Skip to main content

Logical-Interface Support for IP Hosts with Multi-Access Support

The information below is for an old version of the document that is already published as an RFC.
Document Type
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 7847.
Authors Telemaco Melia , Sri Gundavelli
Last updated 2016-05-09 (Latest revision 2016-03-13)
Replaces draft-yokota-netlmm-pmipv6-mn-itho-support
RFC stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Intended RFC status Informational
Additional resources Mailing list discussion
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication
Document shepherd Basavaraj Patil
Shepherd write-up Show Last changed 2016-01-20
IESG IESG state Became RFC 7847 (Informational)
Action Holders
Consensus boilerplate Yes
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD Brian Haberman
Send notices to (None)
IANA IANA review state Version Changed - Review Needed
IANA action state No IANA Actions
NETEXT WG                                                  T. Melia, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                         Kudelski Security
Intended status: Informational                        S. Gundavelli, Ed.
Expires: September 14, 2016                                        Cisco
                                                          March 13, 2016

      Logical-interface Support for Multi-access enabled IP Hosts


   A Logical-interface is a software semantic internal to the host
   operating system.  This semantic is available in all popular
   operating systems and is used in various protocol implementations.
   The Logical-interface support is required on the mobile node attached
   to a Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain, for leveraging various network-based
   mobility management features such as inter-technology handoffs,
   multihoming and flow mobility support.  This document explains the
   operational details of Logical-interface construct and the specifics
   on how the link-layer implementations hide the physical interfaces
   from the IP stack and from the network nodes on the attached access
   networks.  Furthermore, this document identifies the applicability of
   this approach to various link-layer technologies and analyzes the
   issues around it when used in conjunction with various mobility
   management features.

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

   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 September 14, 2016.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Melia & Gundavelli     Expires September 14, 2016               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft          Logical Interface Support             March 2016

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   ( 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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

   3.  Hiding Link-layer Technologies - Approaches and
       Applicability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.1.  Link-layer Abstraction - Approaches  . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.2.  Link layer support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.3.  Logical Interface  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6

   4.  Technology Use cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7

   5.  Logical Interface Functional Details . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     5.1.  Configuration of a Logical Interface . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     5.2.  Logical-Interface Forwarding Table . . . . . . . . . . . .  9

   6.  Logical Interface Use-cases in Proxy Mobile IPv6 . . . . . . . 11
     6.1.  Multihoming Support  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     6.2.  Inter-Technology Handoff Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     6.3.  Flow Mobility Support  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

   7.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

   8.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

   9.  Authors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

   10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

   11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Melia & Gundavelli     Expires September 14, 2016               [Page 2]
Internet-Draft          Logical Interface Support             March 2016

1.  Introduction

   Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) [RFC5213] is a network-based mobility
   management protocol standardized by IETF.  One of the key goals of
   the PMIPv6 protocol is to enable a mobile node to perform handovers
   across access-networks based on different access technologies.  The
   protocol was also designed with the goal to allow a mobile node to
   simultaneously attach to different access networks and perform flow-
   based access selection [I-D.ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob].  The base
   protocol features specified in [RFC5213] and [RFC5844] has support
   for these capabilities.  However, for supporting these features, the
   mobile node is required to be enabled with with specific software
   configuration known as logical-interface support.  The logical-
   interface configuration is essential for a mobile node to perform
   inter-access handovers without impacting the IP sessions on the host.

   A Logical Interface construct is internal to the operating system.
   It is an approach of interface abstraction, where a logical link-
   layer implementation hides a variety of physical interfaces from the
   IP stack.  This semantic was used on a variety of operating systems
   to implement applications such as Mobile IP client [RFC6275] and
   IPsec VPN client [RFC4301].  Many host operating systems have support
   for some form of such logical interface construct.  But, there is no
   specification which documents the behavior of these logical-
   interface, or the requirements of a logical interface for supporting
   the above mentioned mobility management features.  This specification
   attempts to document these aspects.

   The rest of the document provides a functional description of a
   Logical Interface on the mobile node and the interworking between a
   mobile node using a logical interface and the network elements in the
   Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain.  It also analyzes the issues involved with
   the use of logical-interface and characterizes the contexts in which
   such usage is appropriate.

