Network Working Group H. Chan (Ed.)
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Informational July 1, 2011
Expires: January 2, 2012
Problem statement for distributed and dynamic mobility management
draft-chan-distributed-mobility-ps-03
Abstract
The traditional hierarchical structure of cellular networks has led
to deployment models which are heavily centralized. Mobility
management with centralized mobility anchoring in existing
hierarchical mobile networks is quite prone to suboptimal routing and
issues related to scalability. Centralized functions present a
single point of failure, and inevitably introduce longer delays and
higher signaling loads for network operations related to mobility
management. To make matters worse, there are numerous variants of
Mobile IP in addition to other protocols standardized outside the
IETF, making it much more difficult to create economical and
interoperable solutions. In this document we examine the problems of
centralized mobility management and identify requirements for
distributed and dynamic mobility management.
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 January 2, 2012.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 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
Chan (Ed.) Expires January 2, 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft DMM-PS July 2011
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Centralized versus distributed mobility management . . . . . . 5
3.1. Centralized mobility management . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Distributed mobility management . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Problem statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. Non-optimal routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2. Non-optimality in Evolved Network Architecture . . . . . . 10
4.3. Low scalability of centralized route and mobility
context maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.4. Wasting resources to support mobile nodes not needing
mobility support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.5. Complicated deployment with too many variants and
extensions of MIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.6. Mobility signaling overhead with peer-to-peer
communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.7. Single point of failure and attack . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. Co-authors and Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Chan (Ed.) Expires January 2, 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft DMM-PS July 2011
1. Introduction
Traditional cellular networks have been hierarchical, so that
mobility management has primarily been deployed according to a
centralized architecture. Mobility solutions deployed with
centralized mobility anchoring in existing hierarchical mobile
networks are more prone to the following problems or limitations
compared with distributed and dynamic mobility management:
1. Routing via a centralized anchor is often longer, so that those
mobility protocol deployments that lack optimization extensions
results in non-optimal routes, affecting performance; whereas
routing optimization may be an integral part of a distributed
design.
2. As a mobile network becomes less hierarchical, centralized
mobility management can become more non-optimal, especially as
the content servers in a content delivery network (CDN) are
moving closer to the access network. In contrast, distributed
mobility management can support both hierarchical networks and
flat networks as may be needed to support CDNs.
3. Centralized route maintenance and context maintenance for a large
number of mobile hosts is more difficult to scale.
4. Scalability may worsen if there is no mechanism to determine
whether mobility support is needed; dynamic mobility management
(i.e., selectively providing mobility support) may be better
implemented with distributed mobility management.
5. Deployment is complicated with numerous variants and extensions
of mobile IP; these variants and extensions may be better
integrated in a distributed and dynamic design which can
selectively adapt to the needs.
6. Excessive signaling overhead should be avoided when end nodes are
able to communicate end-to-end; capability to selectively turn
off signaling not needed by the end hosts will reduce the
handover delay.
7. Centralized approaches are generally more vulnerable to a single
point of failure and attack, often requiring duplication and
backups. A distributed approach typically isolates the problem
in a single local network so that the needed protection can be
simpler.
In the past decade a fair number of mobility protocols have been
standardized. Although the protocols differ in terms of functions
and associated message format, we can identify a few key common
features:
presence of a centralized mobility anchor providing global
reachability and an always-on experience;
extensions to optimize handover performance while users roam
across wireless cells;
Chan (Ed.) Expires January 2, 2012 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft DMM-PS July 2011
extensions to enable the use of heterogeneous wireless interfaces
for multi-mode terminals (e.g. cellular phones).
The presence of the centralized mobility anchor allows a mobile
device to be reachable when it is not connected to its home domain.
The anchor, among other tasks, ensures forwarding of packets destined
to or sent from the mobile device. Most of the deployed
architectures today have a small number of centralized anchors
managing the traffic of millions of mobile subscribers. Compared
with a distributed approach, a centralized approach is likely to have
several issues or limitations affecting performance and scalability,
which require costly network dimensioning and engineering to resolve.
