Diameter Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6 Localized Routing
draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-14
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 7156.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Glen Zorn , Qin Wu , Marco Liebsch , Jouni Korhonen | ||
| Last updated | 2012-07-13 | ||
| Replaces | draft-wu-dime-pmip6-lr | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | Lionel Morand | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show Last changed 2011-12-13 | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 7156 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date |
(None)
Needs a YES. Needs 10 more YES or NO OBJECTION positions to pass. |
||
| Responsible AD | Benoît Claise | ||
| IESG note | |||
| Send notices to | dime-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr@tools.ietf.org |
draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-14
Network Working Group G. Zorn
Internet-Draft Network Zen
Intended status: Standards Track Q. Wu
Expires: January 14, 2013 Huawei
M. Liebsch
NEC
J. Korhonen
NSN
July 13, 2012
Diameter Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6 Localized Routing
draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-14
Abstract
In Proxy Mobile IPv6, packets received from a Mobile Node (MN) by the
Mobile Access Gateway (MAG) to which it is attached are typically
tunneled to a Local Mobility Anchor (LMA) for routing. The term
"localized routing" refers to a method by which packets are routed
directly between an MN's MAG and the MAG of its Correspondent Node
(CN) without involving any LMA. In order to establish a localized
routing session between two Mobile Access Gateways in a Proxy Mobile
IPv6 domain, the usage of localized routing may be authorized for
both MAGs. This document specifies how to accomplish this using the
Diameter protocol.
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 January 14, 2013.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Zorn, et al. Expires January 14, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft PMIP6 Localized Routing Support July 2012
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. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Solution Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Attribute Value Pair Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. User-Name AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. PMIP6-IPv4-Home-Address AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.3. MIP6-Home-Link-Prefix AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.4. MIP6-Feature-Vector AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Example Signaling Flows for Localized Routing Service
Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Zorn, et al. Expires January 14, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft PMIP6 Localized Routing Support July 2012
1. Introduction
Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) [RFC5213] allows the Mobility Access
Gateway to optimize media delivery by locally routing packets from a
Mobile Node to a Correspondent Node that is locally attached to an
access link connected to the same Mobile Access Gateway, avoiding
tunneling them to the Mobile Node's Local Mobility Anchor. This is
referred to as "local routing" in RFC 5213. However, this mechanism
is not applicable to the typical scenarios in which the MN and CN are
connected to different MAGs and are registered to the same LMA or
different LMAs. [RFC6279] defines the problem statement for PMIPv6
localized routing. [I-D.ietf-netext-pmip-lr] specifies the PMIPv6
localized routing protocol based on the scenarios A11, A12, and A21
[RFC6279]. In these scenarios the information needed to set up a
localized routing path (e.g., the addresses of the Mobile Access
Gateways to which the MN and CN are respectively attached) is
distributed between their respective Local Mobility Anchors. This
may complicate the setup and maintenance of localized routing.
Therefore, in order to establish a localized routing path between the
two Mobile Access Gateways, the Mobile Node's MAG must obtain the
address of the Correspondent Node's MAG from the LMA that is managing
the Correspondent Node's traffic. In Diameter Proxy Mobile IPv6
[RFC5779], the AAA interactions between an Authentication,
Authorization and Accounting (AAA) server and the LMA can be used to
authorize the received Proxy Binding Update from the MAG. However,
there is no relevant work discussing how AAA-based mechanisms can be
used to provide authorization to the Mobile Node's MAG or LMA for
enabling localized routing.
This document describes Diameter [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis] support
for the authorization of PMIPv6 mobility entities in case of
A11,A12,A21 during localized routing.
2. Terminology
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].
