Skip to main content

Mobility Ability Negotiation

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 "Active".
Authors Zhiwei Yan , Jong-Hyouk Lee
Last updated 2016-12-21
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                                                 Z. Yan
Internet-Draft                                                     CNNIC
Intended status: Standards Track                                  J. Lee
Expires: June 24, 2017                              Sangmyung University
                                                       December 21, 2016

                      Mobility Ability Negotiation


   Based on IPv6, multiple mobility management protocols have been
   developed and generally they can be classified into two types:
   network-based and host-based.  Different protocols have different
   functional requirements on the network element or the terminal and
   then a scheme should be used in order to support the negotiation and
   selection of adopted mobility management protocol when a terminal
   accesses to a new network.  In this draft, this issue is considered
   and 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

   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 June 24, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 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

Yan & Lee                 Expires June 24, 2017                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                     MAN                     December 2016

   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.  Motivation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Possible solutions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6

1.  Introduction

   As the Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6) [RFC6275] protocol standardization suite,
   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 is 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 mobile nodes of multi-interface
   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.  MIPv6 and these extensions are
   called host-based mobility management protocols because the location
   update is initiated by the terminal and the tunnel is terminated at
   the terminal.

   In order to reduce the protocol cost and enhance the handover
   performance further, the network-based mobility management schemes
   were proposed and Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) [RFC5213] was
   standardized as a basis.  Based on PMIPv6, a series of its extensions
   were proposed, such as Dual-stack Proxy Mobile IPv6 (DS-PMIPv6)
   [RFC5844], Distributed Mobility Management Proxy Mobile IPv6 (DMM-
   PMIPv6) [RFC7333] and so on.  Be different from the host-based
   schemes, the location update in PMIPv6 is triggered by the network
   entity and the tunnel is established between network entities.  And
   the terminal needs to do nothing about the signaling exchange during
   the movement, particularly, the mobility is transparent to the IP
   layer of the terminal.

Yan & Lee                 Expires June 24, 2017                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft                     MAN                     December 2016

   In reality, these protocols will be co-existing and multiple protocol
   daemons will be configured on the network entities or terminal.  That
   means a scheme is needed to support the negotiation and selection of
   mobility management protocol when the terminal accesses into a new
   network initially or handover happens.

   This document tries to analyze this problem with the possible
   scenarios should be supported by the further solution.

2.  Motivation

   As illustrated above, these protocols may co-exist in reality and
   simultaneously used in an access network or even the same entity.
   Due to their different requirements on the network entity or
   terminal, a scheme is needed to support the negotiation and selection
   of adopted mobility management protocol when the terminal accesses to
   a new network.

   Generally, two problems should be solved:

   o  Which entity (network or terminal) will initiate the protocol
      negotiation and selection?
   o  What principles should be followed for the protocol negotiation
      and selection?

   This scheme is needed because different entity and terminal will have
   different abilities and preferences (may be decided by the ability
   and mobility pattern of the mobile node).  This scheme can guarantee
   that the optimum and most suitable protocol will be used.

3.  Scenarios

   In order to illustrate the necessity of the mobility ability
   negotiation and protocol selection, the following scenarios are taken
   as typical examples:

   1) Network supports MIPv6, host supports only PMIPv6

   In this case, the network supports only host-based scheme, while the
   host does not have any mobility management function.  Then only the
   PMIPv6 can be used to support the mobility management of the host,
   but the network does not deploy the PMIPv6 protocols and this will
   cause the mobility failure because no available protocol can be used.

   2) Network supports both MIPv6 and PMIPv6, host supports only PMIPv6

   In this case, the network deploys both host-based and network-based
   schemes, while the host supports only PMIPv6.  When the host accesses

Yan & Lee                 Expires June 24, 2017                 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft                     MAN                     December 2016

   to the network, PMIPv6 will be used.  Actually, PMIPv6 should be
   adopted as a default mobility management scheme considering its
   optimized performance.  Once the PMIPv6 can be supported by the
   network, it will be adopted as the default scheme.

   3) Network supports both MIPv6 and PMIPv6, host supports MIPv6

   In this case, the network deploys both host-based and network-based
   schemes, and the host also supports MIPv6.  Because PMIPv6 has no
   requirement on the host, both PMIPv6 and MIPv6 can be used in this
   case.  Then the host can use PMIPv6 as default, and use MIPv6 for the
   global mobility.

