Framework for Mobility Management Protocol
draft-chan-dmm-framework-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 | Anthony Chan , Pierrick Seite , Kostas Pentikousis | ||
| Last updated | 2013-02-18 | ||
| 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-chan-dmm-framework-00
Network Working Group H. Chan
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Informational P. Seite
Expires: August 23, 2013 France Telecom - Orange
K. Pentikousis
Huawei Technologies
February 19, 2013
Framework for Mobility Management Protocol
draft-chan-dmm-framework-00
Abstract
This document introduces a framework for mobility management
protocols in terms of their key abstracted logical functions. The
framework is capable of presenting a unified view, reducing the
clutter that obscures a casual reader from understanding the
commonalities between different approaches in mobility management. A
first order application of this framework allows us to examine
previously standardized mobility management protocols, such as MIPv6
and PMIPv6 (as well as several of their extensions), and describe
their core functionality in terms of different configurations of the
logical functions defined by the framework.
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 August 23, 2013.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Chan, et al. Expires August 23, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft DMM-framework February 2013
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
1.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Mobility Management Logical Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Functional Representation of Existing Mobility Protocols . . . 5
4.1. Mobile IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. MIPv6 versus PMIPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3. Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.4. Distributing mobility anchors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.5. Migrating Home Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. DMM Functional Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1. Flat Network Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1.1. Network-based Mobility Management . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1.2. Client-based Mobility Management . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.2. Fully distributed scenario with separation of control
and data planes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Chan, et al. Expires August 23, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft DMM-framework February 2013
1. Introduction
While there is ongoing research on new protocols for distributed
mobility management (DMM), it has also been proposed, e.g., in
[Paper-Distributed.Mobility.PMIP] and in other publications, that a
distributed mobility management architecture can be designed using
primarily existing mobility management protocols with some
extensions. This is reflected in the requirement presented in [ID-
dmm-requirements]: distributed mobility management is to first use
existing protocols and their extensions before considering new
protocol designs.
Mobile IPv6 [RFC6275], which is a logically centralized mobility
management approach addressing primarily hierarchical mobile
networks, has numerous variants and extensions including, just to
name a few, PMIPv6 [RFC5213], Hierarchical MIPv6 (HMIPv6) [RFC5380],
Fast MIPv6 (FMIPv6) [RFC4068] [RFC4988], Proxy-based FMIPv6 (PFMIPv6)
[RFC5949]. These variants or extensions of MIPv6 have been developed
over the years owing to the different needs that have been arising
ever since the first specification of MIP came into life.
This document argues that we can gain much more insights into this
design space by abstracting functions of existing mobility management
protocols in terms of logical functions. Different variants of
existing mobility management protocols can then be expressed as
different design variations of how these logical functions are put
together. The result is a rich framework that can express
sophisticated functionalities in a more straightforward manner and
can be used to perform gap analysis of existing protocols. What is
more, this document shows how to reconfigure these logical functions
towards various distributed mobility management designs.
The following subsection presents an overview of this document.
1.1. Overview
Section 3 proposes to abstract existing mobility management protocol
functions into three logical functions, namely, home address
allocation, mobility routing and location management. Such
functional decomposition will enable us to clearly separate data
plane and the control plane functionality, and gives us the
flexibility in an implementation to position said logical functions
at their most appropriate places in the system design.
Section 4 shows that these logical functions can indeed perform the
same functions as the major existing mobility protocols. These
functions therefore become the foundation for a unified framework
upon which different designs of distributed mobility management may
Chan, et al. Expires August 23, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft DMM-framework February 2013
be built upon.
2. Conventions and Terminology
2.1. Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL","SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
2.2. Terminology
All general mobility-related terms and their acronyms used in this
document are to be interpreted as defined in the Mobile IPv6 base
specification [RFC6275] and in the Proxy mobile IPv6 specification
[RFC5213]. These terms include mobile node (MN), correspondent node
(CN), home agent (HA), local mobility anchor (LMA), and mobile access
gateway (MAG).
In addition, this document uses the following terms:
Mobility routing (MR) is the logical function that intercepts
packets to/from the HoA of a mobile node and forwards them, based
on internetwork location information, either directly towards
their destination or to some other network element that knows how
to forward the packets to their ultimate destination.