3. Solution Overview
This document addresses how to provide authorization to the Mobile
Node's MAG or LMA for enabling localized routing and resolve the
destination MN's MAG by means of interaction between the LMA and the
AAA server. Figure 1 shows the reference architecture for Localized
Zorn, et al. Expires January 14, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft PMIP6 Localized Routing Support July 2012
Routing Service Authorization. This reference architecture assumes
that
o If MN and CN belong to different LMAs, MN and CN should share the
same MAG(e.g., MN1 and CN2 in Figure 1 are attached to the same
MAG1 and belong to LMA1 and LMA2 respectively ). Note that LMA1
and LMA2 in Figure 1 are in the same provider domain (as described
in [RFC6279]).
o If MN and CN are attached to the different MAGs, MN and CN should
belong to the same LMA (e.g., MN1 and CN3 in theFigure 1 are
attached to the MAG1 and MAG3 respectively but belong to LMA1 ).
o MN and CN may belong to the same LMA and are attached to the same
MAG,e.g.,MN1 and CN1 in the Figure 1 are both attached to the MAG1
and belong to LMA1.
o The MAG and LMA support Diameter client functionality.
+---------+
+---------------------->| AAA & |
| +------>| Policy |
| | | Profile |
| Diameter +---------+
| |
| CN's MAG?+--V-+ +----+
| +------->|LMA1| |LMA2|
| | +---++ +----+
| | | | |
Diameter | | +-------+---------
| | | | |
| | | | \\
| | // // \\
| PMIP // // \\
| | // // \\
| | | | |
| +---->+---------------+ +----+
| | MAG1 | |MAG3|
+-------->+---------------+ +----+
: : : :
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
|MN1| |CN1| |CN2| |CN3|
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
Figure 1: Localized Routing Service Authorization Reference
Architecture
Zorn, et al. Expires January 14, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft PMIP6 Localized Routing Support July 2012
The interaction of the MAG and LMA with the AAA server according to
the extension specified in this document is used to authorize the
localized routing service.
4. Attribute Value Pair Definitions
This section describes Attribute Value Pairs (AVPs) defined by this
specification or re-used from existing specifications in a PMIPv6-
specific way.
4.1. User-Name AVP
The User-Name AVP (AVP Code 1) is defined in
[I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis]. This AVP is used to carry the MN-
Identifier (Mobile Node identifier) [RFC5213] in the AA-Request (AAR)
message [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc4005bis].
4.2. PMIP6-IPv4-Home-Address AVP
The PMIP6-IPv4-Home-Address AVP (AVP Code 505) is defined in
[RFC5779]. This AVP is used to carry the IPv4-MN-HoA (Mobile Node's
IPv4 home address)[RFC5844] in the AA-Request (AAR) message
[I-D.ietf-dime-rfc4005bis].
4.3. MIP6-Home-Link-Prefix AVP
The MIP6-Home-Link-Prefix AVP (AVP Code 125) is defined in [RFC5779].
This AVP is used to carry the MN-HNP (Mobile Node's home network
prefix) in the AAR.
4.4. MIP6-Feature-Vector AVP
The MIP6-Feature-Vector AVP is defined in [RFC5447]. This document
allocates a new capability flag bit according to the IANA rules in
RFC 5447.
INTER_MAG_ROUTING_SUPPORTED (TBD)
Direct routing of IP packets between MNs anchored to different
MAGs without involving any LMA is supported. This bit is used
with MN-Identifier. When a MAG or LMA sets this bit in the MIP6-
Feature-Vector and MN-Identifier corresponding to the Mobile Node
is carried with this bit, it indicates to the HAAA that the Mobile
Node associated with this LMA is allowed to use localized routing.
When a MAG or LMA sets this bit in the MIP6-Feature-Vector and MN-
Identifiers corresponding to the Mobile Node and Correspondent
Node are both carried with this bit, it indicates to the HAAA that
Zorn, et al. Expires January 14, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft PMIP6 Localized Routing Support July 2012
localized routing of IP packets between Mobile Node and
Correspondent Node anchored to different MAGs is supported. If
this bit is cleared in the returned MIP6- Feature-Vector AVP, the
HAAA does not authorize direct routing of packets between MNs
anchored to the different MAG. The MAG and LMA MUST support this
policy feature on a per-MN and per-subscription basis.
5. Example Signaling Flows for Localized Routing Service Authorization
Localized Routing Service Authorization can happen during the network
access authentication procedure [RFC5779] before localized routing is
initialized. In this case, the preauthorized pairs of LMA/prefix
sets can be downloaded to Proxy Mobile IPv6 entities during the RFC
5779 procedure. Localized routing can be initiated once the
destination of a received packet matches one or more of the prefixes
received during the RFC 5779 procedure.
