Fast HIP Host Mobility
draft-moskowitz-hip-fast-mobility-03

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2020-04-03
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text html xml pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
HIP                                                         R. Moskowitz
Internet-Draft                                            HTT Consulting
Updates: 8046 (if approved)                                      S. Card
Intended status: Standards Track                         A. Wiethuechter
Expires: 5 October 2020                                    AX Enterprize
                                                            3 April 2020

                         Fast HIP Host Mobility
                  draft-moskowitz-hip-fast-mobility-03

Abstract

   This document describes mobility scenarios and how to aggressively
   support them in HIP.  The goal is minimum lag in the mobility event.

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 https://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 5 October 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 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 (https://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.

Moskowitz, et al.        Expires 5 October 2020                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft              Fast HIP Mobility                 April 2020

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terms and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Requirements Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.2.  Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Problem Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  Time to complete move . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.2.  Apriori move knowledge  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Enhanced availability of VIA_RVS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Single move mobility  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     5.1.  Piggybacking impact on transport window size  . . . . . .   5
     5.2.  Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.3.  Scenario 1: Neither host has data to transmit . . . . . .   5
     5.4.  Scenario 2: Host A has data to transmit . . . . . . . . .   5
       5.4.1.  IPv6 datagram + HIP UPDATE > MTU  . . . . . . . . . .   5
       5.4.2.  IPv6 datagram + HIP UPDATE <= MTU . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.5.  Scenario 3: Host B has data to transmit . . . . . . . . .   6
       5.5.1.  IPv6 datagram + HIP UPDATE > MTU  . . . . . . . . . .   6
       5.5.2.  IPv6 datagram + HIP UPDATE <= MTU . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  Double-Jump mobility  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     6.1.  Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     6.2.  Shotgunning UPDATEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     6.3.  Neither host has data to transmit . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     6.4.  Either host has data to transmit  . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       6.4.1.  IPv6 datagram + HIP UPDATE > MTU  . . . . . . . . . .   7
       6.4.2.  IPv6 datagram + HIP UPDATE <= MTU . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   9.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9

1.  Introduction

   This document expands on HIP Host Mobility [RFC8046] to describe a
   set of mobility scenarios that can be addressed by mechanisms that
   accelerate the basic HIP mobility UPDATE exchange.

   HIP Host Mobility [RFC8046] performs a return address validation to
   ensure that the UPDATE address is reachable by the peer.  Two reasons
   are given for this approach: middleboxes blocking return reachability
Show full document text