Home address allocation is the logical function that allocates the
home network prefix or home address to a mobile node.
Location management (LM) is the logical function that manages and
keeps track of the internetwork location information of a mobile
node, which includes the mapping of the MN HoA to the MN routing
address or another network element that knows where to forward
packets destined for the MN.
Home network of an application session (or an HoA IP address) is the
network that has allocated the IP address used as the session
identifier (HoA) by the application being run in an MN. The MN
may be attached to more than one home networks.
3. Mobility Management Logical Functions
The existing mobility management functions of MIPv6, PMIPv6, and
HMIPv6 ca be abstracted into the following logical functions:
Chan, et al. Expires August 23, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft DMM-framework February 2013
1. Anchoring: allocation of home network prefix or HoA to an MN that
registers with the network;
2. Mobility Routing (MR) function: packets interception and
forwarding to/from the HoA of the MN, based on the internetwork
location information, either to the destination or to some other
network element that knows how to forward the packets to their
destination;
3. Internetwork Location Management (LM) function: managing and
keeping track of the internetwork location of an MN, which
includes a mapping of the HoA to the mobility anchoring point
that the MN is anchored to;
4. Location Update (LU): provisioning of MN location information to
the LM function;
5. Routing Control (RC): this logical function configures the
forwarding state of the mobility routing function.
4. Functional Representation of Existing Mobility Protocols
This section shows that existing mobility management protocols can be
expressed as different configurations of the logical functions
introduced in Section 3 above.
Using these generic logical functions, we will build up the existing
mobility protocols one step at a time in the following sequence:
MIPv6, PMIPv6, HMIPv6, and HAHA. Functions are added and modified as
needed in each step.
4.1. Mobile IPv6
Figure 1 shows Mobile IPv6 [RFC6275] in a functional representation.
The combination of the logical functions MR, LM and HoA allocation in
network1 is the home agent or the mobility anchor. The mobile node
MN11 was originally attached to Network1 and was allocated the IP
prefix for its home address HoA11. After some time, MN11 moved to
Network3, from which it is allocated a new prefix to configure the IP
address IP32. LM1 maintains the binding HoA11:IP32 so that packets
from CN21 in Network2 destined to HoA11 will be intercepted by MR1,
which will then tunnel them to IP32. MN11 must perform mobility
signaling using the LU function.
Chan, et al. Expires August 23, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft DMM-framework February 2013
Network1 Network3 Network2
+-----+
| LM1 |
+-----+
location=IP32
HoA1 alc IP3 alc IP2 alc
|
|
+-----+
| MR1 |
+-----+
.
. +----+ +----+ +----+
. |MN31| |MN11| |CN21|
. | | |+LU | | |
. +----+ +----+ +----+
HoA11 IP31 IP32,
HoA11
Figure 1. Functional decomposition of Mobile IPv6.
4.2. MIPv6 versus PMIPv6
MIPv6 and PMIPv6 both employ the same concept of separating the
session identifier from the routing address into the HoA and CoA,
respectively. Figure 2 contrasts (a) MIPv6 and (b) PMIPv6 by showing
the destination IP address in the network-layer header as a packet
traverses from a CN to an MN.
(a) MIPv6:
+---+ +---+---+ +---+
|HoA| --> |HoA|HoA| |HoA|
| | | |---| |---|
| | | |CoA| ==> |CoA|
+---+ +---+---+ +---+
CN MR MN+LU
(b) PMIPv6:
+---+ +---+---+ +---+---+ +---+
|HoA| --> |HoA|HoA| |HoA|HoA| --> |HoA|
| | | |---| |---| | | |
| | | |CoA| ==> |CoA| | | |
+---+ +---+---+ +---+---+ +---+
CN MR AR+LU MN
Figure 2. Network layer in the protocol stack of packets sent from
the CN and tunneled (a) to the MN+LU in MIPv6; and (b) to the AR+LU
in PMIPv6 showing the destination IP address as the packet traverses
Chan, et al. Expires August 23, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft DMM-framework February 2013
from the CN to the MN.
