MULTIMOB Group H. Deng
Internet-Draft China Mobile
Intended status: Informational T. Schmidt
Expires: April 22, 2009 HAW Hamburg
P. Seite
France Telecom
P. Yang
Hitachi
October 19, 2008
Multicast Support Requirements for Proxy Mobile IPv6
draft-deng-multimob-pmip6-requirement-01
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 22, 2009.
Deng, et al. Expires April 22, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Multicast Requirements for PMIPv6 October 2008
Abstract
This document summarizes requirements for multicast listener support
in Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) scenarios. In correspondance to
PMIPv6, multicast mobility management requirements do not request any
active participation of the mobile node.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Scenarios of Multicast Support for PMIPv6 . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Requirements for multicast support in PMIPv6 . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Basic functional requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Multicast performance requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Architecture requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. LMA Requirements for multicast support in PMIPv6 . . . . . 8
4.2. MAG Requirements for multicast support in PMIPv6 . . . . . 8
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 14
Deng, et al. Expires April 22, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Multicast Requirements for PMIPv6 October 2008
1. Introduction
Many of the current mobile network architectures as well as link
layer technologies provide an independent multicast/broadcast support
for dedicated group communication services, e.g., based on specific
wireless channels. Typically, applications like Internet IPTV, that
require voluminous content streams to be distributed to potentially
large numbers of receivers, may take benefit of this transport mode.
At the same time, with the development of mobile Internet protocols,
the need emerged for a seamlessly available multicast solution that
makes efficient use of the multipoint transmission technologies
deployed by operators [MMCASTv6-PS].
As an example, mobile IPTV channels, which combine Audio/Video
programs with interactive data for supplementary information (using
bi-directional wireless broadband links), and with potential large
audience, may take particular advantage of any multicast/ broadcast
mobile support at access networks for downlink distribution of A/V
streams.
Among IP mobility management protocols, Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6)
[RFC5213] has been designed to bring IP mobility making the mobile
nodes unaware of network layer changes. Functional entities in the
PMIPv6 infrastructure are the Local Mobility Anchor (LMA) and the
Mobile Access Gateway (MAG). The local mobility anchor is
responsible for maintaining the mobile node's reachability state and
is the topological anchor point for the mobile node's home network
prefix(es). The mobile access gateway performs mobility management
operations on behalf of the mobile node. Basically, the mobile
access gateway is responsible for detecting the mobile node's
movements, to and from the access link, and for initiating binding
registrations (i.e. location updates) to the mobile node's local
mobility anchor.
The current PMIPv6 specification lacks dedicated support of group
communication. To facilitate design of a multicast support in future
solutions, this document gathers requirements for multicast listener
support. In correspondance to PMIPv6, multicast mobility management
requirements should not request any active participation of the
mobile multicast recipient.
Deng, et al. Expires April 22, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Multicast Requirements for PMIPv6 October 2008
2. Scenarios of Multicast Support for PMIPv6
According to [RFC5213], two basic routing scenarios exist in PMIPv6:
the tunneling mode and local routing. The tunneling mode as
displayed in Figure 1 uses IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation [RFC2473]
(IPv6-in-IPv4 in [PMIPv6v4]) to transfer data between LMA and MAG.
Thus two entities are facing an avalanche problem (cf.
[MMCASTv6-PS]), the LMA in feeding multicast streams to the MAGs, and
the MAG in distributing multicast on air to the mobile nodes.
+-------------+
| Content |
| Source |
+-------------+
|
*** *** *** ***
* ** ** ** *
* *
* Fixed Internet *
* *
* ** ** ** *
*** *** *** ***
/ \
+----+ +----+
|LMA1| |LMA2|
+----+ +----+
LMAA1 | | LMAA2
| |
\\ //\\
\\ // \\
\\ // \\
Unicast Tunnels --> \\ // \\
\\ // \\
\\ // \\
Proxy-CoA1 || || Proxy-CoA2
+----+ +----+
|MAG1| |MAG2|
+----+ +----+
| | |
| | |
MN1 MN2 MN3
Figure 1: Multicast Scenario in PMIPv6 Tunneling Mode
The local routing option has been designed to support direct node to
node communication within a PMIPv6 domain. Assuming a locally
available content source, the local routing mode may give rise to the
scenario visualized in Figure 2. Local routing will resolve tunnel
Deng, et al. Expires April 22, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Multicast Requirements for PMIPv6 October 2008
convergence issues at the LMA but not the avalanche problem point to
the MAG.