Figure 2 shows an example scenario in which MAG1 acts as a Diameter
client, processing the data packet from MN1 to MN2 and requesting
authorization of localized routing (i.e.,MAG-Initiated LR
authorization). In this example scenario, MN1 and MN2 are attached
to the same MAG and anchored to the different LMAs (i.e.,A12
described in [RFC6279]). In this case, MAG1 knows that MN2 belongs
to a different LMA (which can be determined by looking up the binding
cache entries corresponding to MN1 and MN2 and comparing the
addresses of LMA1 and LMA2). In order to setup a localized routing
path with MAG2, MAG1 acts as Diameter client and sends an AAR message
to the Diameter server. The message contains an instance of the
MIP6-Feature-Vector (MFV) AVP ([RFC5447], Section 4.2.5) with the
LOCAL_MAG_ROUTING_SUPPORTED bit ([RFC5779],Section 5.5 ) set,two
instances of the User-Name AVP ([I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis], Section
8.14)containing MN1-Identifier and MN2-Identifier. In addition, the
message may contain either an instance of the MIP6-Home-Link-Prefix
AVP ([RFC5779], Section 5.3) or an instance of the PMIP6-IPv4- Home-
Address AVP ([RFC5779], Section 5.2) containing the IP address/ HNP
of MN1.
The Diameter server authorizes localized routing service by checking
if MN1 and MN2 are allowed to use localized routing. If so, the
Diameter server responds with an AAA message encapsulating an
instance of the MIP6-Feature-Vector (MFV) AVP ([RFC5447], Section
4.2.5) with the the LOCAL_MAG_ROUTING_SUPPORTED bit
([RFC5779],Section 5.5) set indicating direct routing of IP packets
between MNs anchored to the same MAG is supported. MAG1 then knows
the localized routing between MN1 and MN2 is allowed. Then MAG1
sends the Request messages respectively to LMA1 and LMA2. The
request message is the Localized Routing Initialization (LRI) message
Zorn, et al. Expires January 14, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft PMIP6 Localized Routing Support July 2012
in Figure 2 and belongs to the Initial phase of the localized
routing. LMA1 and LMA2 responds to MAG1 using the Localized Routing
Acknowledge message (LRA inFigure 2 ) in accordance with
[I-D.ietf-netext-pmip-lr].
In case of LRA_WAIT_TIME expiration [I-D.ietf-netext-pmip-lr],MAG1
should ask for authorization of localized routing again according to
the procedure described above before LRI is retransmitted up to a
maximum of LRI_RETRIES.
+---+ +---+ +----+ +----+ +---+ +----+
|MN2| |MN1| |MAG1| |LMA1| |AAA| |LMA2|
+-|-+ +-+-+ +-+--+ +-+--+ +-+-+ +-+--+
| | Anchored | | |
o---------------------------------------------o
| | Anchored | | |
| o------------------o | |
| Data[MN1->MN2] | | |
| |------->| | | |
| | | AAR(MFV, MN1,MN2) | |
| | |------------------->| |
| | | AAA(MFV, LMA) | |
| | |<-------------------| |
| | | LRI | | |
| | |-------->| | |
| | | | LRI | |
| | |--------------------------->|
| | | LRA | | |
| | |<--------| | |
| | | | LRA | |
| | |<---------------------------|
Figure 2: MAG-initiated Localized Routing Authorization in A12
Figure 3 shows the second example scenario, in which LMA1 acts as a
Diameter client, processing the data packet from MN2 to MN1 and
requesting the authorization of localized routing. In this scenario,
MN1 and MN2 are attached to the different MAG and anchored to the
same LMA (i.e., A21 described in [RFC6279] ), LMA knows that MN1 and
MN2 belong to the same LMA (which can be determined by looking up the
binding cache entries corresponding to MN1 and MN2 and comparing the
addresses of LMA corresponding to MN1 and LMA corresponding to MN2).