Figure 2 shows that, as far as data-plane traffic is concerned,
routing from CN to MN+LU in MIPv6 is similar to the route from CN to
AR+LU in PMIPv6. The difference is in that the MN with the LU
function is substituted by the combination of the AR with the LU
function and the MN. While additional signaling is needed to enable
the combination of AR+LU and MN to behave like MN+LU, such signaling
can be confined between the AR+LU and MN only. It can therefore be
seen under this unified formulation, that a host-based mobility
management protocol can be translated using this substitution into a
network-based mobility management protocol and vice versa.
MIPv6 and PMIPv6 bundle all three mobility management logical
functions: LM1, IP1 prefix allocation, and MR1 into the home agent
(HA) and Local Mobility Anchor (LMA) respectively.
The functional representation of Proxy Mobile IPv6 [RFC5213] is shown
in Figure 3. In PMIPv6, the combination of LM, MR, and HoA
allocation is the Local Mobility Anchor (LMA), whereas the AR+LU
combination together with additional signaling with MN comprises the
Mobile Access Gateway (MAG). Here MN11 is attached to the access
router AR31 which has the IP address IP31 in Network3. LM1 maintains
the binding HoA11:IP31. The access router AR31 also behaves like a
home link to MN11 so that MN11 can use its original IP address HoA11.
Chan, et al. Expires August 23, 2013 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft DMM-framework February 2013
Network1 Network3 Network2
+-----+
| LM1 |
+-----+
HoA1 alc IP3 alc IP2 alc
|
|
+-----+
| MR1 |
+-----+
.
. +----+ +----+
. |AR31| |CN21|
. |+LU | | |
. +----+ +----+
HoA11 IP31
|
|
+----+
|MN11|
+----+
HoA11
Figure 3. Functional representation of PMIPv6.
4.3. Hierarchical Mobile IPv6
The functional representation of Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 [RFC5380]
is shown in Figure 4.
Chan, et al. Expires August 23, 2013 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft DMM-framework February 2013
Network1 Network3 Network2
+-----+
| LM1 |
+-----+
HoA1 alc IP3 alc IP2 alc
|
|
+-----+ +-----+
| MR1 | | MR3 |
| | |+ LM |
| | |proxy|
+-----+ +-----+
. / \
. / \
. / \
. +----+ +----+ +----+
. |AR31| |MN11| |CN21|
. |+LU | |+LU | | |
. +----+ +----+ +----+
HoA11 IP31 IP32,
| HoA11
|
+----+
|MN31|
+----+
Figure 4. Functional representation of Hierarchical Mobile IPv6.
Besides the logical functions: LM1, MR1, and HoA1 prefix allocation
in Network1 as MIPv6 in Figure 2 and PMIPv6 in Figure 3, there is an
MR function (MR3) in the visited network (Network3). MR3 is also a
proxy between LM1 and MN11 in the hierarchical LM function LM1--MR3--
MN11. That is, LM1 maintains the LM binding HoA11:MR3 while MR3
keeps the LM binding HoA11:IP32. The combined function of MR and the
LM proxy function is the Mobility Anchor Point (MAP).
In Figure 4, if MN11 takes the place of MN31 which is attached to
AR31, the resulting mobility management becomes network-based.
4.4. Distributing mobility anchors
It is possible to repeat the mobility anchoring function for any of
MIPv6, PMIPv6, or HMIPv6, in multiple networks as shown in Figure 5
which shows such an example with three networks.
Chan, et al. Expires August 23, 2013 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft DMM-framework February 2013
Network1 Network3 Network2
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+
| LM1 | | LM3 | | LM2 |
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+
HoA1 alc HoA3 alc HoA2 alc
| | |
| | |
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+
| MR1 | | MR3 | | MR2 |
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+
. / \
. / \
. / \
. +----+ +----+ +----+
. |AR31| |MN11| |CN21|
. |+LU | |+LU | | |
. +----+ +----+ +----+
HoA11 IP31 IP32,
| HoA11
|
+----+
|MN31|
+----+
Figure 5. Functional representation of distributing mobility
anchors.
4.5. Migrating Home Agents
When all these logical functions are bundled into one single entity
e.g., a home agent in MIPv6 or a local mobility anchor in PMIPv6, in
a single network, the result is triangular routing when the MN and
the CN are in networks close to each other but are far from the
anchor point.
A method to solve the triangle routing problem is to duplicate the
anchor points in many networks in different geographic locations as
in [Paper-Migrating.Home.Agents]. A functional representation of
Migrating Home Agents is shown in Figure 6.
