Network Working Group H. Chan (Ed.)
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Informational D. Liu
Expires: December 7, 2014 China Mobile
P. Seite
Orange
H. Yokota
KDDI Lab
J. Korhonen
Broadcom Communications
June 5, 2014
Requirements for Distributed Mobility Management
draft-ietf-dmm-requirements-17
Abstract
This document defines the requirements for Distributed Mobility
Management (DMM) at the network layer. The hierarchical structure in
traditional wireless networks has led primarily to centrally deployed
mobility anchors. As some wireless networks are evolving away from
the hierarchical structure, it can be useful to have a distributed
model for mobility management in which traffic does not need to
traverse centrally deployed mobility anchors far from the optimal
route. The motivation and the problems addressed by each requirement
are also described.
Requirements Language
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
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."
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires December 7, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs June 2014
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 7, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 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
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.
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires December 7, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs June 2014
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Centralized versus distributed mobility management . . . . . . 7
3.1. Centralized mobility management . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Distributed mobility management . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires December 7, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs June 2014
1. Introduction
In the past decade a fair number of network-layer mobility protocols
have been standardized [RFC6275] [RFC5944] [RFC5380] [RFC6301]
[RFC5213]. Although these protocols differ in terms of functions and
associated message formats, they all employ a mobility anchor to
allow a mobile node to remain reachable after it has moved to a
different network. The anchor point, among other tasks, ensures
connectivity by forwarding packets destined to, or sent from, the
mobile node. It is a centrally deployed mobility anchor in the sense
that the deployed architectures today have a small number of these
anchors and the traffic of millions of mobile nodes in an operator
network are typically managed by the same anchor. Such a mobility
anchor may still have to reside in the subscriber's provider network
even when the subscriber is roaming to a visited network, in order
that certain functions such as charging and billing can be performed
more readily by the provider's network. An example provider network
is a Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) network.
Distributed mobility management (DMM) is an alternative to the above
centralized deployment. The background behind the interests to study
DMM are primarily in the following.
(1) Mobile users are, more than ever, consuming Internet content
including that of local Content Delivery Networks (CDNs). Such
traffic imposes new requirements on mobile core networks for
data traffic delivery. To prevent exceeding the available core
network capacity, service providers need to implement new
strategies such as selective IPv4 traffic offload (e.g.,
[RFC6909], 3GPP work items Local IP Access (LIPA) and Selected
IP Traffic Offload (SIPTO) [TS.23.401]) through alternative
access networks such as Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN)
[Paper-Mobile.Data.Offloading]. In addition, a gateway
selection mechanism takes the user proximity into account within
the Evolved Packet Core (EPC) [TS.29303]. Yet these mechanisms
were not pursued in the past owing to charging and billing
considerations which require solutions beyond the mobility
protocol. Consequently, assigning a gateway anchor node from a
visited network when roaming to the visited network has only
recently been done and is limited to voice services.
Both traffic offloading and CDN mechanisms could benefit from
the development of mobile architectures with fewer hierarchical
levels introduced into the data path by the mobility management
system. This trend of "flattening" the mobile networks works
best for direct communications among peers in the same
geographical area. Distributed mobility management in the
flattening mobile networks would anchor the traffic closer to
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires December 7, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs June 2014
the point of attachment of the user.
(2) Today's mobile networks present service providers with new
challenges. Mobility patterns indicate that mobile nodes often
remain attached to the same point of attachment for considerable
periods of time [Paper-Locating.User]. Specific IP mobility
management support is not required for applications that launch
and complete their sessions while the mobile node is connected
to the same point of attachment. However, currently, IP
mobility support is designed for always-on operation,
maintaining all parameters of the context for each mobile
subscriber for as long as they are connected to the network.
This can result in a waste of resources and unnecessary costs
for the service provider. Infrequent node mobility coupled with
application intelligence suggest that mobility support could be
provided selectively such as in [I-D.bhandari-dhc-class-based-
prefix] and [I-D.korhonen-6man-prefix-properties], thus reducing
the amount of context maintained in the network.
DMM may distribute the mobility anchors in the data-plane in
flattening the mobility network such that the mobility anchors are
positioned closer to the user; ideally, mobility agents could be
collocated with the first-hop router. Facilitated by the
distribution of mobility anchors, it may be possible to selectively
use or not use mobility protocol support depending on whether such
support is needed or not. It can thus reduce the amount of state
information that must be maintained in various mobility agents of the
mobile network. It can then avoid the unnecessary establishment of
mechanisms to forward traffic from an old to a new mobility anchor.