In contrast with the signaling flow shown in Figure 2, it is LMA1
instead of MAG1 which initiates the setup of the localized routing
path.
The Diameter client in LMA1 sends an AA-Request message to the
Zorn, et al. Expires January 14, 2013 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft PMIP6 Localized Routing Support July 2012
Diameter server. The message contains an instance of the MIP6-
Feature-Vector (MFV) AVP ([RFC5447], Section 4.2.5) with the
INTER_MAG_ROUTING_SUPPORTED bit (Section 4.5) set indicating direct
routing of IP packets between MNs anchored to different MAGs is
supported and two instances of the User-Name AVP
([I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis], Section 8.14)containing MN1-Identifier
and MN2-Identifier. The Diameter server authorizes the localized
routing service by checking if MN1 and MN2 are allowed to use
localized routing. If so, the Diameter server responds with an AA-
Answer message encapsulating an instance of the MIP6-Feature-Vector
(MFV) AVP ([RFC5447], Section 4.2.5) with the
INTER_MAG_ROUTING_SUPPORTED bit (Section 4.5) set indicating direct
routing of IP packets between MNs anchored to different MAGs is
supported. LMA1 then knows the localized routing is allowed. In
success case, LMA1 responds to MAG1 in accordance with
[I-D.ietf-netext-pmip-lr].
In case of LRA_WAIT_TIME expiration [I-D.ietf-netext-pmip-lr],LMA1
should ask for authorization of localized routing again according to
the procedure described above before LRI is retransmitted up to a
maximum of LRI_RETRIES.
+---+ +----+ +----+ +---+ +----+ +---+
|MN1| |MAG1| |LMA1| |AAA| |MAG2| |MN2|
+-+-+ +-+--+ +-+--+ +-+-+ +-+--+ +-+-+
| | | Anchored | |
| Anchored o-------------------+--------o
o--------+-------o Data[MN2->MN1] | |
| | |<----- | | |
| | |AAR(MFV,MN1,MN2) | |
| | |--------->| | |
| | |AAA(MFV,LMA) | |
| | LRI |<---------| | |
| |<------| LRI | |
| | LRA |------------------>| |
| |------>| LRA | |
| | |<------------------| |
Figure 3: LMA-initiated Localized Routing Authorization in A21
Figure 4 shows another example scenario, in which LMA1 acts as a
Diameter client, processing the data packet from MN2 to MN1 and
requesting the authorization of localized routing. In this scenario,
MN1 and MN2 are attached to the same MAG and anchored to the same LMA
(i.e., A11 described in [RFC6279]), LMA knows that MN1 and MN2 belong
to the same LMA (which can be determined by looking up the binding
cache entries corresponding to MN1 and MN2 and comparing the
Zorn, et al. Expires January 14, 2013 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft PMIP6 Localized Routing Support July 2012
addresses of LMA corresponding to MN1 and LMA corresponding to MN2).
The Diameter client in LMA1 sends an AA-Request message to the
Diameter server. The message contains an instance of the MIP6-
Feature-Vector AVP ([RFC5447], Section 4.2.5) with the
LOCAL_MAG_ROUTING_SUPPORTED bit set and two instances of the User-
Name AVP ([I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis], Section 8.14)containing MN1-
Identifier and MN2-Identifier. The Diameter server authorizes the
localized routing service by checking if MN1 and MN2 are allowed to
use localized routing. If so, the Diameter server responds with an
AA- Answer message encapsulating an instance of the MIP6-Feature-
Vector (MFV) AVP ([RFC5447], Section 4.2.5) with the
LOCAL_MAG_ROUTING_SUPPORTED bit ([RFC5779],Section 5.5) set
indicating direct routing of IP packets between MNs anchored to the
same MAG is supported. LMA1 then knows the localized routing is
allowed and responds to MAG1 for localized routing in accordance with
[I-D.ietf-netext-pmip-lr].
In case of LRA_WAIT_TIME expiration [I-D.ietf-netext-pmip-lr], LMA1
should ask for authorization of localized routing again according to
the procedure described above before LRI is retransmitted up to a
maximum of LRI_RETRIES.