Chan, et al. Expires August 23, 2013 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft DMM-framework February 2013
Network1 Network3 Network2
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+
| LM0 |------| LM0 |------| LM0 |
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+
HoA1 alc HoA3 alc HoA2 alc
| | |
| | |
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+
| MR1 | | MR3 | | MR2 |
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+
. / \
. / \
. / \
. +----+ +----+ +----+
. |AR31| |MN11| |CN21|
. +----+ +----+ +----+
HoA11 IP31 IP32,
| HoA11
|
+----+
|MN31|
+----+
Figure 6. Functional representation of Migrating Home Agents.
Here, the MR function is available in each of the three networks
Network1, Network2, and Network3. The LM function in each network
(LM0) contains the LM information for all networks. Each MR in each
network advertises the HoA IP prefixes of all these networks using
anycast. Traffic from CN21 in Network2 destined to HoA11 will
therefore be intercepted by the MR nearest to CN, which is MR2.
Using the LM information in LM0, MR2 will use the binding HoA11:IP32
to tunnel the packets to MN11.
Similarly, traffic originating from MN11 will be served by its
nearest MR (MR3). Triangular routing is therefore avoided. Yet the
synchronization of all home agents becomes a challenge as discussed
in [Paper-SMGI]. In addition, the amount of signaling traffic needed
in synchronizing the home agents may become excessive when both the
number of mobile nodes and the number of home agents increase.
As before, if MN11 in Figure 6 takes the place of MN31 which is
attached to AR31, the resulting mobility management becomes network-
based.
Chan, et al. Expires August 23, 2013 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft DMM-framework February 2013
5. DMM Functional Scenarios
This section covers the functional description of DMM. Basically,
the scenario presents a way to distribute the logical mobility
functions. Gap analysis will be made on the functional scenarios.
5.1. Flat Network Scenario
In a flat network, the logical functions in the functional
representation may all be located at the AR as shown in Figures 7 and
8, respectively. These two figures depict the network- and client-
based distributed mobility management scenarios. The AR is expected
to support the HoA allocation function. Then, depending on the
mobility situation of the MN, the AR can run different functions:
1. the AR can act as a legacy IP router;
2. the AR can provide the MR function (i.e. act as mobility anchor);
3. the AR can provide the LU functions;
4. the AR can provide both MR and LU functions.
For example, [I-D.seite-dmm-dma] and [I-D.bernardos-dmm-distributed-
anchoring] are PMIPv6 based implementation of this scenario.
5.1.1. Network-based Mobility Management
The functional description of network-based mobility management is
depicted in Figure 7.
In case (1), MN1 attaches to AR1. AR advertises prefix HoA1 to MN1
and then acts as a legacy IP router. MN1 initiates a communication
with CN11.
In case (2), MN1 performs a handover from AR1 to AR3 while
maintaining ongoing IP communication with CN11. AR1 becomes the
mobility anchor for the MN1-CN11 IP communication: AR1 runs MR and LM
functions for MN1. AR3 performs LU up to the LM in AR1: AR3
indicates to AR1 the new location of the MN1. AR3 allocates a new IP
prefix (HoA3) for new IP communications. HoA3 is supposed to be used
for new IP communication, e.g., if MN1 initiates IP communication
with CN21. AR3 shall act as a legacy IP router for MN1-CN21
communication.
In case (3), MN1 performs a handover from AR1 to AR2 with ongoing IP
communication with CN11 and CN21. AR1 is the mobility anchor for the
Chan, et al. Expires August 23, 2013 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft DMM-framework February 2013
MN1-CN11 IP communication. AR3 becomes the mobility anchor for the
MN1-CN21 IP communication. Both AR1 and AR3 run MR and LM functions
for MN1, respectively, anchoring HoA1 and HoA3. AR2 performs
location updates up to the LMs in AR1 and AR3 for respectively
relocate HoA1 and HoA3.