   4) Network and host support all the extention protocols

   In this case, the network has deployed multiple extensions to support
   more complex requirements, so does the host.  And then the host and
   network can negotiate a protocol for the optimized performance or
   special requirement, for example, FMIPv6 may be selected in order to
   support fast handover, HMIPv6 may be selected in order to reduce the
   signaling cost, NEMO may be selected in order to support the subnet

4.  Possible solutions

   Two different schemes may be used for the protocol negotiation and
   selection: MN-initiated and Network-initiated.  Within the MIP/PMIP
   protocols, the priority of the function-extension protocols should be
   higher than the performance-enhancement protocols.  Generally, the
   following principles and general procedure may be followed:

   o  During initiation, PMIPv6 may be used as a default mobility
      management protocol once the network supports it.
   o  If the host prefers host-based scheme, a negotiation is executed
      to handover from PMIPv6 to MIPv6 style.
   o  After initial attachment, a profile will be generated in the
      management store to record the selected protocol of this host.
   o  When the handover happens, the network will check the selected
      protocol during the authentication process.  But the network also
      needs to notify the host if the selected protocol cannot be
      supported herein.

   In order to fulfill the above principles, some extensions should be
   supported, for example:

   1) Extended negotiation messages

Yan & Lee                 Expires June 24, 2017                 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft                     MAN                     December 2016

   In order to negotiate the mobility management protocol between host
   and network, a new signaling message or an extended message (e.g.,
   ICMPv6, Diameter, and RADIUS) should be used.  Except these, some
   other protocols may also be used in some specified scenarios, such as
   extended IEEE 802.21 primitives.

   2) Extended management store

   When the terminal accesses to the network, an authentication should
   be executed before the mobility management service is provided.  In
   order to support the mobility management protocol selection, a new
   information should be recorded by the network after the successful
   authentication during the initial attachment.  The newly introduced
   information shows the selected mobility management protocol and
   should be updated when the used protocol changes.

5.  Security Considerations

   Generally, this function will not incur additional security issues.
   The detailed influence should be analyzed in the future.

6.  IANA Considerations

   A new ICMP option or authentication option or other signaling message
   may be used with a new code number.

7.  References

   [RFC3963]  Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., and P.
              Thubert, "Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol",
              RFC 3963, DOI 10.17487/RFC3963, January 2005,

   [RFC5213]  Gundavelli, S., Ed., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V.,
              Chowdhury, K., and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6",
              RFC 5213, DOI 10.17487/RFC5213, August 2008,

   [RFC5268]  Koodli, R., Ed., "Mobile IPv6 Fast Handovers", RFC 5268,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5268, June 2008,

   [RFC5380]  Soliman, H., Castelluccia, C., ElMalki, K., and L.
              Bellier, "Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 (HMIPv6) Mobility
              Management", RFC 5380, DOI 10.17487/RFC5380, October 2008,

Yan & Lee                 Expires June 24, 2017                 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft                     MAN                     December 2016

   [RFC5555]  Soliman, H., Ed., "Mobile IPv6 Support for Dual Stack
              Hosts and Routers", RFC 5555, DOI 10.17487/RFC5555, June
              2009, <>.

   [RFC5648]  Wakikawa, R., Ed., Devarapalli, V., Tsirtsis, G., Ernst,
              T., and K. Nagami, "Multiple Care-of Addresses
              Registration", RFC 5648, DOI 10.17487/RFC5648, October
              2009, <>.

   [RFC5844]  Wakikawa, R. and S. Gundavelli, "IPv4 Support for Proxy
              Mobile IPv6", RFC 5844, DOI 10.17487/RFC5844, May 2010,

   [RFC6275]  Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility
              Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, DOI 10.17487/RFC6275, July
              2011, <>.

   [RFC7333]  Chan, H., Ed., Liu, D., Seite, P., Yokota, H., and J.
              Korhonen, "Requirements for Distributed Mobility
              Management", RFC 7333, DOI 10.17487/RFC7333, August 2014,

Authors' Addresses

   Zhiwei Yan
   No.4 South 4th Street, Zhongguancun
   Beijing  100190


   Jong-Hyouk Lee
   Sangmyung University
   31, Sangmyeongdae-gil, Dongnam-gu
   Republic of Korea


Yan & Lee                 Expires June 24, 2017                 [Page 6]