Skip to main content

Home Network Prefix Renumbering in PMIPv6

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 "Replaced".
Authors Zhiwei Yan , Jong-Hyouk Lee , XiaoDong Lee
Last updated 2015-01-08
Replaced by draft-ietf-dmm-hnprenum, draft-ietf-dmm-hnprenum, RFC 8191
RFC stream (None)
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)
DMM Working Group                                            Zhiwei Yan 
    Internet Draft                                                    CNNIC 
    Expires: July 2015                                       Jong-Hyouk Lee 
                                                       Sangmyung University 
                                                               Xiaodong Lee 
                                                            January 9, 2015 
                     Home Network Prefix Renumbering in PMIPv6 


       In the basic Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) specification, a Mobile Node 
       (MN) is assigned a 64-bit Home Network Prefix (HNP) during the 
       initial attachment for the Home Address (HoA) configuration. During 
       the movement of the MN, this prefix is unchanged and unnecessary for 
       the MN to reconfigure the HoA. However, the current protocol does 
       not specify related operations to support the MN to timely receive 
       and configure a new HNP when the allocated HNP changes. In this 
       draft, this problem is discussed and a possible solution is proposed 
       based on RFC 7077. 

    Requirements Language 

       The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 
       "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 
       document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 

    Status of this Memo 

       This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with 
       the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 

       Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 
       Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that 
       other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-

       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". 

       The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 

       The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 
    Yan et al.                Expires Jul,2015                    [Page 1] 
    Internet-Draft        HNP Renumbering in PMIPv6        January 9, 2015 

       This Internet-Draft will expire on July, 2015. 

    Copyright Notice 

       Copyright (c) 2010 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 
       ( 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. HNP renumbering support...................................... 3 
       3. DNS update .................................................. 4 
       4. Security Considerations...................................... 4 
       5. References .................................................. 4 
       Authors' Addresses ............................................. 5 
       Acknowledgment ................................................. 5 

      1. Introduction 

       Network managers currently prefer to Provider Independent (PI) 
       addressing for IPv6 to attempt to minimize the need for future 
       renumbering. However, widespread use of PI may create very serious 
       BGP scaling problems. It is thus desirable to develop tools and 
       practices that may make renumbering a simpler process to reduce 
       demand for IPv6 PI space [1]. In this draft, we aims to solve the 
       HNP renumbering problem when the HNP in PMIPv6 [2] is not a PI type. 

       Then the HNP renumbering may happen at least in the following three 

       In the first case, the PMIPv6 service provider is assigned the HNP 
       set from the (uplink) ISP, and then the HNP renumbering will happen 
       if the PMIPv6 service provider switches to a different ISP.  

    Yan et al.                Expires July,2015                   [Page 2] 
    Internet-Draft        HNP Renumbering in PMIPv6        January 9, 2015 

       In the second case, multiple Local Mobility Anchors (LMAs) may be 
       deployed by the same PMIPv6 service provider, and then each LMA may 
       serve for a specific HNP set. In this case, the HNP of a MN may 
       change if the current serving LMA switches to another LMA but 
       without inheriting the assigned HNP [3].  

       In the last case, the PMIPv6 HNP renumbering may be caused by the 
       re-building of the network architecture as the companies split, 
       merge, grow, relocate or reorganize. For example, the PMIPv6 service 
       provider may reorganize its network topology.  

       For the Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6), when the home network prefix changes 
       (maybe due to the above reasons), the Home Agent (HA) will actively 
       notify the new prefix to the MN and then the renumbering of the HoA 
       can be well supported [4]. While in the basic PMIPv6, the PMIPv6 
       binding is triggered by the Mobile Access Gateway (MAG), which 
       detects the attachment of the MN. When the HNP renumbering happens 
       in the first case or the LMA and HNP both changes in the second or 
       third cases, a scheme is needed for the LMA to immediately initiate 
       the PMIPv6 binding state refreshment. Although this issue is also 
       discussed in the RFC 5213 (section 6.12), the related solution is 
       not specified. 

      2. HNP renumbering support 

       RFC 7077 [5] specifies a scheme to support the asynchronously update 
       from the LMA to the MAG about changes related to a mobility session. 
       With this protocol, the HNP renumbering can be easily supported and 
       the basic operation is summarized as following: 

       1) When the PMIPv6 service provider renumbers the HNP set or the 
       serving LMA switches to another one but does not inherit the related 
       HNP, the current LMA (or new LMA) will initiate the HNP renumbering 
       operation. Firstly, it should allocate a new HNP for the related MN. 