Network1 Network1 Network3
+----+ HoA1 alc +----+ HoA1 alc HoA3 al +----+
|CN11| +-----+ |CN11| +-----+ +-----+ |CN21|
| |------| | | |------| MR1 |------| |------- | |
+----+ | | +----+ | LM1 |------|LU31 | +----+
| AR1 | | AR1 | |AR3 |
| | | | | |
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+
| |
| |
| |
+----+ +----+
|MN1 | |MN1 |
| | | |
+----+ +----+
HoA11 HoA11,
HoA31
(1) (2)
Network2
Network1 HoA2 al
+----+ HoA1 alc +-----+
|CN11| +-----+ | |
| |------| MR1 |-----------------|LU21 |-------+
+----+ | LM1 |-----------------|AR2 | |
| AR1 | | | |
| | Network3 +-----+ |
+-----+ HoA3 al | | +----+
+-----+ | | |MN1 |
+----+ |MR3 |------ | | |
|CN21| |LM3 |-------- +----+
| |------| | HoA11,
+----+ |AR3 | HoA31
+-----+ (3)
Figure 7. Network-based DMM architecture for a flat network.
5.1.2. Client-based Mobility Management
The functional description of client-based mobility management is
depicted in Figure 8.
Chan, et al. Expires August 23, 2013 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft DMM-framework February 2013
In case (1), MN1 attaches to AR1. AR advertises the prefix HoA1 to
MN1 then acts as a legacy IP router. MN1 initiates a communication
with CN11.
In case (2), MN1 performs a handover from AR1 to AR3 with ongoing IP
communication with CN11. AR1 becomes the mobility anchor for the
MN1-CN11 IP communication: AR1 runs MR and LM functions for MN1. The
MN performs LU directly up to the LM in AR1 or via AR3; in this case
AR3 acts as a proxy locator (pLU) (e.g. as a FA in MIPv4). AR3
allocates a new IP prefix (HoA3) for new IP communications. HoA3 is
supposed to be used for new IP communications, e.g., if MN1 initiates
IP communication with CN21. AR3 shall act as a legacy IP router for
MN1-CN21 communication.
Network1 Network1 Network3
+----+ HoA1 alc +----+ HoA1 alc +----+
|CN11| +-----+ |CN | +-----+ +-----+ |CN21|
| |------| | | |------| MR1 |------| |------- | |
+----+ | | +----+ | LM1 |------|pLU31| +----+
| AR1 | | AR1 | |AR31 |
| | | | | |
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+
| |
| |
| |
+----+ +----+
|MN1 | |MN1 |
| | |LU31|
+----+ +----+
HoA11 HoA11,
IP31
(1) (2)
Figure 8. Client-based DMM architecture for a flat network.
5.2. Fully distributed scenario with separation of control and data
planes
This scenario considers multiple MRs and a distributed LM database.
The different use case scenarios of distributed mobility management
are described in [I-D.yokota-dmm-scenario] as well as in [Paper-
Distributed.Mobility.Review]. The architecture described in this
document is mainly on separating the data plane from the control
plane.
Chan, et al. Expires August 23, 2013 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft DMM-framework February 2013
Figure 9 shows an example DMM architecture with the same three
networks as in Figure 5. As is in Figure 5, each network in Figure 9
has its own IP prefix allocation function. In the data plane, the
mobility routing function is distributed to multiple locations at the
MRs so that routing can be optimized. In the control plane, the MRs
may exchange signaling with each other. In addition to these
features in Figure 5, the LM function in Figure 9 is a distributed
database, with multiple servers, of the mapping of HoA to CoA.
Network1 Network3 Network2
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+
| LM1 | | LM3 | | LM2 |
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+
HoA1 alc HoA3 alc HoA2 alc
| \ \ / | \ / / |
| \ \ / | \ / / |
| \ \/ | \/ / |
| \ / \ | / \ / |
| \/ \|/ \/ |
| /\ /|\ /\ |
| / \ / | \ / \ |
| / /\ | /\ \ |
| / / \ | / \ \ |
| / / \ | / \ \ |
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+
| MR1 |------| MR3 |------| MR2 |
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+
. / \
. / \
. / \
. +----+ +----+ +----+
. |AR31| |MN11| |CN21|
. |+LU | |+LU | | |
. +----+ +----+ +----+
HoA11 IP31 IP32,
| HoA11
|
+----+
|MN31|
+----+
Figure 9. A distributed architecture for mobility management.