To optimize handovers for mobile users, the base protocols have been
extended to efficiently handle packet forwarding between the previous
and new points of attachment. These extensions are necessary when
applications impose stringent requirements in terms of delay.
Notions of localization and distribution of local agents have been
introduced to reduce signaling overhead. Unfortunately today we
witness difficulties in getting such protocols deployed, often
leading to sub-optimal choices.
Moreover, the availability of multi-mode devices and the possibility
of using several network interfaces simultaneously have motivated the
development of more new protocol extensions. Deployment is further
complicated with so many extensions.
Mobile users are, more than ever, consuming Internet content; such
traffic imposes new requirements on mobile core networks for data
traffic delivery. When the traffic demand exceeds available
capacity, service providers need to implement new strategies such as
selective traffic offload (e.g. 3GPP work items LIPA/SIPTO) through
alternative access networks (e.g. WLAN). Moreover, the localization
of content providers closer to the Mobile/Fixed Internet Service
Providers network requires taking into account local Content Delivery
Networks (CDNs) while providing mobility services.
When demand exceeds capacity, both offloading and CDN techniques
could benefit from the development of mobile architectures with fewer
levels of routing hierarchy introduced into the data path by the
mobility management system. This trend in network flattening is
reinforced by a shift in users traffic behavior, aimed at increasing
direct communications among peers in the same geographical area.
Distributed mobility management in a truly flat mobile architecture
would anchor the traffic closer to the point of attachment of the
user and overcome the suboptimal routing issues of a centralized
mobility scheme.
While deploying [Paper-Locating.User] today's mobile networks,
Chan (Ed.) Expires January 2, 2012 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft DMM-PS July 2011
service providers face new challenges. More often than not, mobile
devices remain attached to the same point of attachment. Specific IP
mobility management support is not required for applications that
launch and complete while the mobile device is connected to the same
point of attachment. However, the mobility support has been designed
to be always on and to maintain the context for each mobile
subscriber as long as they are connected to the network. This can
result in a waste of resources and ever-increasing costs for the
service provider. Infrequent mobility and intelligence of many
applications suggest that mobility can be provided dynamically, thus
simplifying the context maintained in the different nodes of the
mobile network.
The proposed work will address two complementary aspects of mobility
management procedures: the distribution of mobility anchors to
achieve a more flat design and the dynamic activation/deactivation of
mobility protocol support as an enabler to distributed mobility
management. The former has the goal of positioning mobility anchors
(HA, LMA) closer to the user; ideally, these mobility agents could be
collocated with the first hop router. The latter, facilitated by the
distribution of mobility anchors, aims at identifying when mobility
must be activated and identifying sessions that do not impose
mobility management -- thus reducing the amount of state information
to be maintained in the various mobility agents of the mobile
network. The key idea is that dynamic mobility management relaxes
some constraints while also repositioning mobility anchors; it avoids
the establishment of non optimal tunnels between two topologically
distant anchors.
This document discusses the issues with centralized IP mobility
management compared with distributed and dynamic mobility management.
A companion document [dmm-scenario] discusses the use case scenarios.
2. Conventions used in this document
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].
3. Centralized versus distributed mobility management
Mobility management functions may be implemented at different layers
of the network protocol stack. At the IP (network) layer, they may
reside in the network or in the mobile node. In particular, a
network-based solution resides in the network only. It therefore
enables mobility for existing hosts and network applications which
Chan (Ed.) Expires January 2, 2012 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft DMM-PS July 2011
are already in deployment but lack mobility support.
At the IP layer, a mobility management protocol to achieve session
continuity is typically based on the principle of distinguishing
between identifier and routing address and maintaining a mapping
between them. With Mobile IP, the home address serves as an
identifier of the device whereas the care-of-address takes the role
of routing address, and the binding between them is maintained at the
mobility anchor, i.e., the home agent. If packets can be
continuously delivered to a mobile device at its home address, then
all sessions using that home address can be preserved even though the
routing or care-of address changes.
