Mobility Capability Negotiation and Protocol Selection
draft-yan-dmm-man-02
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Zhiwei Yan , Guanggang Geng , Jong-Hyouk Lee , Anthony Chan | ||
| Last updated | 2017-10-29 | ||
| 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-02
DMM Working Group Z. Yan
Internet-Draft G. Geng
Intended status: Standards Track CNNIC
Expires: May 2, 2018 J. Lee
Sangmyung University
H. Chan
Huawei Technologies
October 29, 2017
Mobility Capability Negotiation and Protocol Selection
draft-yan-dmm-man-02
Abstract
The draft analyzes the issue that multiple mobility management
protocols have been developed according to different requirements.
These different protocols have different functional requirements on
the network element or the host. A scheme is then proposed to
support the negotiation and selection of adopted mobility management
protocol when a host accesses a new network.
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 May 2, 2018.
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
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
Yan, et al. Expires May 2, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MCN-PS October 2017
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
A large number of multiple protocols have been developed. In order
to clearly analyze the possible cases, these mobility management
protocols can be categorized as follows:
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 suite protocols: based on MIPv6, there are multiple
extension protocols have been standardized. These protocols can
be classified into two types: protocols for functional extension
and protocols for performance enhancement. The protocols for
functional 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 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 suite protocols,
location update is initiated by the host and the tunnel is also
terminated at the host.
o PMIPv6 suite protocols: in order to reduce the protocol cost and
enhance the handover performance further, the network-based
mobility management protocols were proposed and PMIPv6 was
Yan, et al. Expires May 2, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MCN-PS October 2017
standardized as a base protocol. Based on PMIPv6, a series of its
extensions were proposed, such as Dual-stack Proxy Mobile IPv6
(DS-PMIPv6) [RFC5844], and Distributed Mobility Management Proxy
Mobile IPv6 (DMM-PMIPv6) [RFC7333]. Being different from the
MIPv6 suite protocols, the location update in PMIPv6 suite
protocols is triggered by the network entity and the tunnel is
established between network entities. Then the host needs to do
nothing about signaling exchange during the movement,
particularly, the mobility support is transparent to the IP layer
of the host.
o Network-based protocols: generally, they refer to the mobility
management protocols which do not require the involvement of the
host to support mobility. They include the PMIPv6 suite protocols
and other network-based solutions, such as GPRS Tunnelling
Protocol (GTP) [TS.29274][TS.29281].
o Host-based protocols: generally, they refer to the mobility
management protocols which require the involvement of the host in
order to support mobility. They include the MIPv6 suite protocols
and other host-based solutions, such as Host Identity Protocol
(HIP) [RFC7401] and IKEv2 Mobility and Multihoming Protocol
(MOBIKE) [RFC4555].
Figure 1 illustrates the scopes of the above different categories.
+----------------+ +----------------+
| Network-based | | Host-based |
|+--------------+| |+--------------+|
||PMIPv6 suite || ||MIPv6 suite ||
||+------------+|| ||+------------+||
|||PMIPv6 ||| |||MIPv6 |||
||+------------+|| ||+------------+||
|+--------------+| |+--------------+|
+----------------+ +----------------+
Figure 1: Scopes of different protocol categories
In deployment, the host-based protocols and network-based protocols
will be co-existing and multiple protocol deamons will be configured
on the network entities or host. There is then a gap in how to
determine which protocol to use. A scheme is therefore needed to
support the negotiation and selection of mobility management protocol
when the host initially attaches or hands over to a new network
[Paper-CombiningMobilityStandards].
This document tries to present the principles for the protocol
selection and analyze the possible scenarios which should be
supported by the subsequent mobility solution.
Yan, et al. Expires May 2, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MCN-PS October 2017
2. Motivations
As illustrated above, these protocols may co-exist in practice and
may simultaneously be used in an access network or even the same
entity. Due to their different requirements on the network entity or
host, a scheme is needed to support the negotiation and selection of
adopted mobility management protocol when the host 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 should be adopted for the protocol negotiation and
selection?
This scheme is needed because the network entity and the host may
have different capabilities and preferences (may be decided by the
capability and mobility pattern of the host). This scheme aims to
guarantee that the optimum and most suitable protocol will be used.
3. Possible Cases
From both host and network aspects, there are multiple cases in their
capacities of mobility management as shown in Figure 2. We mainly
analyze the cases where that host and network support a single
protocol. If multiple protocols are supported simultaneously by the
host or network side, multiple cases exist at the same time but the
logic is the same as that in the case with single protocol supported.
Specifically, the following cases should be considered.