To perform mobility routing, the MRs need the location information
which is maintained at the LMs. The MRs are therefore the clients of
the LM servers and may also send location updates to the LM as the
MNs perform the handover. The location information may either be
Chan, et al. Expires August 23, 2013 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft DMM-framework February 2013
pulled from the LM servers by the MR, or pushed to the MR by the LM
servers. In addition, the MR may also cache a limited amount of
location information.
This figure shows three MRs (MR1, MR2, and MR3) in three networks.
MN11 has moved from the first network supported by MR1 and LM1 to the
third network supported by MR3 and LM3. It may use an HoA (HoA11)
allocated to it when it was in the first network for those
application sessions that had already started when MN11 was attached
there and that require session continuity after the handover to the
third network. When MN11 was in the first network, no location
management is needed so that LM1 will not keep an entry of HoA11.
After MN11 has performed its handover to the third network, the
database server LM1 maintains a mapping of HoA11 to MR3. That is,
LM1 points to the third network and it is the third network that will
keep track of how to reach MN11. Such a hierarchical mapping can
prevent frequent update signaling to LM1 as MN11 performs intra-
network handover within the third network. In other words, the
concept of hierarchical mobile IP [RFC5380] is applied here but only
in location management and not in routing in the data plane.
6. Security Considerations
TBD
7. IANA Considerations
None
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
8.2. Informative References
[I-D.bernardos-dmm-distributed-anchoring]
Bernardos, CJ. and JC. Zuniga, "PMIPv6-based distributed
anchoring", draft-bernardos-dmm-distributed-anchoring-01
(work in progress), September 2012.
[I-D.bernardos-dmm-pmip]
Bernardos, C., Oliva, A., Giust, F., Melia, T., and R.
Chan, et al. Expires August 23, 2013 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft DMM-framework February 2013
Costa, "A PMIPv6-based solution for Distributed Mobility
Management", draft-bernardos-dmm-pmip-01 (work in
progress), March 2012.
[I-D.jikim-dmm-pmip]
Kim, J., Koh, S., Jung, H., and Y. Han, "Use of Proxy
Mobile IPv6 for Distributed Mobility Management",
draft-jikim-dmm-pmip-00 (work in progress), March 2012.
[I-D.liebsch-mext-dmm-nat-phl]
Liebsch, M., "Per-Host Locators for Distributed Mobility
Management", draft-liebsch-mext-dmm-nat-phl-02 (work in
progress), October 2012.
[I-D.liu-dmm-dynamic-anchor-discussion]
Liu, D., Deng, H., and W. Luo, "DMM Dynamic Anchor
Discussion", draft-liu-dmm-dynamic-anchor-discussion-00
(work in progress), March 2012.
[I-D.liu-dmm-pmip-based-approach]
Liu, D., Song, J., and W. Luo, "PMIP Based DMM
Approaches", draft-liu-dmm-pmip-based-approach-02 (work in
progress), March 2012.
[I-D.luo-dmm-pmip-based-dmm-approach]
Luo, W. and J. Liu, "PMIP Based DMM Approaches",
draft-luo-dmm-pmip-based-dmm-approach-01 (work in
progress), March 2012.
[I-D.ma-dmm-armip]
Ma, Z. and X. Zhang, "An AR-level solution support for
Distributed Mobility Management", draft-ma-dmm-armip-00
(work in progress), February 2012.
[I-D.patil-dmm-issues-and-approaches2dmm]
Patil, B., Williams, C., and J. Korhonen, "Approaches to
Distributed mobility management using Mobile IPv6 and its
extensions", draft-patil-dmm-issues-and-approaches2dmm-00
(work in progress), March 2012.
[I-D.sarikaya-dmm-dmipv6]
Sarikaya, B., "Distributed Mobile IPv6",
draft-sarikaya-dmm-dmipv6-00 (work in progress),
February 2012.
[I-D.seite-dmm-dma]
Seite, P. and P. Bertin, "Distributed Mobility Anchoring",
draft-seite-dmm-dma-05 (work in progress), July 2012.
Chan, et al. Expires August 23, 2013 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft DMM-framework February 2013
[I-D.xue-dmm-routing-optimization]
Xue, K., Li, L., Hong, P., and P. McCann, "Routing
optimization in DMM",
draft-xue-dmm-routing-optimization-00 (work in progress),
June 2012.
