Quality of Service Option for Proxy Mobile IPv6
draft-liebsch-netext-pmip6-qos-00
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Expired".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Pierrick Seite , Marco Liebsch , Jouni Korhonen , Sri Gundavelli , Hidetoshi Yokota | ||
| Last updated | 2011-10-24 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-liebsch-netext-pmip6-qos-00
NETEXT WG M. Liebsch
Internet-Draft NEC Laboratories Europe
Intended status: Standards Track P. Seite
Expires: April 24, 2012 France Telecom - Orange
H. Yokota
KDDI Lab
J. Korhonen
Nokia Siemens Networks
S. Gundavelli
Cisco
October 22, 2011
Quality of Service Option for Proxy Mobile IPv6
draft-liebsch-netext-pmip6-qos-00.txt
Abstract
This specification defines a new mobility option that can be used by
the mobiliy entities in the Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain for exchanging
the Quality of Service parameters associated with the subscriber
flows. Specifically, the local mobility anchor in the home network
can potentially send the QoS parameters to the mobile access gateway
in the access network. This document also explains how the mobile
access gateway in the access network can map the received QoS options
to the access specific semantics, such us using 802.11e in case of
IEEE 802.11 and apply it on the air interface.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 24, 2012.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
Liebsch, et al. Expires April 24, 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6 October 2011
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions & Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Solution Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Quality of Service Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. QoS Mapping to 802.11e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Liebsch, et al. Expires April 24, 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6 October 2011
1. Introduction
Mobile operators deploy Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) [RFC5213] to
enable network-based mobility management for mobile nodes (MN).
Users can access Internet Protocol (IP) based services from their
mobile device by using different radio access technologies. Current
standardization effort considers strong QoS classification and
enforcement for cellular radio access technologies. QoS policies are
typically controlled by a policy control function, whereas the
policies are enforced by different gateways in the infrastructure,
such as the LMA. Cellular radio access technology introduces the
concept of a bearer. Each mobile node can have one or multiple
bearers associated with its registration, each supporting different
QoS characteristics. The bearer concept is not valid for alternative
radio access technologies; however, these technologies specify their
own concepts to enable QoS differentiation. Handover and IP Flow
Mobility using alternative radio access technologies, such as
IEEE802.16 and Wireless LAN according to the IEEE802.11
specification, are being considered by the standards [TS23.402],
whereas inter-working between the cellular architecture to establish
QoS policies in alternative access networks has not been focussed on
so far.
In particular the Wireless LAN technology has been identified as
promising alternative technology to complement cellular radio access.
Since the 802.11e standard provides QoS extensions to WLAN, it is
beneficial to apply QoS policies to the WLAN access, which enables
QoS classification of downlink as well as uplink traffic between a UE
and its LMA. Three functional operations have been identified to
accomplish this:
(a) Maintenance of QoS classification during a handover between
cellular radio access and WLAN access by means of establishing QoS
policies in the handover target access network,
(b) mapping of QoS classes and associated policies between
different access systems and
(c) establishment of QoS policies for new data sessions/flows,
which are initiated while using WLAN access.
This document specifies an extension to the PMIPv6 protocol, which
enables the transport of established QoS descriptions between an LMA
and the MAG by means of a QoS container option in case the QoS policy
in the WLAN access is not under explicit control of a policy control
system. The specified option allows association between IP session
keys, such as a Differeniated Services Code Point (DSCP), and the
expected QoS class for this IP session. Further handling of QoS
Liebsch, et al. Expires April 24, 2012 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6 October 2011
policies between the MAG and the WLAN Controller or WLAN Access Point
is out of scope of this specification.
Liebsch, et al. Expires April 24, 2012 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6 October 2011
2. Conventions & Terminology
2.1. Conventions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2.2. Terminology
All the mobility related terms used in this document are to be
interpreted as defined in the Proxy Mobile IPv6 specifications
[RFC5213], [RFC5844], [RFC5845] and [RFC5846]. Additionally, this
document uses the following abbreviations:
o WLAN (Wireless Local Area Network) - A wireless network.
o WTP (Wireless Termination Point): The entity that functions as the
termination point for the network-end of the IEEE 802.11 based air
interface from the mobile node. It is also knows as the Wireless
Access Point.
o WLC (Wireless LAN Controller): The entity that provides the
centralized forwarding, routing function for the user traffic.
All the user traffic from the mobile nodes attached to the WTP's
is typically tunneled to this centralized WLAN access controller.
Liebsch, et al. Expires April 24, 2012 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6 October 2011
3. Solution Overview
The following illustrates the scenario where the local mobility
anchor in the cellular network provides QoS policy to the mobile
access gateway in the WLAN access network. Other access technologies
are also possible.
| +--------+
| |Policy |
| |Control |
| |Function|
+----+ | +---+----+
|WiFi| | |
| AP |---+ +---+---+ | |
+----+ | | WiFi | | PMIPv6 +-----+
+----+ Ctrlr/+=|============| LMA |
| | MAG | | tunnel +-----+
+----+ | +-------+ |
|WiFi|---+ |
| AP | |
+----+ |
|
WLAN access network | Cellullar network
Figure 1: Scenario for QoS Interworking
Liebsch, et al. Expires April 24, 2012 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6 October 2011
4. Quality of Service Option
A new option, Quality of Service option, is defined for using it in
Proxy Binding Update (PBU) and Proxy Binding Acknowledgement (PBA)
messages exchanged between a local mobility anchor and a mobile
access gateway. This option is used for providing QoS policies and
information to the mobile access gateway.