Melia & Gundavelli     Expires September 14, 2016               [Page 3]
Internet-Draft          Logical Interface Support             March 2016

2.  Terminology

   All the mobility related terms used in this document are to be
   interpreted as defined in Proxy Mobile IPv6 specifications, [RFC5213]
   and [RFC5844].  In addition, this document uses the following terms:

   PIF  (Physical Interface) - It is a network interface module on the
      host that is used for connecting to an access network.  An host
      typically has number of network interface modules, such as
      Ethernet, Wireless LAN, LTE ..etc.  Each of these network
      interfaces can support specific link technology.

   LIF  (Logical Interface) - It is a virtual interface in the IP stack.
      Logical interface appears to the IP stack just as any other
      physical interface, provides similar semantics with respect to
      packet transmit and receive functions to the upper layers of the
      IP stack.  However, it is only a logical construct and is not a
      representation of an instance of any physical hardware.

   SIF  (Sub Interface) - It is a physical or logical interface that is
      part of a logical interface construct.  For example, a logical
      interface may have been created abstracting two physical
      interfaces, LTE and WLAN.  These physical interfaces, LTE and WLAN
      are referred to as sub-interfaces of that logical interface.  In
      some cases, a sub-interface can also be another logical interface,
      such as an IPsec tunnel interface.

Melia & Gundavelli     Expires September 14, 2016               [Page 4]
Internet-Draft          Logical Interface Support             March 2016

3.  Hiding Link-layer Technologies - Approaches and Applicability

   There are several techniques that allow hiding of changes in access-
   technology changes from the host layer.  These changes in access
   technology is primarily due to host's movement between access
   networks.  This section classifies these existing techniques into a
   set of generic approaches, according to their most representative
   characteristics.  Later sections of this document analyze the
   applicability of these solution approaches for supporting features
   such as, inter-technology handovers and IP flow mobility support for
   a mobile node.

3.1.  Link-layer Abstraction - Approaches

   The following generic mechanisms can hide access technology changes
   from host IP layer:

   o  Link-layer Support - Certain link-layer technologies are able to
      hide physical media changes from the upper layers.  For example,
      IEEE 802.11 is able to seamlessly change between IEEE 802.11a/b/g
      physical layers.  Also, an 802.11 STA can move between different
      Access Points within the same domain without the IP stack being
      aware of the movement.  In this case, the IEEE 802.11 MAC layer
      takes care of the mobility, making the media change invisible to
      the upper layers.  Another example is IEEE 802.3, that supports
      changing the rate from 10Mbps to 100Mbps and to 1000Mbps.  Another
      example is the situation in the 3GPP Evolved Packet System
      [TS23401] where a UE can perform inter-access handovers between
      three different access technologies (2G GERAN, 3G UTRAN, and 4G
      E-UTRAN) that are invisible to the IP layer at the UE.

   o  A logical interface denotes a mechanism that logically groups
      several physical interfaces so they appear to the IP layer as a
      single interface (see Figure 1).  Depending on the type of access
      technologies, it might be possible to use more than one physical
      interface at a time -- such that the node is simultaneously
      attached via different access technologies -- or just to perform
      handovers across a variety of physical interfaces.  Controlling
      the way the different access technologies are used (simultaneous,
      sequential attachment, etc) is not trivial and requires additional
      intelligence and/or configuration within the logical interface
      implementation.  The configuration is typically handled via a
      connection manager, and based on a combination of user preferences
      on one hand, and operator preferences such as those provisioned by
      the Access Network Discovery and Selection Function (ANDSF)
      [TS23402] on the other hand.  The IETF Interfaces MIB specified in
      [RFC2863] and the YANG data model for Interface management
      specified in [RFC7223] treats logical interface as just any other

Melia & Gundavelli     Expires September 14, 2016               [Page 5]
Internet-Draft          Logical Interface Support             March 2016

      type of network interface on the host.  This essentially makes
      logical interface as a natural operating system construct.

