Mobility Capability Negotiation and Protocol Selection
draft-yan-dmm-man-01
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Zhiwei Yan , Jong-Hyouk Lee , Anthony Chan | ||
| Last updated | 2017-06-21 | ||
| Stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | plain text htmlized pdfized bibtex | ||
| 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-yan-dmm-man-01
DMM Working Group Z. Yan
Internet-Draft CNNIC
Intended status: Standards Track J. Lee
Expires: December 22, 2017 Sangmyung University
H. Chan
Huawei Technologies
June 20, 2017
Mobility Capability Negotiation and Protocol Selection
draft-yan-dmm-man-01
Abstract
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 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 December 22, 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
Yan, et al. Expires December 22, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MCN-PS June 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. Motivations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Principles and possible solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction
Based on Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6) [RFC6275], there are multiple extension
protocols have been standardized. These protocols can be classified
into two categories: 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 mobile nodes with multiple access interfaces and
Network Mobility (NEMO) [RFC3963] for mobility of sub-network. The
other category 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
classified in the host-based mobility management protocol suite
because the location update is initiated by the terminal and the
tunnel is also terminated at the terminal.
In order to reduce the protocol cost and enhance the handover
performance further, the network-based mobility management protocols
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] as the network-based mobility management protocol
suite. Be different from the host-based suite, the location update
in network-based suite is triggered by the network entity and the
Yan, et al. Expires December 22, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MCN-PS June 2017
tunnel is established between network entities. Then 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.
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
access network initially or handover happens
[Paper-CombiningMobilityStandards].
This document tries to present the principles for the protocol
selection and analyze the possible scenarios which should be
supported by the further solution.
2. Motivations
As illustrated above, these protocols may co-exist in reality and
simultaneously be 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 What principles should be followed for the protocol negotiation
and selection?
o What procedure shoud be adopted for the protocol negotiation and
selection?
This scheme is needed because different entity and terminal will have
different capabilities and preferences (may be decided by the
capability 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 capability
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 protocol, while
the host does not have any mobility management function. Then only
the PMIPv6 can be used to support the mobility management of the
Yan, et al. Expires December 22, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MCN-PS June 2017
host, but the network does not deploy the PMIPv6 protocol 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
protocols, while the host supports only PMIPv6. When the host
accesses 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 one.
3) Network supports both MIPv6 and PMIPv6, host supports MIPv6
In this case, the network deploys both host-based and network-based
protocols, 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 multiple extension 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
other 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 mobility.
However, there are more complex scenarios considering the different
abilities of network entities and terminal.
4. Principles and possible solution
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 should be followed:
o Priority 1: Follow network ability
o Priority 2: Follow host preference
o Priority 3: Support the functional extensions
o Priority 4: Support the performance enhancements
o In default: network based scheme if it can be supported
Yan, et al. Expires December 22, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MCN-PS June 2017
And the general procedure for the protocol selection should be:
o During initiation, network-based protocol may be used as a default
mobility management protocol once the network supports it.
o If the host prefers host-based protocols, a negotiation is
executed to handover from network-based protocol to host-based
protocol.
o After initial attachment, a profile will be generated in the
management store to record the selected or preferred protocol of
this host.
o When the handover happens, the network will check the selected or
preferred 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
The protocol negotiation may be included in the MN_ATTACH Function
[MN-AR.IF] and the implementation may be based on a new signaling
message or extended messages (e.g., ICMPv6, Diameter, and RADIUS).
Besides 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.
Yan, et al. Expires December 22, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MCN-PS June 2017
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[MN-AR.IF]
Laganier, J., Narayanan, S., and P. McCann, "Interface
between a Proxy MIPv6 Mobility Access Gateway and a Mobile
Node", draft-ietf-netlmm-mn-ar-if-03, February 2008.
[RFC3963] Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., and P.
Thubert, "Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol",
RFC 3963, DOI 10.17487/RFC3963, January 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3963>.
[RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., Ed., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V.,
Chowdhury, K., and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6",
RFC 5213, DOI 10.17487/RFC5213, August 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5213>.
[RFC5268] Koodli, R., Ed., "Mobile IPv6 Fast Handovers", RFC 5268,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5268, June 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5268>.
[RFC5380] Soliman, H., Castelluccia, C., ElMalki, K., and L.
Bellier, "Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 (HMIPv6) Mobility
Management", RFC 5380, DOI 10.17487/RFC5380, October 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5380>.
[RFC5555] Soliman, H., Ed., "Mobile IPv6 Support for Dual Stack
Hosts and Routers", RFC 5555, DOI 10.17487/RFC5555, June
2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5555>.
[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, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5648>.
[RFC5844] Wakikawa, R. and S. Gundavelli, "IPv4 Support for Proxy
Mobile IPv6", RFC 5844, DOI 10.17487/RFC5844, May 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5844>.
[RFC6275] Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility
Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, DOI 10.17487/RFC6275, July
2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6275>.
Yan, et al. Expires December 22, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft MCN-PS June 2017
[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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7333>.
7.2. Informative References
[Paper-CombiningMobilityStandards]
Oliva, A., Soto, I., Calderon, M., Bernardos, C., and M.
Sanchez, "The costs and benefits of combining different IP
mobility standards", Computer Standards and Interfaces,
February 2013.
Authors' Addresses
Zhiwei Yan
CNNIC
No.4 South 4th Street, Zhongguancun
Beijing 100190
China
Email: yan@cnnic.cn
Jong-Hyouk Lee
Sangmyung University
31, Sangmyeongdae-gil, Dongnam-gu
Cheonan
Republic of Korea
Email: jonghyouk@smu.ac.kr
H. Anthony Chan
Huawei Technologies
5340 Legacy Dr. Building 3
Plano, TX 75024
USA
Email: h.a.chan@ieee.org
Yan, et al. Expires December 22, 2017 [Page 7]