The next two subsections explain centralized and distributed mobility
management functions in the network.
3.1. Centralized mobility management
With centralized mobility management, the mapping information between
the stable node identifier and the changing IP address of an MN is
kept at a centralized mobility anchor. Packets destined to an MN are
routed via this anchor. In other words, such mobility management
systems are centralized in both the control plane and the data plane.
Many existing mobility management deployments make use of centralized
mobility anchoring in a hierarchical network architecture, as shown
in Figure 1. Examples of such centralized mobility anchors are the
home agent (HA) and local mobility anchor (LMA) in Mobile IP
[RFC3775] and Proxy Mobile IP [RFC5213], respectively. Current
mobile networks such as the Third Generation Partnership Project
(3GPP) UMTS networks, CDMA networks, and 3GPP Evolved Packet System
(EPS) networks also employ centralized mobility management, with
Gateway GPRS Support Node (GGSN) and Serving GPRS Support Node (SGSN)
in the 3GPP UMTS hierarchical network and with Packet data network
Gateway (P-GW) and Serving Gateway (S-GW) in the 3GPP EPS network.
Chan (Ed.) Expires January 2, 2012 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft DMM-PS July 2011
UMTS 3GPP SAE MIP/PMIP
+------+ +------+ +------+
| GGSN | | P-GW | |HA/LMA|
+------+ +------+ +------+
/\ /\ /\
/ \ / \ / \
/ \ / \ / \
/ \ / \ / \
/ \ / \ / \
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| SGSN | | SGSN | | S-GW | | S-GW | |FA/MAG| |FA/MAG|
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
Figure 1. Centralized mobility management.
3.2. Distributed mobility management
Mobility management functions may also be distributed to multiple
locations in different networks as shown in Figure 2, so that a
mobile node in any of these networks may be served by a closeby
mobility function (MF).
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| MF | | MF | | MF | | MF |
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
|
----
| MN |
----
Figure 2. Distributed mobility management.
Mobility management may be partially distributed, i.e., only the data
plane is distributed, or fully distributed where both the data plane
and control plane are distributed. These different approaches are
described in detail in [I-D.dmm-scenario].
A distributed mobility management scheme is proposed in [Paper-
Distributed.Dynamic.Mobility] for future flat IP architecture
consisting of access nodes. The benefits of this design over
centralized mobility management are also verified through simulations
in [Paper-Distributed.Centralized.Mobility] .
Before designing new mobility management protocols for a future flat
IP architecture, one should first ask whether the existing mobility
management protocols that have already been deployed for the
hierarchical mobile networks can be extended to serve the flat IP
Chan (Ed.) Expires January 2, 2012 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft DMM-PS July 2011
architecture. MIPv4 has already been deployed in 3GPP2 networks, and
PMIPv6 has already been adopted in WiMAX Forum and in 3GPP standards.
Using MIP or PMIP for both centralized and distributed architectures
would ease the migration of the current mobile networks towards a
flat architecture. It has therefore been proposed to adapt MIP or
PMIPv6 to achieve distributed mobility management by using a
distributed mobility anchor architecture.
In [Paper-Migrating.Home.Agents] , the HA functionality is copied to
many locations. The HoA of all MNs are anycast addresses, so that a
packet destined to a HoA from any CN from any network can be routed
via the nearest copy of the HA. In addition, distributing the
function of HA using a distributed hash table structure is proposed
in [Paper-Distributed.Mobility.SAE] . A lookup query to the hash
table will retrieve the location information of an MN is stored.
In [Paper-Distributed.Mobility.PMIP] , only the mobility routing (MR)
function is duplicated and distributed in many locations. The
location information for any MN that has moved to a visited network
is still centralized and kept at a location management (LM) function
in the home network of the MN. The LM function at different networks
constitutes a distributed database system of all the MNs that belong
to any of these networks and have moved to a visited network. The
location information is maintained in the form of a hierarchy: the LM
at the home network, the CoA of the MR of the visited network, and
then the CoA to reach the MN in the visited network. The LM in the
home network keeps a binding of the HoA of the MN to the CoA of the
MR of the visited network. The MR keeps the binding of the HoA of
the MN to the CoA of the MN in the case of MIP, or the proxy-CoA of
the Mobile Access Gateway (MAG) serving the MN in the case of PMIP.