3.2.  Link layer support

   Link layer mobility support applies to cases when the same link layer
   technology is used and mobility can be fully handled at that layer.
   One example is the case where several 802.11 access points are
   deployed in the same subnet with a common IP layer configuration
   (DHCP server, default router, etc.).  In this case the handover
   across access points need not to be hidden to the IP layer since the
   IP layer configuration remains the same after a handover.  This type
   of scenario is applicable to cases when the different points of
   attachment (i.e. access points) belong to the same network domain,
   e.g.  Enterprise, hotspots from same operator, etc.

   Since this type of link layer technology does not typically allow for
   simultaneous attachment to different access networks of the same
   technology, the logical interface would not be used to provide
   simultaneous access for purposes of multihoming or flow mobility.
   Instead, the logical interface can be used to provide inter-access
   technology handover between this type of link layer technology and
   another link layer technology, e.g., between IEEE 802.11 and IEEE

3.3.  Logical Interface

   The use of a logical interface allows the mobile node to provide a
   single interface perspective to the IP layer and its upper layers
   (transport and application).  Doing so allows to hide inter-access
   technology handovers or application flow handovers across different
   physical interfaces.

   The logical interface may support simultaneous attachment, in
   addition to sequential attachment.  It requires additional support at
   the node and the network in order to benefit from simultaneous
   attachment.  For example special mechanisms are required to enable
   addressing a particular interface from the network (e.g. for flow
   mobility).  In particular extensions to PMIPv6 are required in order
   to enable the network (i.e., the MAG and LMA) to deal with logical
   interface, instead to IP interfaces as current RFC5213 does.  RFC5213
   assumes that each physical interface capable of attaching to a MAG is
   an IP interface, while the logical interface solution groups several
   physical interfaces under the same IP logical interface.

   It is therefore clear that the Logical Interface approach satisfies
   the multi technology and the sequential vs: simultaneous access

Melia & Gundavelli     Expires September 14, 2016               [Page 6]
Internet-Draft          Logical Interface Support             March 2016

4.  Technology Use cases

   3GPP has defined the Evolved Packet System (EPS) for heterogeneous
   wireless access.  A mobile device equipped with 3GPP and non-3GPP
   wireless technologies can simultaneously or sequentially connect any
   of the available devices and receive IP services through any of them.
   This document focuses on employing a logical interface for
   simultaneous and sequential use of a variety of access technologies.

   As mentioned in the previous sections the Logical Interface construct
   is able to hide to the IP layer the specifics of each technology in
   the context of network based mobility (e.g. in multi-access
   technology networks based on PMIPv6).  The LIF concept can be used
   with at least the following technologies: 3GPP access technologies
   (3G, LTE), IEEE 802.16 access technology, and IEEE 802.11 access

   In some UE implementations the wireless connection setup is based on
   creation of a PPP interface between the IP layer and the wireless
   modem that is configured with the IPCP and IPv6CP protocol [RFC5072].
   In this case the PPP interface does not have any L2 address assigned.
   In some other implementations the wireless modem is presented to the
   IP layer as a virtual Ethernet interface.

Melia & Gundavelli     Expires September 14, 2016               [Page 7]
Internet-Draft          Logical Interface Support             March 2016

5.  Logical Interface Functional Details

   This section identifies the functional details of a logical interface
   and provides some implementation considerations.

   On most operating systems, a network interface is associated with a
   physical device that offers the services for transmitting and
   receiving IP packets from the network.  In some configurations, a
   network interface can also be implemented as a logical interface
   which does not have the inherent capability to transmit, or receive
   packets on a physical medium, but relies on other physical interfaces
   for such services.  Example of such configuration is an IP tunnel

   An overview of a logical interface is shown in Figure 1.  The logical
   interface allows heterogeneous attachment while making changes in the
   underlying media transparent to the IP stack.  Simultaneous and
   sequential network attachment procedures are therefore possible,
   enabling inter-technology and flow mobility scenarios.