This document compares distributed mobility management with
centralized mobility management in Section 3. The problems that can
be addressed with DMM are summarized in Section 4. The mandatory
requirements as well as the optional requirements for network-layer
distributed mobility management are given in Section 5. Finally,
security considerations are discussed in Section 6.
The problem statement and the use cases [I-D.yokota-dmm-scenario] can
be found in [Paper-Distributed.Mobility.Review].
2. Conventions used in this document
2.1. Terminology
All the general mobility-related terms and their acronyms used in
this document are to be interpreted as defined in the Mobile IPv6
base specification [RFC6275], in the Proxy mobile IPv6 specification
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires December 7, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs June 2014
[RFC5213], and in Mobility Related Terminology [RFC3753]. These
terms include the following: mobile node (MN), correspondent node
(CN), and home agent (HA) as per [RFC6275]; local mobility anchor
(LMA) and mobile access gateway (MAG) as per [RFC5213], and context
as per [RFC3753].
In addition, this draft introduces the following terms.
Centrally deployed mobility anchors
refer to the mobility management deployments in which there are
very few mobility anchors and the traffic of millions of mobile
nodes in an operator network are managed by the same anchor.
Centralized mobility management
makes use of centrally deployed mobility anchors.
Distributed mobility management
is not centralized so that traffic does not need to traverse
centrally deployed mobility anchors far from the optimal route.
Hierarchical mobile network
has a hierarchy of network elements arranged into multiple
hierarchical levels which are introduced into the data path by the
mobility management system.
Flattening mobile network
refers to the hierarchical mobile network which is going through
the trend of reducing its number of hierarchical levels.
Flatter mobile network
has fewer hierarchical levels compared to a hierarchical mobile
network.
Mobility context
is the collection of information required to provide mobility
management support for a given mobile node.
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires December 7, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs June 2014
3. Centralized versus distributed mobility management
Mobility management is needed because the IP address of a mobile node
may change as the node moves. Mobility management functions may be
implemented at different layers of the protocol stack. At the IP
(network) layer, mobility management can be client-based or network-
based.
An IP-layer mobility management protocol is typically based on the
principle of distinguishing between a session identifier and a
forwarding address and maintaining a mapping between the two. In
Mobile IP, the new IP address of the mobile node after the node has
moved is the forwarding address, whereas the original IP address
before the mobile node moves serves as the session identifier. The
location management (LM) information is kept by associating the
forwarding address with the session identifier. Packets addressed to
the session identifier will first route to the original network which
re-directs them using the forwarding address to deliver to the
session. Re-directing packets this way can result in long routes.
An existing optimization routes directly using the forwarding address
of the host, and such is a host-based solution.
The next two subsections explain centralized and distributed mobility
management functions in the network.
3.1. Centralized mobility management
In centralized mobility management, the location information in terms
of a mapping between the session identifier and the forwarding
address is kept at a single mobility anchor, and packets destined to
the session identifier are forwarded via this anchor. In other
words, such mobility management systems are centralized in both the
control plane and the data plane (mobile node IP traffic).
Many existing mobility management deployments make use of centralized
mobility anchoring in a hierarchical network architecture, as shown
in Figure 1. Examples are the home agent (HA) and local mobility
anchor (LMA) serving as the anchors for the mobile node (MN) and
Mobile Access Gateway (MAG) in Mobile IPv6 [RFC6275] and in Proxy
Mobile IPv6 [RFC5213] respectively. Cellular networks such as the
3GPP General Packet Radio System (GPRS) networks and 3GPP Evolved
Packet System (EPS) networks employ centralized mobility management
too. In the 3GPP GPRS network, the Gateway GPRS Support Node (GGSN),
Serving GPRS Support Node (SGSN) and Radio Network Controller (RNC)
constitute a hierarchy of anchors. In the 3GPP EPS network, the
Packet Data Network Gateway (P-GW) and Serving Gateway (S-GW)
constitute another hierarchy of anchors.
