>
	    <t>
	      The chip must support the frequency bands on which the
	      regulator recommends the use of ITS communications, for
	      example using IEEE 802.11p layer, in France: 5875MHz to
	      5925MHz.
	    </t>
	    <t>
	      The chip must support the half-rate mode (the internal
	      clock should be able to be divided by two).
	    </t>
	    <t>
	      The chip transmit spectrum mask must be compliant to the
	      "Transmit spectrum mask" from the IEEE 802.11p amendment
	      (but experimental environments tolerate otherwise).
	    </t>
	    <t>
	      The chip should be able to transmit up to 44.8 dBm when
	      used by the US government in the United States, and up to
	      33 dBm in Europe; other regional conditions apply.
	    </t>
	  </list>
	</t>

	<t>
	  Changes needed on the network stack in OCB mode:
	  <list style='symbols'>
	    <t>
	      Physical layer:
	      <list style='symbols'>
		<t>
		  The chip must use the Orthogonal Frequency Multiple
		  Access (OFDM) encoding mode.
		</t>
		<t>
		  The chip must be set in half-mode rate mode (the
		  internal clock frequency is divided by two).		
		</t>
		<t>
		  The chip must use dedicated channels and should allow
		  the use of higher emission powers. This may require
		  modifications to the regulatory domains rules, if used
		  by the kernel to enforce local specific
		  restrictions. Such modifications must respect the
		  location-specific laws.
		</t>
	      </list>
	      MAC layer:
	      <list style='symbols'>
		<t>
		  All management frames (beacons, join, leave, and
		  others) emission and reception must be disabled
		  except for frames of subtype Action and Timing
		  Advertisement (defined below).
		</t>
		<t>
		  No encryption key or method must be used.
		</t>
		<t>
		  Packet emission and reception must be performed as in
		  ad-hoc mode, using the wildcard BSSID
		  (ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff).
		</t>
		<t>
		  The functions related to joining a BSS (Association
		  Request/Response) and for authentication
		  (Authentication Request/Reply, Challenge) are not
		  called.
		</t>
		<t>
		  The beacon interval is always set to 0 (zero).
		</t>
		<t>
		  Timing Advertisement frames, defined in the
		  amendment, should be supported.  The upper layer
		  should be able to trigger such frames emission and to
		  retrieve information contained in received Timing
		  Advertisements.
		</t>
	      </list>
	    </t>
	  </list>
	</t>
      </section>

      <section title="Use of IPv6 over 802.11p for distribution of
		      certificates">
	<t>
	  Security of vehicular communications is one of the
	  challenging tasks in the Intelligent Transport Systems.  The
	  adoption of security procedures becomes an indispensable
	  feature that cannot be neglected when designing new
	  protocols.  One of the interesting use cases of transmitting
	  IPv6 packets over IEEE 802.11p links is the distribution of
	  certificates between road side infrastructure and the
	  vehicule (Figure below).
	</t>

	<t>
	<figure align="center">
	  <artwork align="center">
	    <![CDATA[
             ###########
             #         #
             # Server  #
             #(backend)#
             #         #
             ###########
                  |  
                  |
                  |  <-- link  (depending on the infrastructure)
                  |
                  |	
                  |
                  |
              ##########                    #############
              #        #                    #           #
              #  RSU   # - - - - - - - - - -#   Router  #
              #        #    802.11p Link    # in-vehicle#
              ##########                    #############
                                                 o  o
	    ]]>
	  </artwork>
	</figure>	  
	</t>
	<t>
	  Many security mechanisms have been proposed for the
	  vehicular environment, mechanisms often relying on public
	  key algorithms.  Public key algorithms necessitate a public
	  key infrastructure (PKI) to distribute and revoke
	  certificates.  The server backend in the figure can play the
	  role of a Certification Authority which will send
	  certificates and revocation lists to the RSU which in turn
	  retransmits certificates in messages directed to passing-by
	  vehicles.  The initiation distribution of certificates as
	  IPv6 messages over 802.11p links may be realized by WSA
	  messages (WAVE Service Announcement, a non-IP message).  The
	  certificate is sent as an IPv6 messages over a single-hop
	  802.11p link.
	</t>
      </section>

  </back>
</rfc>