       2) The LMA sends the Update Notification (UPN) message to the MAG. 
       In the UPN message, the Notification reason is set to 2 (UPDATE-
       SESSION-PARAMETERS). Besides, HNP option containing the new HNP and 
       the Mobile Node Identifier option carrying MN'ID are contained as 
       Mobility Options of UPN. 

       3) After the MAG receives this UPN message, it will recognize that 
       the related MN has a new HNP now. Then the MAG sends the old HNP in 
       the RA with zero-valued lifetime to the MN and sends the new HNP in 
       the RA with lifetime larger than zero. 

    Yan et al.                Expires July,2015                   [Page 3] 
    Internet-Draft        HNP Renumbering in PMIPv6        January 9, 2015 

       4) Besides, the MAG sends back the Update Notification 
       Acknowledgement (UNA) to the LMA for the notification of successful 
       update of the related binding state, routing state and RA settings. 

       5) For the MN, it deletes the old HoA due to the zero-valued 
       lifetime RA advertisement and configures a new HoA with the 
       meaningful HNP. 

       The detailed protocol operation and signaling message extensions 
       will be specified further. 

      3. DNS update 

       In order to maintain the reachability of the MN, the DNS resource 
       record corresponding to this MN may need to be updated when the HNP 
       of MN changes. Although this operation in PMIPv6 has not been 
       specified by the current protocols, we here list two important 
       issues to be considered for this operation.  

       1) Since the DNS update must be performed securely in order to 
       prevent attacks or modifications from malicious ones, the node 
       performing this update must share a security association with the 
       DNS server [6]. If the MN does not share a security association with 
       the DNS server and the DNS entry update can be performed by the 
       network entities, such as Authentication, Authorization and 
       Accounting (AAA) server or LMA.  

       2) For the dynamic update, another important issue should be 
       considered is the TTL setting when the HNP renumbering is possible. 
       The TTL should be set according to the possible lifetime of the HNP. 

      4. Security Considerations 

       The security considerations in PMIPv6 protocol are enough for the 
       basic operation of this draft. 

       Besides, the security dynamic DNS should be supported whatever the 
       DNS update is executed by network entities or MN itself. In other 
       words, the security association should always be established between 
       the DNS server and updater. 

       Other security issues will be added further. 

      5. References 

       [1]  S. Jiang, B. Liu, and B. Carpenter, "IPv6 Enterprise Network 
             Renumbering Scenarios and Guidelines", RFC 6879, February 2013. 
    Yan et al.                Expires July,2015                   [Page 4] 
    Internet-Draft        HNP Renumbering in PMIPv6        January 9, 2015 

       [2]  S. Gundavelli, K. Leung, V. Devarapalli, K. Chowdhury, and B. 
             Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 5213, August 2008. 

       [3]  J. Korhonen, S. Gundavelli, H. Yokota, and X. Cui, "Runtime 
             Local Mobility Anchor (LMA) Assignment Support for Proxy 
             Mobile IPv6", RFC 6463, February 2012. 

       [4]  C. Perkins, D. Johnson, and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support in 
             IPv6", RFC 6275, July 2011. 

       [5]  S. Krishnan, S. Gundavelli, M. Liebsch, H. Yokota and J. 
             Korhonen, "Update Notifications for Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 
             7077, November 2013. 

       [6]  Wellington, B., "Secure Domain Name System (DNS) Dynamic 
             Update", RFC 3007, November 2000. 

    Authors' Addresses 

       Zhiwei Yan 
       China Internet Network Information Center 
       No.4 South 4th Street, Zhongguancun 
       Beijing, P. R. China 
       Jong-Hyouk Lee 
       Department of Computer Science and Engineering 
       Sangmyung University 
       31, Sangmyeongdae-gil, Dongnam-gu 
       Cheonan, Republic of Korea 
       Xiaodong Lee 
       China Internet Network Information Center 
       No.4 South 4th Street, Zhongguancun 
       Beijing, P. R. China 


       Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the 
       Internet Society. 

    Yan et al.                Expires July,2015                   [Page 5]