The alignment requirement for this option is 4n.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | TS Format |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Traffic Selector ... ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| QoS Information ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: QoS Option
o Type: To be assigned by IANA
o Length: 8-bit unsigned integer indicating the length in octets of
the option, excluding the type and length fields.
o Reserved : This field is unused for now. The value MUST be
initialized to 0 by the sender and MUST be ignored by the
receiver.
o TS Format: An 8-bit unsigned integer indicating the Traffic
Selector Format. Value "0" is reserved and MUST NOT be used. The
value of (1) is assigned for IPv4 Binary Traffic Selector
[RFC6088].
o TS Selector : variable-length opaque field for including the
traffic specification identified by the TS format field. When the
value of TS Format field is set to (1), the format that follows is
the IPv4 Binary Traffic Selector specified in section 3.1 of
Liebsch, et al. Expires April 24, 2012 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6 October 2011
[RFC6088].
o DSCP: An 6-bit unsigned integer indicating the code point value,
as defined in [RFC2475] to be used for the flow.
o QoS Information: one or more Type-Length-Value (TLV) encoded QoS
parameters. The interpretation and usage of the QoS information
is specific to the TLV. The QoS information MUST at least contain
a DSCP value indicating the code point value, as defined in
[RFC2475] to be used for the flow. [Discussion: which existing
QoS definition to reuse? There are several around even in IETF
space. RFC5624 is one potential as it already uses TLV encoding
and is indirectly used by 23.402
Liebsch, et al. Expires April 24, 2012 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6 October 2011
5. QoS Mapping to 802.11e
This section discussed issues to be taken into account when mapping
QoS parameters between different access technologies. TBD
Liebsch, et al. Expires April 24, 2012 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6 October 2011
6. IANA Considerations
This specification defines a new Mobility Header option, Quality of
Service option. This option is described in Section 4. The Type
value for this option needs to be assigned from the same numbering
space as allocated for the other mobility options [RFC6275].
Liebsch, et al. Expires April 24, 2012 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6 October 2011
7. Security Considerations
The quality of service option defined in this specification is for
use in Proxy Binding Update and Proxy Binding Acknowledgement
messages. This option is carried like any other mobility header
option as specified in [RFC5213] and does not require any special
security considerations. Carrying quality of service information
does not introduce any new security vulnerabilities.
Liebsch, et al. Expires April 24, 2012 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6 October 2011
8. Acknowledgements
The author of this document thanks the members of the NETLMM working
group for all the discussions related to this topic.
Liebsch, et al. Expires April 24, 2012 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6 October 2011
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V., Chowdhury, K.,
and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 5213, August 2008.
[RFC5779] Korhonen, J., Bournelle, J., Chowdhury, K., Muhanna, A.,
and U. Meyer, "Diameter Proxy Mobile IPv6: Mobile Access
Gateway and Local Mobility Anchor Interaction with
Diameter Server", RFC 5779, February 2010.
[RFC5844] Wakikawa, R. and S. Gundavelli, "IPv4 Support for Proxy
Mobile IPv6", RFC 5844, May 2010.
[RFC6085] Gundavelli, S., Townsley, M., Troan, O., and W. Dec,
"Address Mapping of IPv6 Multicast Packets on Ethernet",
RFC 6085, January 2011.
[RFC6088] Tsirtsis, G., Giarreta, G., Soliman, H., and N. Montavont,
"Traffic Selectors for Flow Bindings", RFC 6088,
January 2011.
[RFC6275] Perkins, C., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support
in IPv6", RFC 6275, July 2011.
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.liebsch-netext-pmip6-authiwk]
Gundavelli, S., Liebsch, M., and P. Seite, "PMIPv6 inter-
working with WiFi access authentication",
draft-liebsch-netext-pmip6-authiwk-03 (work in progress),
October 2011.
[RFC2475] Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z.,
and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated
Services", RFC 2475, December 1998.
[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
September 2007.
[RFC5415] Calhoun, P., Montemurro, M., and D. Stanley, "Control And
Provisioning of Wireless Access Points (CAPWAP) Protocol
Specification", RFC 5415, March 2009.
Liebsch, et al. Expires April 24, 2012 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6 October 2011
[RFC5845] Muhanna, A., Khalil, M., Gundavelli, S., and K. Leung,
"Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) Key Option for Proxy
Mobile IPv6", RFC 5845, June 2010.
[RFC5846] Muhanna, A., Khalil, M., Gundavelli, S., Chowdhury, K.,
and P. Yegani, "Binding Revocation for IPv6 Mobility",
RFC 5846, June 2010.
[RFC6224] Schmidt, T., Waehlisch, M., and S. Krishnan, "Base
Deployment for Multicast Listener Support in Proxy Mobile
IPv6 (PMIPv6) Domains", RFC 6224, April 2011.
[TS23.402]
3GPP, "Architecture enhancements for non-3GPP accesses",
2010.
Liebsch, et al. Expires April 24, 2012 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6 October 2011
Authors' Addresses
Marco Liebsch
NEC Laboratories Europe
Kurfuersten-Anlage 36
Heidelberg D-69115
Germany
Email: liebsch@neclab.eu
Pierrick Seite
France Telecom - Orange
4, rue du Clos Courtel, BP 91226
Cesson-Sevigne 35512
France
Email: pierrick.seite@orange.com
Hidetoshi Yokota
KDDI Lab
2-1-15 Ohara
Saitama, Fujimino 356-8502
Japan
Email: yokota@kddilabs.jp
Jouni Korhonen
Nokia Siemens Networks
Linnoitustie 6
Espoo FI-02600
Finland
Email: jouni.nospam@gmail.com
Sri Gundavelli
Cisco
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
Email: sgundave@cisco.com
Liebsch, et al. Expires April 24, 2012 [Page 15]