                                  |          TCP/UDP           |
           Session to IP    +---->|                            |
           Address binding  |     +----------------------------+
                            +---->|             IP             |
           IP Address       +---->|                            |
           binding          |     +----------------------------+
                            +---->|     Logical Interface      |
           Logical to       +---->|       IPv4/IPv6 Address    |
           Physical         |     +----------------------------+
           Interface        +---->|  L2  |  L2  |       |  L2  |
           binding                |(IF#1)|(IF#2)| ..... |(IF#n)|
                                  +------+------+       +------+
                                  |  L1  |  L1  |       |  L1  |
                                  |      |      |       |      |
                                  +------+------+       +------+

              Figure 1: General overview of logical interface

   From the perspective of the IP stack and the applications, a Logical
   interface is just another interface.  In fact, the logical interface
   is only visible to the IP and upper layers when enabled.  A host does
   not see any operational difference between a Logical and a physical
   interface.  As with physical interfaces, a Logical interface is
   represented as a software object to which IP address configuration is
   bound.  However, the Logical interface has some special properties
   which are essential for enabling inter-technology handover and flow-
   mobility features.  Following are those properties:

Melia & Gundavelli     Expires September 14, 2016               [Page 8]
Internet-Draft          Logical Interface Support             March 2016

   1.  The logical interface has a relation to a set of physical
       interfaces (sub-interfaces) on the host that it is abstracting.
       These sub-interfaces can be attached or detached from the Logical
       Interface at any time.  The sub-interfaces attached to a Logical
       interface are not visible to the IP and upper layers.

   2.  The logical interface may be attached to multiple access

   3.  The Transmit/Receive functions of the logical interface are
       mapped to the Transmit/Receive services exposed by the sub-
       interfaces.  This mapping is dynamic and any change is not
       visible to the upper layers of the IP stack.

   4.  The logical interface maintains IP flow information for each of
       its sub-interfaces.  A conceptual data structure is maintained
       for this purpose.  The host may populate this information based
       on tracking each of the sub-interface for the active flows.

5.1.  Configuration of a Logical Interface

   A host may be statically configured with the logical interface
   configuration, or an application such as a connection manager on the
   host may dynamically create it.  Furthermore, the set of sub-
   interfaces that are part of a logical interface construct may be a
   fixed set, or may be kept dynamic, with the sub-interfaces getting
   added or deleted as needed.  The specific details related to these
   configuration aspects are implementation specific and are outside the
   scope of this document.

   The IP layer should be configured with a default router reachable via
   the logical interface.  The default router can be internal to the
   logical interface, i.e., it is a logical router that in turns decide
   which physical interface is to be used to transmit packets.

5.2.  Logical-Interface Forwarding Table

   The logical interface maintains the list of sub-interfaces that are
   part of logical-interface construct.  This is a conceptual data
   structure, called as the Logical-Interface Forwarding Table.

   The logical interface also maintains the list of flows associated
   with a given sub-interface and this conceptual data structure is
   called as the PIF Table.  Both of these data structures have to be
   associated with a logical interface, and are depicted in Figure 2.

Melia & Gundavelli     Expires September 14, 2016               [Page 9]
Internet-Draft          Logical Interface Support             March 2016

      LIF TABLE                           FLOW table
    +===============================+   +=============================+
    | PIF_ID | FLOW Routing Policies|   | FLOW ID | Physical_Intf_Id  |
    |        | Link Status          |   +-----------------------------+
    +-------------------------------|   | FLOW_ID | Physical_Intf_Id  |
    | PIF_ID | FLOW Routing Policies|   +=============================+
    |        | Link Status          |   + ....    | ....              |
    +-------------------------------+   +=============================+
    | ....   | ....                 |

                     Figure 2: Logical Interface Table

   The LIF table maintains the mapping between the LIF and each PIF
   associated to the LIF (refer to property #3, Figure 1).  For each PIF
   entry the table should store the associated Routing Policies, and the
   Link Status of the PIF (e.g. active, not active).  The method by
   which the Routing Policies are configured on the host is out of scope
   for this document.

   The FLOW table allows the logical interface to properly route each IP
   flow over the right interface.  The logical interface can identify
   the flows arriving on its sub-interfaces and associate them to those
   sub-interfaces.  This approach is similar to reflective QoS performed
   by the IP routers.  For locally generated traffic (e.g. unicast
   flows), the logical interface should perform interface selection
   based on the Flow Routing Policies.  In case traffic of an existing
   flow is suddenly received from the network on a different sub-
   interface than the one locally stored, the logical interface should
   interpret the event as an explicit flow mobility trigger from the
   network and it should update the PIF_ID parameter in the FLOW table.
   Similarly, locally generated events from the sub-interfaces, or
   configuration updates to the local policy rules can cause updates to
   the table and hence trigger flow mobility.

