Proxy Mobile IPv6 with Mobility Session Redirection
draft-sijeon-netext-pmip-msr-00
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Expired".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Seil Jeon , Younghan Kim | ||
| Last updated | 2014-03-05 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-sijeon-netext-pmip-msr-00
NETEXT WG Seil Jeon
Internet Draft Institute de Telecomunicacoes
Intended status: Standard Track Younghan Kim
Expires: September 04, 2014 Soongsil University
March 05, 2014
Proxy Mobile IPv6 with Mobility Session Redirection
draft-sijeon-netext-pmip-msr-00.txt
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 August 16, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 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.
Jeon et al. Expires September 04, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft PMIPv6 with MSR March 2014
Abstract
This specification defines an extension for mobility session
redirection in Proxy Mobile IPv6 networks, enabling the sessions to
be redirected between local mobility anchors over a PMIPv6 domain.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................ 2
2. Overview .................................................... 2
3. Required functions and consideration .........................4
3.1. Load monitoring......................................... 4
3.2. Target MN selection..................................... 4
4. Security Considerations...................................... 4
5. IANA Considerations ......................................... 4
6. References .................................................. 4
6.1. Normative References.................................... 4
1. Introduction
RFC 6463 describes the runtime local mobility anchor assignment
functionality and corresponding mobility options for Proxy Mobile
IPv6 (PMIPv6). However, it is valid only for initial registration
process not in the middle of the session.
Checking load condition on initially designated LMA and redirecting
a requested session to other LMAs can be used for load balancing.
However, load condition is dynamically changed and varied by
incoming and handover sessions. For better load balancing effect,
this draft specifies mobility session redirection over PMIPv6
networks.
2. Overview
The mobility session redirection, in short MSR, relies on the
runtime LMA assignment scheme defined in [RFC6463].
Jeon et al. Expires September 04, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft PMIPv6 with MSR March 2014
MN MAG LMA1 LMA2 CN
| | | | |
|<----------|====== DATA =====|-------------|----------->|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | Overload | |
| | detected | |
| | | | |
| | Select an MN to be | |
| | handed over to LMA2 | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| |<-- LB Warning --| | |
| | | | |
| |------ PBU ----->| | |
| |(binding refresh)| | |
| | | | |
| | |---- PBU --->| |
| | | | |
| | |<--- PBA ----| |
| | | | |
| |<----- PBA ------| | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|<----------|========== DATA ===============| |
| | | | |
Figure 1 An example of mobility session redirection procedure
Figure 1 shows the message sequence procedure for proposed mobility
session redirection scheme. Suppose that each LMA has a load
threshold it can endure. When load reaches the threshold of
acceptable capacity of LMA1, LMA redirection is then activated for a
selected mobile node (MN). Alternatively, when the load reaches the
absolute maximum capacity allowed in LMA1, LMA1 does not wait for
the next refresh binding request of Proxy Binding Update (PBU)
message, but proactively sends a load balancing (LB) warning message
to the designated MAG to force a refresh binding request. For the
warning message, the update notification mechanism, defined in
[RFC7077], as to induce the binding refresh request can be utilized.
LMA1 proceeds to pass the binding update to LMA2, and handles the
corresponding acknowledgment. Once a chosen MN gets successfully
registered at LMA2, LMA2 takes the anchoring role for the MN so that
Jeon et al. Expires September 04, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft PMIPv6 with MSR March 2014
data traffic between the MN and CNs is anchored at LMA2. For the
packet interception at LMA2, there may be various methods depending
on the deployed policies of the operators; one could to use IPv6
anycast address to intercept the packets destined to the prefix the
MN has, based on the shared prefix configuration of LMAs. The other
could extend LMA to act as a proxy neighbor to the neighbor
discovery request for the packets destined to the prefix the MN has.
3. Required functions and considerations
3.1. Load monitoring
LMAs need to collect and manage load information of all MNs in its
binding cache through utilizing Load Information Mobility option
[RFC6463] or relying on other management systems.
3.2. Target MN selection
The proposed scheme may potentially lead to service disruption on
the MN when it occurs simultaneously with inter-MAG handoff. To
minimize this occurrence, a careful target MN selection is required.
However, this issue is out of scope in this specification.
4. Security Considerations
T.B.D.
5. IANA Considerations
T.B.D.
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
Jeon et al. Expires September 04, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft PMIPv6 with MSR March 2014
[RFC5213] S. Gundavelli, K. Leung, V. Devarapalli, K. Chowdury, and
B.Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6," IETF RFC 5213, Aug. 2008.
[RFC6463] J. Korhonen, S. Gundavelli, H. Yokota, and X. Cui,
"Runtime Local Mobility Anchor (LMA) Assignment Support,"
IETF RFC 6463, Feb.2012.
[RFC7077] S. Krishnan, S. Gundavelli, M. Liebsch, H. Yokota, and J.
Koronen, "Update Notifications for Proxy Mobile IPv6,"
IETF RFC 7077, Nov. 2013.
Jeon et al. Expires September 04, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft PMIPv6 with MSR March 2014
Authors' Addresses
Seil Jeon
Instituto de Telecomunicacoes
Campus Universitario de Santiago
Aveiro 3810-193, Portugal
seiljeon@av.it.pt
Younghan Kim
Soongsil University
Sangdo-dong, Dongjak-gu
Seoul 511, Republic of Korea
younghak@ssu.ac.kr
Jeon et al. Expires September 04, 2014 [Page 6]