[I-D.PMIP-DMC] discusses two distributed mobility control schemes
using the PMIP protocol: Signal-driven PMIP (S-PMIP) and Signal-
driven Distributed PMIP (SD-PMIP). S-PMIP is a partially distributed
scheme, in which the control plane (using a Proxy Binding Query to
get the Proxy-CoA of the MN) is separate from the data plane, and the
optimized data path is directly between the CN and the MN. SD-PMIP
is a fully distributed scheme, in which the Proxy Binding Update is
not performed, and instead each MAG will multicast a Proxy Binding
Query message to all of the MAGs in its local PMIP domain to retrieve
the Proxy-CoA of the MN.
4. Problem statement
This section identifies problems and limitations of centralized
mobility approaches, and compares against possible distributed
approaches.
Chan (Ed.) Expires January 2, 2012 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft DMM-PS July 2011
4.1. Non-optimal routes
Routing via a centralized anchor often results in a longer route.
Figure 3 shows two cases of non-optimized routes.
MIP/PMIP
+------+
|HA/LMA|
+------+
/\ \ \ +---+
/ \ \ \ |CDN|
/ \ \ \ +---+
/ \ \ \ |
/ \ \ \ |
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
|FA/MAG| |FA/MAG| |FA/MAG| |FA/MAG|
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| |
---- ----
| CN | | MN |
---- ----
Figure 3. Non-optimized route when communicating with CN and when
accessing local content.
In the first case, the mobile node and the correspondent node are
close to each other but are both far from the mobility anchor.
Packets destined to the mobile node need to be routed via the
mobility anchor, which is not on the shortest path. The second case
involves a content delivery network (CDN). A user may obtain content
from a server, such as when watching a video. As such usage becomes
more popular, resulting in an increase in the core network traffic,
service providers may relieve the core network traffic by placing
these contents closer to the users in the access network in the form
of cache or local CDN servers. Yet as the MN is getting content from
a local or cache server of a CDN, even though the server is close to
the MN, packets still need to go through the core network to route
via the mobility anchor in the home network of the MN, if the MN uses
the HoA as its identifier.
In a distributed mobility management design, mobility anchors are
distributed in different access networks so that packets may be
routed via a nearby mobility anchor function, as shown in Figure 4.
Chan (Ed.) Expires January 2, 2012 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft DMM-PS July 2011
+---+
|CDN|
+---+
|
|
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| MF | | MF | | MF | | MF |
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| |
---- ----
| CN | | MN |
---- ----
Figure 4. Mobile node in any network is served by a close by
mobility function.
Due to the above limitation, with the centralized mobility anchor
design, route optimization extensions to mobility protocols are
therefore needed. Whereas the location privacy of each MN may be
compromised when the CoA of an MN is given to the CN, those mobility
protocol deployments that lack such optimization extensions will
encounter non-optimal routes, which affect the performance.
In contrast, route optimization may be naturally an integral part of
a distributed mobility management design. With the help of such
intrinsic route optimization, the data transmission delay will be
reduced, by which the data transmission throughputs can be enhanced.
Furthermore, the data traffic overhead at the mobility agents such as
the HA and the LMA in the core network can be alleviated
significanly.
4.2. Non-optimality in Evolved Network Architecture
Centralized mobility management is currently deployed to support the
existing hierarchical mobile data networks. It leverages on the
hierarchical architecture. However, the volume of wireless data
traffic continues to increase exponentially. The data traffic
increase would require costly capacity upgrade of centralized
architectures. It is thus predictable that the data traffic increase
will soon overload the centralized data anchor point, e.g., the P-GW
in 3GPP EPS. In order to address this issue, a trend in the
evolution of mobile networks is to distribute network functions close
to access networks. These network functions can be the content
servers in a CDN, and also the data anchor point.