+----+ +----+
|LMA1| |LMA2|
+----+ +----+
LMAA1 | | LMAA2
| |
*** *** *** ***
* ** ** ** *
* * +-------------+
* Local Routing * _____ | Content |
* * | Source |
* ** ** ** * +-------------+
*** *** *** ***
Proxy-CoA1 || || Proxy-CoA2
+----+ +----+
|MAG1| |MAG2|
+----+ +----+
| | |
| | |
MN1 MN2 MN3
Figure 2: Multicast Scenario for PMIPv6 Local Routing
PMIP multicast support must clearly address above issues but should
also bring good user experience of multicast mobility. In addition,
it is expected that the solution shall inherit from the basics of
PMIP scenarios; in particular mobility management should not require
to add specific functions to the IPv6 node. In these perspectives,
following sections summarize protocol and architecture requirements
for multicast support in Proxy Mobile IPv6.
Deng, et al. Expires April 22, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Multicast Requirements for PMIPv6 October 2008
3. Requirements for multicast support in PMIPv6
This section summarizes the requirements for mobile multicast
protocol extensions of PMIPv6.
3.1. Basic functional requirements
R1 - PMIPv6 multicast mobility management MUST transparently support
the reception of Any Source Multicast (ASM) or Source Specific
Multicast (SSM) channels.
R2 - The mobile node is responsible for initially subscribing to the
multicast group(s).
R3 - The mobile node MAY remain agnostic of the multicast mobility
management when roaming. In particular, the node MUST not be
required to re-subscribe to multicast group(s) after handoff.
R4 - Multicast packet distribution within a PMIPv6 domain MUST not
cause MTU-size conflicts on the network layer. In particular, path
MTU discovery MUST NOT be required for multicast transmission.
R5 - PMIPv6 multicast mobility management MUST comply with multicast
scoping rules and restrictions.
R6 - PMIPv6 multicast mobility management MUST equally cover IPv6/
IPv4 only and dual stack nodes.
R7 - A multicast solution MUST be compatible with the existing PMIPv6
network architecture and protocol structure such as multihoming and
vertical handover.
3.2. Multicast performance requirements
R8 - PMIPv6 transmission SHOULD realize native multicast forwarding,
and where applicable conserve network resources and utilize link
layer multipoint distribution to avoid data redundancy.
R9 - The solution MUST minimize multicast forwarding delays to
provide seamless and fast handovers for real-time services. After a
handoff, multicast data SHOULD continue to reach the mobile listener
at a latency similar to unicast communication.
R10 - The PMIPv6 multicast mobility management SHOULD avoid to cause
packet loss in addition to unicast handoff.
R11 - Multicast mobility SHOULD minimize transport costs on the
forwarding link, as well as any additional overhead on the multicast
Deng, et al. Expires April 22, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Multicast Requirements for PMIPv6 October 2008
delivery path.
R12 - Routing convergence MUST be ensured, even when the MN moves
rapidly and performs handovers at a high frequency.
R13 - The protocol MUST be robust against irregular moves of the MN
(e.g. ping-pong mobility) and MUST not compromise (unicast) network
performance.
Deng, et al. Expires April 22, 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Multicast Requirements for PMIPv6 October 2008
4. Architecture requirements
In addition to protocol requirements as listed in the preceeding
section, mobile multicast support for listeners MAY lead to
requirement on the PMIPv6 architectural entities. These potential
issues are sketched in the following sub-sections:
4.1. LMA Requirements for multicast support in PMIPv6
Multicast Bandwidth Control: LMA should be able to control the total
bandwidth of a user port that can be used for multicast service,
thereby monitoring the fraction of the total bandwidth consumed by
multicast. This requirement may lead to support a range of different
service classes with various QoS requirements.
Multicast AAA control: AAA functions MAY resident at the LMA, in
particular admission control and accounting, MAY be preserved and
applicable under multicast services.