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires December 7, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs June 2014
3GPP GPRS 3GPP EPS MIP/PMIP
+------+ +------+ +------+
| GGSN | | P-GW | |HA/LMA|
+------+ +------+ +------+
/\ /\ /\
/ \ / \ / \
/ \ / \ / \
/ \ / \ / \
/ \ / \ / \
/ \ / \ / \
/ \ / \ / \
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| SGSN | | SGSN | | S-GW | | S-GW | |MN/MAG| |MN/MAG|
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
/\ /\
/ \ / \
/ \ / \
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
|RNC| |RNC| |RNC| |RNC|
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
Figure 1. Centralized mobility management.
3.2. Distributed mobility management
Mobility management functions may also be distributed in the data
plane to multiple networks as shown in Figure 2, so that a mobile
node in any of these networks may be served by a nearby function with
appropriate forwarding management (FM) capability.
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| FM | | FM | | FM | | FM |
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
|
+----+
| MN |
+----+
Figure 2. Distributed mobility management.
DMM is distributed in the data plane, whereas the control plane may
either be centralized or distributed [I-D.yokota-dmm-scenario]. The
former case implicitly assumes separation of data and control planes
as described in [I-D.wakikawa-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation]. While
mobility management can be distributed, it is not necessary for other
functions such as subscription management, subscription database, and
network access authentication to be similarly distributed.
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires December 7, 2014 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs June 2014
A distributed mobility management scheme for a flattening mobile
network consisting of access nodes is proposed in [Paper-
Distributed.Dynamic.Mobility]. Its benefits over centralized
mobility management have been shown through simulations [Paper-
Distributed.Centralized.Mobility]. Moreover, the (re)use and
extension of existing protocols in the design of both fully
distributed mobility management [Paper-Migrating.Home.Agents] [Paper-
Distributed.Mobility.SAE] and partially distributed mobility
management [Paper-Distributed.Mobility.PMIP] [Paper-
Distributed.Mobility.MIP] have been reported in the literature.
Therefore, before designing new mobility management protocols for a
future distributed architecture, it is recommended to first consider
whether existing mobility management protocols can be extended.
4. Problem Statement
The problems that can be addressed with DMM are summarized in the
following:
PS1: Non-optimal routes
Forwarding via a centralized anchor often results in non-
optimal routes, thereby increasing the end-to-end delay. The
problem is manifested, for example, when accessing a nearby
server or servers of a Content Delivery Network (CDN), or when
receiving locally available IP multicast or sending IP
multicast packets. (Existing route optimization is only a
host-based solution. On the other hand, localized routing with
PMIPv6 [RFC6705] addresses only a part of the problem where
both the MN and the correspondent node (CN) are attached to the
same MAG, and it is not applicable when the CN does not behave
like an MN.)
PS2: Divergence from other evolutionary trends in network
architectures such as distribution of content delivery.
Mobile networks have generally been evolving towards a flatter
and flatter network. Centralized mobility management, which is
non-optimal with a flatter network architecture, does not
support this evolution.
PS3: Lack of scalability of centralized tunnel management and
mobility context maintenance
Setting up tunnels through a central anchor and maintaining
mobility context for each MN usually requires more concentrated
resources in a centralized design, thus reducing scalability.
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires December 7, 2014 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs June 2014
Distributing the tunnel maintenance function and the mobility
context maintenance function among different network entities
with proper signaling protocol design can avoid increasing the
concentrated resources with an increasing number of MNs.
PS4: Single point of failure and attack
Centralized anchoring designs may be more vulnerable to single
points of failures and attacks than a distributed system. The
impact of a successful attack on a system with centralized
mobility management can be far greater as well.
PS5: Unnecessary mobility support to clients that do not need it
IP mobility support is usually provided to all MNs. Yet it is
not always required, and not every parameter of mobility
context is always used. For example, some applications or
nodes do not need a stable IP address during a handover to
maintain session continuity. Sometimes, the entire application
session runs while the MN does not change the point of
attachment. Besides, some sessions, e.g., SIP-based sessions,
can handle mobility at the application layer and hence do not
need IP mobility support; it is then unnecessary to provide IP
mobility support for such sessions.
PS6: Mobility signaling overhead with peer-to-peer communication
Wasting resources when mobility signaling (e.g., maintenance of
the tunnel, keep alive signaling, etc.) is not turned off for
peer-to-peer communication.
PS7: Deployment with multiple mobility solutions
There are already many variants and extensions of MIP as well
mobility solutions at other layers. Deployment of new mobility
management solutions can be challenging, and debugging
difficult, when they co-exist with solutions already deployed
in the field.