Mobile networks have been evolving from a hierarchical architecture
to a more flattened architecture. In the 3GPP standards, the GPRS
network has the hierarchy GGSN "C SGSN "C RNC "C NB (Node B). In
Chan (Ed.) Expires January 2, 2012 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft DMM-PS July 2011
3GPP EPS networks, the hierarchy is reduced to P-GW "C S-GW "C eNB
(Evolved NB). In some deployments, the P-GW and the S-GW are
collocated to further reduce the hierarchy. Reducing the hierarchy
this way reduces the number of different physical network elements in
the network, contributing to easier system maintenance and lower
cost. As mobile networks become more flattened, the centralized
mobility management can become non-optimal. Mobility management
deployment with distributed architecture is then needed to support
the more flattened network and the CDN networks.
4.3. Low scalability of centralized route and mobility context
maintenance
Special routes are set up to enable session continuity when a
handover occurs. Packets sent from the CN need to be tunneled
between the HA and FA in MIP and between the LMA and MAG in PMIP.
However, these network elements at the ends of the tunnel are also
routers performing the regular routing tasks for ordinary packets not
involving a mobile node. These ordinary packets need to be directly
routed according to the routing table in the routers without
tunneling. Therefore, the network must be able to distinguish those
packets requiring tunneling from the regular packets. For each
packet that requires tunneling owing to mobility, the network will
encapsulate it with a proper outer IP header with the proper source
and destination IP addresses. The network therefore needs to
maintain and manage the mobility context of each MN, which is the
relevant information needed to characterize the mobility situation of
that MN to allow the network to distinguish their packets from other
packets and to perform the required tunneling.
Setting up such special routes and maintaining the mobility context
for each MN is more difficult to scale in a centralized design with a
large number of MNs. Distributing the route maintenance function and
the mobility context maintenance function among different networks
can be more scalable.
4.4. Wasting resources to support mobile nodes not needing mobility
support
The problem of centralized route and mobility context maintenance is
aggravated when the via routes are set up for many more MNs that are
not requiring IP mobility support. On the one hand, the network
needs to provide mobility support for the increasing number of mobile
devices because the existing mobility management has been designed to
always provide such support as long as a mobile device is attached to
the network. On the other hand, many nomadic users connected to a
network in an office or meeting room. Such users will not move for
the entire network session. It has been measured that over two-
Chan (Ed.) Expires January 2, 2012 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft DMM-PS July 2011
thirds of a user mobility is local [Paper-Locating.User] . In
addition, it is possible to have the intelligence for applications to
manage mobility without needing help from the network. Network
resources are therefore wasted to provide mobility support for the
devices that do not really need it at the moment.
It is necessary to dynamically set up the via routes only for MNs
that actually undergo handovers and lack higher-layer mobility
support. With distributed mobility anchors, such dynamic mobility
management mechanism may then also be distributed. Therefore,
dynamic mobility and distributed mobility may complement each other
and may be integrated.
4.5. Complicated deployment with too many variants and extensions of
MIP
Mobile IP, which has primarily been deployed in a centralized manner
for the hierarchical mobile networks, already has numerous variants
and extensions including PMIP, Fast MIP (FMIP) [RFC4068] [RFC4988] ,
Proxy-based FMIP (PFMIP) [RFC5949] , hierarchical MIP (HMIP)
[RFC5380] , Dual-Stack Mobile IP (DSMIP) [RFC5454] [RFC5555] and
there may be more to come. These different modifications or
extensions of MIP have been developed over the years owing to the
different needs that are found afterwards. Deployment can then
become complicated, especially if interoperability with different
deployments is an issue.
A desirable feature of mobility management is to be able to work with
network architectures of both hierarchical networks and flattened
networks, so that the mobility management protocol possesses enough
flexibility to support different networks. In addition, one goal of
dynamic mobility management is the capability to selectively turn on
and off mobility support and certain different mobility signaling.