1) Network supports network-based protocol, host supports network-
based protocol
In this case, there are the following sub-cases:
a) Host supports PMIPv6 suite protocol, Network supports PMIPv6 suite
protocol
o if host supports PMIPv6 and network supports PMIPv6, PMIPv6 will
be selected.
o if host supports PMIPv6 and network supports extended PMIPv6
protocol, extended PMIPv6 is selected if no host involvement is
needed, otherwise the plain PMIPv6 is selected (we assume that the
extension protocols are backward-compatible with the related plain
protocol).
o if host supports extended PMIPv6 protocol and network supports
PMIPv6, PMIPv6 is selected (we assume that the extension protocols
are backward-compatible with the related plain protocol).
Yan, et al. Expires May 2, 2018 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MCN-PS October 2017
o if host supports extended PMIPv6 protocol and network supports
extended PMIPv6 protocol, the identical extension protocol is
selected, otherwise, the plain PMIPv6 is selected (we assume that
the extension protocols are backward-compatible with the related
plain protocol).
+----------------+-------------+--------------------------------+
| | |PMIPv6 |
| | |-------------------+------------+
| Network-based | PMIPv6 suite| | DS-PMIPv6 |
| | | +------------+
| | |PMIPv6 extensions | FPMIPv6 |
| | | +------------+
| | | | DMM-PMIPv6 |
| | | +------------+
| | | | ... |
| |-------------+-------------------+------------+
| | Others |GTP |
| | |--------------------------------+
| | |... |
+----------------+-------------+--------------------------------+
| | |MIPv6 |
| | |-------------------+------------+
| Host-based | MIPv6 suite | | DS-MIPv6 |
| | | +------------+
| | | | FMIPv6 |
| | | +------------+
| | |MIPv6 extensions | HMIPv6 |
| | | +------------+
| | | | NEMO |
| | | +------------+
| | | | DMM-MIPv6 |
| | | +------------+
| | | | ... |
| |-------------+-------------------+------------+
| | Others |HIP |
| | |--------------------------------+
| | |MOBIKE |
| | |--------------------------------+
| | |... |
+----------------+-------------+--------------------------------+
Figure 2: Possible capacities of mobility support by the host and
network
b) Host supports PMIPv6 suite protocol, Network supports other
network-based protocol
Yan, et al. Expires May 2, 2018 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MCN-PS October 2017
o if host supports PMIPv6 and network supports other network-based
protocol, other network-based protocol is selected if no host
involvement is needed, otherwise failure.
o if host supports extended PMIPv6 protocol and network supports
other network-based protocol, other network-based protocol is
selected if no host involvement is needed, otherwise failure.
c) Host supports other network-based protocol, Network supports
PMIPv6 suite protocol
o if host supports other network-based protocol and network supports
PMIPv6, PMIPv6 is selected.
o if host supports other network-based protocol and network supports
extended PMIPv6 protocol, extended PMIPv6 protocol is selected if
no host involvement is needed, otherwise failure.
d) Host supports other network-based protocol, Network supports other
network-based protocol
o the identical protocol is selected, otherwise follow network
ability if the protocols are different.
2) Network supports network-based protocol, host supports host-based
protocol
In this case, there are the following sub-cases:
a) Host supports PMIPv6 suite protocol, Network supports MIPv6 suite
protocol
o if host supports PMIPv6 and network supports MIPv6, failure.
o if host supports PMIPv6 and network supports extended MIPv6
protocol, failure.
o if host supports extended PMIPv6 protocol and network supports
MIPv6, failure.
o if host supports extended PMIPv6 protocol and network supports
extended MIPv6 protocols, failure.
b) Host supports PMIPv6 suite protocol, Network supports other host-
based protocol
o if host supports PMIPv6 and network supports other host-based
protocol, failure.
o if host supports extended PMIPv6 protocol and network supports
other host-based protocol, failure.
c) Host supports other network-based protocol, Network supports MIPv6
suite protocol
Yan, et al. Expires May 2, 2018 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft MCN-PS October 2017
o if host supports other network-based protocol and network supports
MIPv6, failure.
o if host supports other network-based protocol and network supports
extended MIPv6 protocol, failure.
d) Host supports other network-based protocol, Network supports other
host-based protocol
o failure.
3) Network supports host-based protocol, host supports network-based
protocol
In this case, there are the following sub-cases:
a) Host supports MIPv6 suite protocol, Network supports PMIPv6 suite
protocol
o if host supports MIPv6 and network supports PMIPv6, PMIPv6 is
selected in default and MIPv6 is selected if host prefers it.
o if host supports MIPv6 and network supports extended PMIPv6
protocol, extended PMIPv6 is selected in default, then PMIPv6 is
selected with the lower priority and MIPv6 is selected if host
prefers it.
o if host supports extended MIPv6 protocol and network supports
PMIPv6, PMIPv6 will be selected in default, then extended MIPv6 is
selected if host prefers it and network also supports, otherwise
MIPv6 is selected with the lowest priority.