+---+ +---+ +----+ +----+ +---+
|MN2| |MN1| |MAG1| |LMA1| |AAA|
+-+-+ +-+-+ +-+--+ +-+--+ +-|-+
| | Anchored | |
o-----------------------o |
| | Anchored | |
| o--------+-------o Data[MN2->MN1]
| | | |<----- |
| | | |AAR(MFV,MN1,MN2)
| | | |--------->|
| | | |AAA(MFV,LMA)
| | | LRI |<---------|
| | |<------| |
| | | LRA | |
| | |------>| |
Figure 4: LMA-initiated Localized Routing Authorization in A11
6. Security Considerations
The security considerations for the Diameter NASREQ
[I-D.ietf-dime-rfc4005bis] and Diameter Proxy Mobile IPv6 [RFC5779]
applications are also applicable to this document.
Zorn, et al. Expires January 14, 2013 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft PMIP6 Localized Routing Support July 2012
The service authorization solicited by the MAG or the LMA relies upon
the existing trust relationship between the MAG/LMA and the AAA
server.
An authorised MAG could in principle track the movement of any
participating CNs at the level of the MAG to which they are anchored.
If such a MAG were compromised, or under the control of a bad-actor,
then such tracking could represent a privacy breach for the set of
tracked CNs. In such a case, the traffic pattern from the
compromised MAG might be notable so monitoring for e.g. excessive
queries from MAGs might be worthwhile.
7. IANA Considerations
This specification defines a new value in the Mobility Capability
registry [RFC5447] for use with the MIP6-Feature-Vector AVP:
INTER_MAG_ROUTING_SUPPORTED (see Section 4.4).
8. Contributors
Paulo Loureiro, Jinwei Xia and Yungui Wang all contributed to early
versions of this document.
9. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Carlos Jesus Bernardos Cano, Dan
Romascanu, Elwyn Davies, Basavaraj Patil, Ralph Droms, Stephen
Farrel, Robert Sparks, Benoit Claise and Abhay Roy for their valuable
comments and suggestions on this document.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis]
Fajardo, V., Arkko, J., Loughney, J., and G. Zorn,
"Diameter Base Protocol", draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-34
(work in progress), June 2012.
[I-D.ietf-dime-rfc4005bis]
Zorn, G., "Diameter Network Access Server Application",
draft-ietf-dime-rfc4005bis-09 (work in progress),
May 2012.
Zorn, et al. Expires January 14, 2013 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft PMIP6 Localized Routing Support July 2012
[I-D.ietf-netext-pmip-lr]
Krishnan, S., Koodli, R., Loureiro, P., Wu, Q., and A.
Dutta, "Localized Routing for Proxy Mobile IPv6",
draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr-10 (work in progress), May 2012.
[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.
[RFC5447] Korhonen, J., Bournelle, J., Tschofenig, H., Perkins, C.,
and K. Chowdhury, "Diameter Mobile IPv6: Support for
Network Access Server to Diameter Server Interaction",
RFC 5447, February 2009.
[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.
10.2. Informative References
[RFC6279] Liebsch, M., Jeong, S., and Q. Wu, "Proxy Mobile IPv6
(PMIPv6) Localized Routing Problem Statement", RFC 6279,
June 2011.
Authors' Addresses
Glen Zorn
Network Zen
227/358 Thanon Sanphawut
Bang Na, Bangkok 10260
Thailand
Phone: +66 (0) 87-040-4617
Email: glenzorn@gmail.com
Zorn, et al. Expires January 14, 2013 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft PMIP6 Localized Routing Support July 2012
Qin Wu
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
Nanjing, Jiangsu 21001
China
Phone: +86-25-84565892
Email: sunseawq@huawei.com
Marco Liebsch
NEC Europe Ltd.
Kurfuersten-Anlage 36
Heidelberg, 69115
Germany
Email: liebsch@nw.neclab.eu
Jouni Korhonen
Nokia Siemens Networks
Linnoitustie 6
Espoo FI-02600,
Finland
Email: jouni.nospam@gmail.com
Zorn, et al. Expires January 14, 2013 [Page 12]