Melia & Gundavelli     Expires September 14, 2016              [Page 10]
Internet-Draft          Logical Interface Support             March 2016

6.  Logical Interface Use-cases in Proxy Mobile IPv6

   This section explains how the Logical interface support on the mobile
   node can be used for enabling some of the Proxy Mobile IPv6 protocol

6.1.  Multihoming Support

   A mobile node with multiple interfaces can attach simultaneously to
   the Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain.  If the host is configured to use
   Logical interface over the physical interfaces through which it is
   attached, following are the related considerations.

                                         LMA Binding Table
                           +----+   | HNP   MN-ID  CoA   ATT |
                           |LMA |   +========================+
                           +----+   | HNP-1 MN-1  PCoA-1  5  |
                            //\\    | HNP-1 MN-1  PCoA-2  4  |
                (         //    \\           )
                (        //      \\          )
                       //          \\
               PCoA-1 //            \\ PCoA-2
                   +----+          +----+
            (WLAN) |MAG1|          |MAG2| (3GPP)
                   +----+          +----+
                      \               /
                       \             /
                        \           /
                         \         /
                          \       /
                     +-------+ +-------+
                     | if_1  | | if_2  |
                     |(WLAN) | |(3GPP) |
                     |     Logical     |
                     |    Interface    |
                     |     (HNP-1)     |
                     |       MN        |

                       Figure 3: Multihoming Support

Melia & Gundavelli     Expires September 14, 2016              [Page 11]
Internet-Draft          Logical Interface Support             March 2016

6.2.  Inter-Technology Handoff Support

   The Proxy Mobile IPv6 protocol enables a mobile node with multiple
   network interfaces to move between access technologies, but still
   retaining the same address configuration on its attached interface.
   The protocol enables a mobile node to achieve address continuity
   during handoffs.  If the host is configured to use Logical interface
   over the physical interface through which it is attached, following
   are the related considerations.

                                           LMA's Binding Table
                           +----+   | HNP   MN-ID  CoA   ATT   |
                           |LMA |   +==========================+
                           +----+   | HNP-1   MN-1  PCoA-1  5  |
                            //\\                   (pCoA-2)(4) <--change
                (         //    \\           )
                (        //      \\          )
                       //          \\
               PCoA-1 //            \\ PCoA-2
                   +----+          +----+
            (WLAN) |MAG1|          |MAG2| (3GPP)
                   +----+          +----+
                      \               /
                       \    Handoff  /
                         \         /
                          \       /
                     +-------+ +-------+
                     | if_1  | | if_2  |
                     |(WLAN) | |(3GPP) |
                     |     Logical     |
                     |    Interface    |
                     |     (HNP-1)     |
                     |       MN        |

                Figure 4: Inter-Technology Handoff Support

   o  When the mobile node performs an handoff between if_1 and if_2,
      the change will not be visible to the applications of the mobile

Melia & Gundavelli     Expires September 14, 2016              [Page 12]
Internet-Draft          Logical Interface Support             March 2016

   o  The protocol signaling between the network elements will ensure
      the local mobility anchor will switch the forwarding for the
      advertised prefix set from MAG1 to MAG2.

6.3.  Flow Mobility Support

   For supporting IP flow mobility, there is a need to support vertical
   handoff scenarios such as transferring a subset of prefix(es) (hence
   the flows associated to it/them) from one interface to another.  The
   mobile node can support this scenario by using the Logical interface
   support.  This scenario is similar to the Inter- technology handoff
   scenario defined in Section 6.2, only a subset of the prefixes are
   moved between interfaces.

   Additionally, IP flow mobility in general initiates when the LMA
   decides to move a particular flow from its default path to a
   different one.  The LMA can decide on which is the best MAG that
   should be used to forward a particular flow when the flow is
   initiated e.g. based on application policy profiles) and/or during
   the lifetime of the flow upon receiving a network-based or a mobile-
   based trigger.  However, the specific details on how the LMA can
   formulate such flow policy is outside the scope of this document.