o if host supports extended MIPv6 protocol and network supports
extended PMIPv6 protocol, extended PMIPv6 is selected in default,
then PMIPv6 is selected, then extended MIPv6 is selected if host
prefers and network also supports, otherwise MIPv6 is selected
with the lowest priority.
b) Host supports MIPv6 suite protocol, Network supports other
network-based protocol
o if host supports MIPv6 and network supports other network-based
protocol, other network-based protocol is selected if no host
involvement is needed, otherwise failure.
o if host supports extended MIPv6 protocol and network supports
other network-based protocol, other network-based protocol is
selected if no host involvement is needed, otherwise failure.
c) Host supports other host-based protocol, Network supports PMIPv6
suite protocol
Yan, et al. Expires May 2, 2018 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft MCN-PS October 2017
o if host supports other host-based protocol and network supports
PMIPv6, PMIPv6 is selected in default, otherwise failure.
o if host supports other host-based protocol and network supports
extended PMIPv6 protocol, extended PMIPv6 protocol is selected if
no host involvement is needed, otherwise failure.
d) Host supports other host-based protocol, Network supports other
network-based protocol
o other network-based protocol is selected if no host involvement is
needed, otherwise failure.
4) Network supports host-based protocol, host supports host-based
protocol
In this case, there are the following sub-cases:
a) Host supports MIPv6 suite protocol, Network supports MIPv6 suite
protocol
o if host supports MIPv6 and network supports MIPv6, MIPv6 is
selected.
o if host supports MIPv6 and network supports extended MIPv6
protocol, MIPv6 is selected.
o if host supports extended MIPv6 protocol and network supports
MIPv6, MIPv6 is selected.
o if host supports extended MIPv6 protocol and network supports
extended MIPv6 protocols, the identical protocol is selected,
otherwise MIPv6 is selected.
b) Host supports MIPv6 suite protocol, Network supports other host-
based protocol
o if host supports MIPv6 and network supports other host-based
protocol, failure.
o if host supports extended MIPv6 protocol and network supports
other host-based protocol, failure.
c) Host supports other host-based protocol, Network supports MIPv6
suite protocol
o if host supports other host-based protocol and network supports
MIPv6, failure.
o if host supports other host-based protocol and network supports
extended MIPv6 protocol, failure.
d) Host supports other host-based protocol, Network supports other
host-based protocol
Yan, et al. Expires May 2, 2018 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft MCN-PS October 2017
o the identical other host-based protocol is selected, otherwise
failure.
5) Network supports host-based protocol and network-based protocol,
host supports host-based protocol and network-based protocol
o follow the network based protocol in default if the host can
support, otherwise select the protocol both network and host can
support if host prefers.
4. Principles and Possible Procedure
Two different schemes may be used for the protocol negotiation and
selection: host-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
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.
5. Extensions
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
Yan, et al. Expires May 2, 2018 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft MCN-PS October 2017
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 host accesses the network, 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.
6. Security Considerations
Generally, this function will not incur additional security issues.
The detailed influence should be analyzed in the future.
7. IANA Considerations
A new ICMP option or authentication option or other signaling message
may be used with a new code number.
8. References
8.1. 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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3963>.
[RFC4555] Eronen, P., "IKEv2 Mobility and Multihoming Protocol
(MOBIKE)", RFC 4555, DOI 10.17487/RFC4555, June 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4555>.
[RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., Ed., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V.,
Chowdhury, K., and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6",
RFC 5213, DOI 10.17487/RFC5213, August 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5213>.
Yan, et al. Expires May 2, 2018 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft MCN-PS October 2017
[RFC5268] Koodli, R., Ed., "Mobile IPv6 Fast Handovers", RFC 5268,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5268, June 2008,
<https://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,
<https://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, <https://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, <https://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,
<https://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, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6275>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7333>.
[RFC7401] Moskowitz, R., Ed., Heer, T., Jokela, P., and T.
Henderson, "Host Identity Protocol Version 2 (HIPv2)",
RFC 7401, DOI 10.17487/RFC7401, April 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7401>.
[TS.29274]
"3GPP Evolved Packet System (EPS); Evolved General Packet
Radio Service (GPRS) Tunnelling Protocol for Control plane
(GTPv2-C); Stage 3", 3GPP TS 29.274 8.10.0, June 2011.
[TS.29281]
"General Packet Radio System (GPRS) Tunnelling Protocol
User Plane (GTPv1-U)", 3GPP TS 29.281 10.3.0, September
2011.
Yan, et al. Expires May 2, 2018 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft MCN-PS October 2017
8.2. 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
Guanggang Geng
CNNIC
No.4 South 4th Street, Zhongguancun
Beijing 100190
China
Email: ggg@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 May 2, 2018 [Page 12]