Mobility Capability Negotiation and Protocol Selection
draft-yan-dmm-man-04
|
| Document |
Type |
|
Active Internet-Draft (individual)
|
|
Last updated |
|
2018-10-15
|
|
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 Z. Yan
Internet-Draft G. Geng
Intended status: Standards Track CNNIC
Expires: April 18, 2019 J. Lee
Sangmyung University
H. Chan
Huawei Technologies
October 15, 2018
Mobility Capability Negotiation and Protocol Selection
draft-yan-dmm-man-04
Abstract
Based on different requirements, multiple mobility management
protocols have been developed. Different protocols have different
functional requirements on the network element or the host and then a
scheme should be used in order to support the negotiation and
selection of adopted mobility management protocol when a host
accesses to a new network. In this draft, this issue is analyzed.
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 April 18, 2019.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 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
Yan, et al. Expires April 18, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MCN-PS October 2018
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. Motivations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Possible Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Principles and Possible Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction
In order to clearly analyze the possible cases, the following
category labels of the mobility management protocols are defined:
o Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6) protocol: the mobility management scheme based
on [RFC6275].
o Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) protocol: the mobility management
scheme based on [RFC5213].
o MIPv6 suit protocols: based on MIPv6, there are multiple extension
protocols have been standardized. These protocols can be
classified into two types: protocols for the function extension
and protocols for the performance enhancement. The protocols for
the function extension are proposed to support some specific
scenarios or functions, such as Dual-stack Mobile IPv6 (DSMIPv6)
[RFC5555] for mobility of the dual-stack nodes, Multiple Care-of-
address (MCoA) [RFC5648] for hosts with multiple access interfaces
and Network Mobility (NEMO) [RFC3963] for mobility of sub-network.
The other type is proposed to enhance the performance of the
mobility management, such as Fast Mobile IPv6 (FMIP6) [RFC5268]
for fast handover, Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 (HMIPv6) [RFC5380] for
hierarchical mobility optimization. In the MIPv6 suit protocols,
location update is initiated by the host and the tunnel is also
terminated at the host.
o PMIPv6 suit protocols: in order to reduce the protocol cost and
enhance the handover performance further, the network-based
Show full document text