Use Cases and API Extension for Source IP Address Selection
draft-sijeon-dmm-use-cases-api-source-06

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2017-03-13
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf html 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)
DMM Working Group                                                S. Jeon
Internet-Draft                                   Sungkyunkwan University
Intended status: Standards Track                           S. Figueiredo
Expires: September 14, 2017                              Altran Research
                                                                  Y. Kim
                                                     Soongsil University
                                                       J. Kaippallimalil
                                                                  Huawei
                                                          March 13, 2017

      Use Cases and API Extension for Source IP Address Selection
              draft-sijeon-dmm-use-cases-api-source-06.txt

Abstract

   This draft specifies and analyzes the expected cases regarding the
   selection of a proper source IP address and address type by an
   application in a distributed mobility management (DMM) network.  It
   also proposes a new Socket API to address further selection issues
   with three source IP address types defined in the on-demand mobility
   API draft.

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 September 14, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 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

Jeon, et al.           Expires September 14, 2017               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft         Use Cases and API Extension            March 2017

   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.  Use Cases and Analysis  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Application has no specific IP address type requirement
           or address preference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.2.  Application has specific IP address type requirement and
           address preference  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
       2.2.1.  Case 1: there is no configured IP address based on a
               requested type in the IP stack, but there is a
               further selection preference by the application . . .   3
       2.2.2.  Case 2: there are one or more IP addresses configured
               with a requested type in the IP stack, and no
               selection preference by the application . . . . . . .   4
       2.2.3.  Case 3: there are one or more IP addresses with a
               requested type configured in the IP stack, but there
               is a further selection preference by the application    4
     2.3.  Gaps in the consistency with the default address
           selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  Indications for expressing address preference requirement . .   5
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7

1.  Introduction

   Applications to select source IP address type in a mobile node (MN)
   need to consider IP session continuity and/or IP address
   reachability.  [I-D.ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility], defines three types
   of source IP addresses based on mobility management capabilities:
   fixed IP address, session-lasting IP address, and non-persistent IP
Show full document text