Melia & Gundavelli     Expires September 14, 2016              [Page 13]
Internet-Draft          Logical Interface Support             March 2016

7.  IANA Considerations

   This specification does not require any IANA Actions.

Melia & Gundavelli     Expires September 14, 2016              [Page 14]
Internet-Draft          Logical Interface Support             March 2016

8.  Security Considerations

   This specification explains the operational details of Logical
   interface on an IP host.  The Logical Interface implementation on the
   host is not visible to the network and does not require any special
   security considerations.

   Different layer-2 interfaces and the access networks to which they
   are connected have different security properties.  For example, the
   layer-2 network security of an end-user operated Wireless LAN network
   is in the control of the home user and whereas an LTE operator has
   the control on the layer-2 security of the LTE access network.  An
   external entity using lawful means, or through other means obtain the
   security keys from the LTE operator and the same may not be possible
   in the case of a home user operated wireless LAN network.  Therefore,
   grouping interfaces with such varying security properties into one
   logical interface could have negative consequences in some cases.
   Such differences though subtle, are entirely hidden by logical
   interfaces and are unknown to the upper layers.

Melia & Gundavelli     Expires September 14, 2016              [Page 15]
Internet-Draft          Logical Interface Support             March 2016

9.  Authors

   This document reflects contributions from the following authors
   (listed in alphabetical order):

   Carlos Jesus Bernardos Cano

   Antonio De la Oliva

   Yong-Geun Hong

   Kent Leung

   Tran Minh Trung

   Hidetoshi Yokota

   Juan Carlos Zuniga

10.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to acknowledge all the discussions on this
   topic in NETLMM and NETEXT working groups.  The authors would also
   like to thank Joo-Sang Youn, Pierrick Seite, Rajeev Koodli, Basavaraj
   Patil, Peter McCann, Julien Laganier, Maximilian Riegel, Georgios
   karagian, Stephen Farrell, Benoit Claise for their inputs to the

11.  References

Melia & Gundavelli     Expires September 14, 2016              [Page 16]
Internet-Draft          Logical Interface Support             March 2016

11.1.  Normative References

   [RFC5213]  Gundavelli, S., Ed., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V.,
              Chowdhury, K., and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6",
              RFC 5213, DOI 10.17487/RFC5213, August 2008,

   [RFC5844]  Wakikawa, R. and S. Gundavelli, "IPv4 Support for Proxy
              Mobile IPv6", RFC 5844, DOI 10.17487/RFC5844, May 2010,

11.2.  Informative References

              Bernardos, C., "Proxy Mobile IPv6 Extensions to Support
              Flow Mobility", draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-17 (work
              in progress), March 2016.

   [RFC2863]  McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group
              MIB", RFC 2863, DOI 10.17487/RFC2863, June 2000,

   [RFC4301]  Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
              Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, DOI 10.17487/RFC4301,
              December 2005, <>.

   [RFC5072]  Varada, S., Ed., Haskins, D., and E. Allen, "IP Version 6
              over PPP", RFC 5072, DOI 10.17487/RFC5072, September 2007,

   [RFC6275]  Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility
              Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, DOI 10.17487/RFC6275,
              July 2011, <>.

   [RFC7223]  Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface
              Management", RFC 7223, DOI 10.17487/RFC7223, May 2014,

   [TS23401]  "3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical
              Specification Group Services and System Aspects; General
              Packet Radio Service (GPRS) enhancements for Evolved
              Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network (E-UTRAN)
              access.", 2009.

   [TS23402]  "3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical
              Specification Group Services and System Aspects;
              Architecture Enhancements for non-3GPP Accesses.", 2009.

Melia & Gundavelli     Expires September 14, 2016              [Page 17]
Internet-Draft          Logical Interface Support             March 2016

Authors' Addresses

   Telemaco Melia (editor)
   Kudelski Security


   Sri Gundavelli (editor)
   170 West Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA  95134


Melia & Gundavelli     Expires September 14, 2016              [Page 18]