[I-D.yokota-dmm-scenario]
Yokota, H., Seite, P., Demaria, E., and Z. Cao, "Use case
scenarios for Distributed Mobility Management",
draft-yokota-dmm-scenario-00 (work in progress),
October 2010.
[MHA] Wakikawa, R., Valadon, G., and J. Murai, "Migrating Home
Agents Towards Internet-scale Mobility Deployments",
Proceedings of the ACM 2nd CoNEXT Conference on Future
Networking Technologies, Lisboa, Portugal, December 2006.
[Paper-Distributed.Centralized.Mobility]
Bertin, P., Bonjour, S., and J-M. Bonnin, "Distributed or
Centralized Mobility?", Proceedings of Global
Communications Conference (GlobeCom), December 2009.
[Paper-Distributed.Dynamic.Mobility]
Bertin, P., Bonjour, S., and J-M. Bonnin, "A Distributed
Dynamic Mobility Management Scheme Designed for Flat IP
Architectures", Proceedings of 3rd International
Conference on New Technologies, Mobility and Security
(NTMS), 2008.
[Paper-Distributed.Mobility.Management]
Chan, H., "Distributed Mobility Management with Mobile
IP", Proceedings of IEEE ICC 2012 Workshop on
Telecommunications: from Research to Standards, June 2012.
[Paper-Distributed.Mobility.PMIP]
Chan, H., "Proxy Mobile IP with Distributed Mobility
Anchors", Proceedings of GlobeCom Workshop on Seamless
Wireless Mobility, December 2010.
[Paper-Distributed.Mobility.Review]
Chan, H., Yokota, H., Xie, J., Seite, P., and D. Liu,
"Distributed and Dynamic Mobility Management in Mobile
Internet: Current Approaches and Issues", February 2011.
[Paper-Host.based.DMM]
Lee, JH., Bonnin, JM., and X. Lagrange, "Host-based
Distributed Mobility Management Support Protocol for IPv6
Mobile Networks", Proceedings of IEEE WiMob, Barcelona,
Chan, et al. Expires August 23, 2013 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft DMM-framework February 2013
Spain, October 2012.
[Paper-Migrating.Home.Agents]
Wakikawa, R., Valadon, G., and J. Murai, "Migrating Home
Agents Towards Internet-scale Mobility Deployments",
Proceedings of the ACM 2nd CoNEXT Conference on Future
Networking Technologies, December 2006.
[Paper-Net.based.DMM]
Giust, F., de la Oliva, A., Bernardos, CJ., and RPF. Da
Costa, "A network-based localized mobility solution for
Distributed Mobility Management", Proceedings of 14th
International Symposium on Wireless Personal Multimedia
Communications (WPMC), October 2011.
[Paper-SMGI]
Zhang, L., Wakikawa, R., and Z. Zhu, "Support Mobility in
the Global Internet", Proceedings of ACM Workshop on
MICNET, MobiCom 2009, Beijing, China, September 2009.
[RFC4068] Koodli, R., "Fast Handovers for Mobile IPv6", RFC 4068,
July 2005.
[RFC4988] Koodli, R. and C. Perkins, "Mobile IPv4 Fast Handovers",
RFC 4988, October 2007.
[RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V., Chowdhury, K.,
and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 5213, August 2008.
[RFC5380] Soliman, H., Castelluccia, C., ElMalki, K., and L.
Bellier, "Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 (HMIPv6) Mobility
Management", RFC 5380, October 2008.
[RFC5949] Yokota, H., Chowdhury, K., Koodli, R., Patil, B., and F.
Xia, "Fast Handovers for Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 5949,
September 2010.
[RFC6275] Perkins, C., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support
in IPv6", RFC 6275, July 2011.
Chan, et al. Expires August 23, 2013 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft DMM-framework February 2013
Authors' Addresses
H Anthony Chan
Huawei Technologies
5340 Legacy Dr. Building 3, Plano, TX 75024, USA
Email: h.a.chan@ieee.org
Pierrick Seite
France Telecom - Orange
4, rue du Clos Courtel, BP 91226, Cesson-Sevigne 35512, France
Email: pierrick.seite@orange-ftgroup.com
Kostas Pentikousis
Huawei Technologies
Carnotstr. 4 10587 Berlin, Germany
Email: k.pentikousis@huawei.com
Chan, et al. Expires August 23, 2013 [Page 20]