Such flexibility in the design is compatible with the goal to
integrate different mobility variants as options. Some additional
extensions to the base protocols may then be needed to improve the
integration.
4.6. Mobility signaling overhead with peer-to-peer communication
In peer-to-peer communications, end users communicate by sending
packets directly addressed to each other!_s IP address. However,
they need to find each other!_s IP address first through signaling in
the network. While different schemes for this purpose may be used,
MIP already has a mechanism to locate an MN and may be used in this
way. In particular, MIPv6 Route Optimization (RO) mode enables a
more efficient data packets exchange than the bidirectional tunneling
(BT) mode, as shown in Figure 5.
Chan (Ed.) Expires January 2, 2012 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft DMM-PS July 2011
MIP/PMIP
+------+
|HA/LMA|
+------+
/\ \ \
/ \ \ \
/ \ \ \
/ \ \ \
/ \ \ \
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
|FA/MAG| |FA/MAG| |FA/MAG| |FA/MAG|
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| |
---- ----
| MN |<--->| CN |
---- ----
Figure 5. Non-optimized route when communicating with CN and when
accessing local content.
This RO mode is expected to be used whenever possible unless the MN
is not interested in disclosing its topological location, i.e., the
CoA, to the CN (e.g., for privacy reasons) or some other network
constraints are put in place. However, MIPv6 RO mode requires
exchanging a significant amount of signaling messages in order to
establish and periodically refresh a bidirectional security
association (BSA) between an MN and its CN. While the mobility
signaling exchange impacts the overall handover latency, the BSA is
needed to authenticate the binding update and acknowledgment messages
(note that the latter is not mandatory). In addition, the amount of
mobility signaling messages increases further when both endpoints are
mobile.
A dynamic mobility management capability to turn off these signaling
when they are not needed will enable the RO mode between two mobile
endpoints at minimum or no cost. It will also reduce the handover
latency owing to the removal of the extra signaling. These benefits
for peer-to-peer communications will encourage the adoption and
large-scale deployment of dynamic mobility management.
4.7. Single point of failure and attack
A centralized anchoring architecture is generally more vulnerable to
a single point of failure or attack, requiring duplication and
backups of the support functions.
On the other hand, a distributed mobility management architecture has
intrinsically mitigated the problem to a local network which is then
Chan (Ed.) Expires January 2, 2012 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft DMM-PS July 2011
of a smaller scope. In addition, the availability of such functions
in neighboring networks has already provided the needed architecture
to support protection.
5. Security Considerations
TBD
6. IANA Considerations
None
7. Co-authors and Contributors
This problem statement document is a joint effort among the following
participants in a design team. Each individual has made significant
contributions to this work.
Dapeng Liu: liudapeng@chinamobile.com
Pierrick Seite: pierrick.seite@orange-ftgroup.com
Hidetoshi Yokota: yokota@kddilabs.jp
Charles E. Perkins: charliep@computer.org
Melia Telemaco: telemaco.melia@alcatel-lucent.com
Hui Deng: denghui@chinamobile.com
Elena Demaria: elena.demaria@telecomitalia.it
Zhen Cao: caozhen@chinamobile.com
Wassim Michel Haddad: Wassam.Haddad@ericsson.com
Seok Joo Koh: sjkoh@knu.ac.kr
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
Chan (Ed.) Expires January 2, 2012 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft DMM-PS July 2011
8.2. Informative References
[I-D.PMIP-dmc]
Koh, S., Kim, J., Jung, H., and Y. Han, "Use of Proxy
Mobile IPv6 for Distributed Mobility Control",
draft-sjkoh-mext-pmip-dmc-01 (work in progress),
March 2011.
[I-D.dmm-scenario]
Yokota, H., Seite, P., Demaria, E., and Z. Cao, "Use case
scenarios for Distributed Mobility Management",
draft-yokota-dmm-scenario-00 (work in progress),
October 2010.
