Separation of Control and User Plane for Proxy Mobile IPv6
draft-ietf-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation-00

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (netext WG)
Last updated 2013-09-22
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd None
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
NETEXT WG                                                    R. Wakikawa
Internet-Draft                                           Softbank Mobile
Intended status: Standards Track                              C. Perkins
Expires: March 23, 2014                                   Futurewei Inc.
                                                           R. Pazhyannur
                                                           S. Gundavelli
                                                                   Cisco
                                                      September 19, 2013

       Separation of Control and User Plane for Proxy Mobile IPv6
             draft-ietf-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation-00.txt

Abstract

   This document describes splitting of Control Plane (CP) and User
   Plane (UP) for a Proxy Mobile IPv6 based network infrastructure.
   Existing specifications allow a MAG to perform splitting of its
   control and user plane using Alternate Care of address mobility
   option for IPv6, or Alternate IPv4 Care of Address option for IPv4.
   However, the current specification does not have semantics for
   allowing the LMA to perform such functional split.  To realize this
   requirement, this specification defines a mobility option that
   enables a local mobility anchor to provide an alternate LMA address
   to be used for the bi-directional tunnel between the MAG and LMA.
   With this extension, a local mobility anchor will be able to use an
   IP address for its user plane which is different than what is used
   for the control plane.

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 March 23, 2014.

Copyright Notice

Wakikawa, et al.         Expires March 23, 2014                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft             PMIPv6 CP-UP Split             September 2013

   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
   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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Conventions and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  LMA User Plane Address Mobility Option  . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6

1.  Introduction

   Widely deployed mobility management systems for wireless
   communications have isolated the path for forwarding data packets
   from the control plane signaling for mobility management.  To realize
   this requirement, Proxy Mobile IPv6 requires that the control plane
   functions of the local mobility anchor to be addressable at a
   different IP address than the IP address used for the user plane.
   However, the current specification does not have semantics for
   allowing the LMA to perform such functional split.  The local
   mobility anchor is required to associate the IP address of the tunnel
   source with the target IP address of the control messages received
   from the MAG.  Note that the concept of control- and user- planes are
   well established and understood in cellular networks.

   A PMIPv6 infrastructure contains of two primary entities: MAG and
   LMA.  The interface between MAG and LMA consists of two components:
Show full document text