Network-based Localized Mobility Management
|Document||Charter||Network-based Localized Mobility Management WG (netlmm)|
|Title||Network-based Localized Mobility Management|
|IESG||Responsible AD||Jari Arkko|
|Charter edit AD||(None)|
|Send notices to||(None)|
The IETF has defined both local and global mobility management protocols that are intended to handle IP mobility for nodes. All IP mobility management protocols defined thus far require the involvement of the mobile node in order to accomplish mobility. This working group is tasked with defining a network-based local mobility management protocol, where local IP mobility is handled without involvement from the mobile node. The idea is that the mobile node may move across multiple access routers without encountering a change in its IP address, thereby hiding the mobility from the IP layer and above. As part of the first phase of efforts in this working group, a protocol for such network-based local mobility has been developed. This protocol, Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6), has been developed based on Mobile IPv6, after considering other alternative approaches. With this protocol, unmodified IP nodes may change access routers without having to change the IP address on an interface, within a given administrative domain. This is accomplished by having Mobile Access Gateways (MAGs), often part of the access routers in a network, send binding updates on behalf of mobile nodes attached to them, to a Local Mobility Anchor (LMA). The LMA manages the mobility of the mobile nodes across the MAGs within a given PMIPv6 domain. The PMIPv6 protocol is being adopted as part of several wide-area wireless network (e.g., 3GPP, 3GPP2, WiMAX) and local area network environments. The current charter of this working group involves specification of some necessary features that make the deployment of this protocol feasible in these various environments. As part of this effort, it is essential to support mobility for IPv4 end nodes. Some means of dealing with overlapping private IPv4 addresses of mobile nodes and supporting separation of flows between the MAG and LMA is also required. Further, given that local and global mobility management protocols are likely to be deployed in some combination in various environments, it is necessary to clearly define the interactions between PMIPv6 and MIPv6. Interactions with AAA protocols such as RADIUS and Diameter may be required for authorization or provisioning purposes. When multiple LMAs are present, an automated LMA discovery mechanism may be needed to facilitate deployment. The above items are in scope of the current charter. The MAG and LMA are considered to be IPv6 capable for all efforts of this protocol. Also, all features defined must work with unmodified IP nodes. Specifying any changes to mobile nodes is out of scope of the current charter. Handoff and route optimizations are also out of scope. There is, however, considerable interest in optimization work, for instance, and a future recharter of this working group is likely to address this in some manner. NETLMM WG Deliverables ---------------------- 1) Interface between a PMIPv6 MAG and MN: This interface will define the interaction between a regular IP node and a MAG that will be used to trigger various mobility management actions on the MAG. This is necessary for the MAG to properly trigger binding updates to the LMA and create appropriate mobility management state. 2) IPv4 Support for PMIPv6: This will define the support for IPv4 nodes in PMIPv6. This will also define the protocol operation over an IPv4 transport between the MAG and LMA, by employing protocol extensions already developed in the MEXT WG. 3) Interactions between Mobile IPv6 and Proxy Mobile IPv6: This will highlight the interactions required between these protocols in various methods of co-existence of these in a system, with a view to documenting the best practices to be used. The scenarios considered will include a hierarchical model of local and global mobility management using PMIPv6 and MIPv6 respectively, a mixed mode of the two with some nodes supporting MIPv6 and others not, and the use of MIPv6 upon movement of nodes outside a PMIPv6 domain. 4) GRE Keying option for PMIPv6: This will define a mechanism using GRE keys to support separation of flows between a MAG and LMA. 5) RADIUS support for PMIPv6: This will define the interactions between RADIUS and PMIPv6 to support policy provisioning and authorization. 6) Automatic LMA discovery: This will define the ability for MAGs to automatically discover and use an LMA within a PMIPv6 domain. The scope of this effort may include specifying the use of DNS or DHCP based LMA discovery or LMA discovery using policy information retrieved via AAA protocols. 7) MIB for PMIPv6: This will define the MIB for the protocol for interoperability purposes. 8) PMIPv6 path management and failure detection: This will define an extension to the PMIPv6 protocol allowing PMIPv6 peers to verify bidirectional reachability with their peer, detect failure of their peer, and signal their own failure to their peer.