[Paper-Distributed.Centralized.Mobility]
Bertin, P., Bonjour, S., and J-M. Bonnin, "A Distributed
or Centralized Mobility", Proceedings of Global
Communications Conference (GlobeCom), December 2009.
[Paper-Distributed.Dynamic.Mobility]
Bertin, P., Bonjour, S., and J-M. Bonnin, "A Distributed
Dynamic Mobility Management Scheme Designed for Flat IP
Architectures", Proceedings of 3rd International
Conference on New Technologies, Mobility and Security
(NTMS), 2008.
[Paper-Distributed.Mobility.PMIP]
Chan, H., "Proxy Mobile IP with Distributed Mobility
Anchors", Proceedings of GlobeCom Workshop on Seamless
Wireless Mobility, December 2010.
[Paper-Distributed.Mobility.SAE]
Fisher, M., Anderson, F., Kopsel, A., Schafer, G., and M.
Schlager, "A Distributed IP Mobility Approach for 3G SAE",
Proceedings of the 19th International Symposium on
Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC),
2008.
[Paper-Locating.User]
Kirby, G., "Locating the User", Communication
International, 1995.
[Paper-Migrating.Home.Agents]
Wakikawa, R., Valadon, G., and J. Murai, "Migrating Home
Agents Towards Internet-scale Mobility Deployments",
Proceedings of the ACM 2nd CoNEXT Conference on Future
Networking Technologies, December 2006.
Chan (Ed.) Expires January 2, 2012 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft DMM-PS July 2011
[RFC3775] Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support
in IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004.
[RFC4068] Koodli, R., "Fast Handovers for Mobile IPv6", RFC 4068,
July 2005.
[RFC4988] Koodli, R. and C. Perkins, "Mobile IPv4 Fast Handovers",
RFC 4988, October 2007.
[RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V., Chowdhury, K.,
and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 5213, August 2008.
[RFC5380] Soliman, H., Castelluccia, C., ElMalki, K., and L.
Bellier, "Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 (HMIPv6) Mobility
Management", RFC 5380, October 2008.
[RFC5454] Tsirtsis, G., Park, V., and H. Soliman, "Dual-Stack Mobile
IPv4", RFC 5454, March 2009.
[RFC5555] Soliman, H., "Mobile IPv6 Support for Dual Stack Hosts and
Routers", RFC 5555, June 2009.
[RFC5949] Yokota, H., Chowdhury, K., Koodli, R., Patil, B., and F.
Xia, "Fast Handovers for Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 5949,
September 2010.
Chan (Ed.) Expires January 2, 2012 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft DMM-PS July 2011
Author's Address
H Anthony Chan (editor)
Huawei Technologies
5340 Legacy Dr Building 3, Plano, TX 75024, USA
Email: h.a.chan@ieee.org
-
Dapeng Liu
China Mobile
Unit2, 28 Xuanwumenxi Ave, Xuanwu District, Beijing 100053, China
Email: liudapeng@chinamobile.com
-
Pierrick Seite
France Telecom - Orange
4, rue du Clos Courtel, BP 91226, Cesson-Sevigne 35512, France
Email: pierrick.seite@orange-ftgroup.com
-
Hidetoshi Yokota
KDDI Lab
2-1-15 Ohara, Fujimino, Saitama, 356-8502 Japan
Email: yokota@kddilabs.jp
-
Charles E. Perkins
Tellabs Inc.
4555 Great America Parkway, #S5-130
Email: charliep@computer.org
-
Melia Telemaco
Alcatel-Lucent Bell Labs
Email: telemaco.melia@alcatel-lucent.com
-
Wassim Michel Haddad
Ericsson
300 Holger Dr, San Jose, CA 95134, USA
Email: Wassam.Haddad@ericsson.com
-
Elena Demaria
Telecom Italia
via G. Reiss Romoli, 274, TORINO, 10148, Italy
Email: elena.demaria@telecomitalia.it
-
Seok Joo Koh
Kyungpook National University, Korea
Email: sjkoh@knu.ac.kr
-
Chan (Ed.) Expires January 2, 2012 [Page 17]