4.2. MAG Requirements for multicast support in PMIPv6
It is foreseeable that the MAG has to act as a multicast designated
router. Hence support of MLDv2 [RFC3810] or LW-MLDv2 is MAY be
required at the MAG.
Further MAG-specific requirements can be identified:
Access Control: it is required that Access Control based on available
resources is supported at the MAG.
Deng, et al. Expires April 22, 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Multicast Requirements for PMIPv6 October 2008
5. Security Considerations
Multicast security is one of the most crucial issues in mobile
multicast service such that it is required to provide security
capabilities to protect mobile multicast network from any malicious
attempts caused by multicast security holes such as denial of service
attacks.
- The multicast service in PMIPv6 should not degrade the security
protection of the basic PMIPv6 AAA mechanism.
- Multicast system architecture is required to provide an admission
control mechanism to regulate any multicast events.
- Multicast system architecture is required to be independent of
adjacent domains such that it shall not affect the adjacent multicast
domain without permission.
- Multicast system architecture is required to provide a mechanism to
check integrity of multicast sources prior to service delivery such
that it prevents unauthorized source to distribute multicast content.
Deng, et al. Expires April 22, 2009 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Multicast Requirements for PMIPv6 October 2008
6. IANA Considerations
This document makes no requests to IANA.
Deng, et al. Expires April 22, 2009 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Multicast Requirements for PMIPv6 October 2008
7. Contributors
This document is a result of discussions in the multicast support for
PMIPv6 design team. The members of the design team that are listed
below are authors that have contributed to this document:
Pierrick Seite
pierrick.seite@orange-ftgroup.com
Peny Yang
pyang@hitachi.cn
Von-Hugo, Dirk
Dirk.Hugo@t-systems.com
Hitoshi Asaeda
asaeda@sfc.wide.ad.jp
Thomas C. Schmidt
schmidt@informatik.haw-hamburg.de
Suresh Krishnan
suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com
John Zhao
john.zhao@huawei.com
Matthias Waehlisch
mw@link-lab.net
Hui Deng
denghui@chinamobile.com
Deng, et al. Expires April 22, 2009 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Multicast Requirements for PMIPv6 October 2008
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.
[RFC2473] Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Generic Packet Tunneling in
IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, December 1998.
[RFC3810] Vida, R. and L. Costa, "Multicast Listener Discovery
Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810, June 2004.
[RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V., Chowdhury, K.,
and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 5213, August 2008.
8.2. Informative References
[MMCASTv6-PS]
Schmidt, T., Waehlisch, M., and G. Fairhurst, "Multicast
Mobility in MIPv6: Problem Statement and Brief Survey",
draft-irtf-mobopts-mmcastv6-ps-04 (work in progress),
July 2008.
[PMIPv6v4]
Wakikawa, R. and S. Gundavelli, "IPv4 Support for Proxy
Mobile IPv6", draft-ietf-netlmm-pmip6-ipv4-support-04
(work in progress), July 2008.
Deng, et al. Expires April 22, 2009 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Multicast Requirements for PMIPv6 October 2008
Authors' Addresses
Hui Deng (Editor)
China Mobile
53A,Xibianmennei Ave.,
Xuanwu District,
Beijing 100053
China
Email: denghui02@gmail.com
Thomas C. Schmidt (Editor)
HAW Hamburg
Dept. Informatik
Berliner Tor 7
Hamburg, D-20099
Germany
Email: Schmidt@informatik.haw-hamburg.de
Pierrick Seite (Editor)
France Telecom
4, rue du Clos Courtel
BP 91226
Cesson-Sevigne, 35512
France
Email: pierrick.seite@orange-ftgroup.com
Peng Yang (Editor)
Hitachi
301, North Wing, Tower C Raycom Infotech Park
2 kexueyuan Nanlu
Haidian District
Beijing, 100080
P.R. China
Phone: +861082862918(ext.)328
Email: pyang@hitachi.cn
Deng, et al. Expires April 22, 2009 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Multicast Requirements for PMIPv6 October 2008
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Deng, et al. Expires April 22, 2009 [Page 14]