PS8: Duplicate multicast traffic
IP multicast distribution over architectures using IP mobility
solutions (e.g., [RFC6224]) may lead to convergence of
duplicated multicast subscriptions towards the downstream
tunnel entity (e.g., MAG in PMIPv6). Concretely, when
multicast subscription for individual mobile nodes is coupled
with mobility tunnels (e.g., PMIPv6 tunnel), duplicate
multicast subscription(s) is prone to be received through
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires December 7, 2014 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs June 2014
different upstream paths. This problem may also exist or be
more severe in a distributed mobility environment.
5. Requirements
After comparing distributed mobility management against centralized
deployment in Section 3 and describing the problems in Section 4,
this section identifies the following requirements:
REQ1: Distributed mobility management
IP mobility, network access and forwarding solutions provided
by DMM MUST enable traffic to avoid traversing single mobility
anchor far from the optimal route.
This requirement on distribution is in the data plane only.
It does not impose constraints on whether the control plane
should be distributed or centralized. However, if the control
plane is centralized while the data plane is distributed, it
is implicit that the control plane and data plane need to
separate (Section 3.2).
Motivation: This requirement is motivated by current trends in
network evolution: (a) it is cost- and resource-effective to
cache contents, and the caching (e.g., CDN) servers are
distributed so that each user in any location can be close to
one of the servers; (b) the significantly larger number of
mobile nodes and flows call for improved scalability; (c)
single points of failure are avoided in a distributed system;
(d) threats against centrally deployed anchors, e.g., home
agent and local mobility anchor, are mitigated in a
distributed system.
This requirement addresses the problems PS1, PS2, PS3, and PS4
described in Section 4.
REQ2: Bypassable network-layer mobility support for each application
session
DMM solutions MUST enable network-layer mobility but it MUST
be possible for any individual active application session
(flow) to not use it. Mobility support is needed, for
example, when a mobile host moves and an application cannot
cope with a change in the IP address. Mobility support is
also needed when a mobile router changes its IP address as it
moves together with a host and, in the presence of ingress
filtering, an application in the host is interrupted. However
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires December 7, 2014 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs June 2014
mobility support at the network-layer is not always needed; a
mobile node can often be stationary, and mobility support can
also be provided at other layers. It is then not always
necessary to maintain a stable IP address or prefix for an
active application session.
Different active sessions can also differ in whether network-
layer mobility support is needed. IP mobility, network access
and forwarding solutions provided by DMM MUST then enable the
possibility of independent handling for each application
session of a user or mobile device.
The handling of mobility management to the granularity of an
individual session of a user/device SHOULD need proper session
identification in addition to user/device identification.
Motivation: The motivation of this requirement is to enable
more efficient forwarding and more efficient use of network
resources by selecting an IP address or prefix according to
whether mobility support is needed and by not maintaining
context at the mobility anchor when there is no such need.
This requirement addresses the problems PS5 and PS6 described
in Section 4.
REQ3: IPv6 deployment
DMM solutions SHOULD target IPv6 as the primary deployment
environment and SHOULD NOT be tailored specifically to support
IPv4, in particular in situations where private IPv4 addresses
and/or NATs are used.
Motivation: This requirement conforms to the general
orientation of IETF work. DMM deployment is foreseen in mid-
to long-term horizon, when IPv6 is expected to be far more
common than today.
This requirement avoids the unnecessarily complexity in
solving the problems in Section 4 for IPv4, which will not be
able to use some of the IPv6-specific features.
REQ4: Existing mobility protocols
A DMM solution MUST first consider reusing and extending IETF-
standardized protocols before specifying new protocols.
Motivation: Reuse of existing IETF work is more efficient and
less error-prone.
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires December 7, 2014 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs June 2014
This requirement attempts to avoid the need of new protocols
development and therefore their potential problems of being
time-consuming and error-prone.
REQ5: Coexistence with deployed networks/hosts and operability
across different networks
A DMM solution may require loose, tight or no integration into
existing mobility protocols and host IP stack. Regardless of
the integration level, DMM implementations MUST be able to
coexist with existing network deployments, end hosts and
routers that may or may not implement existing mobility
protocols. Furthermore, a DMM solution SHOULD work across
different networks, possibly operated as separate
administrative domains, when the needed mobility management
signaling, forwarding, and network access are allowed by the
trust relationship between them.
Motivation: (a) to preserve backwards compatibility so that
existing networks and hosts are not affected and continue to
function as usual, and (b) enable inter-domain operation if
desired.
This requirement addresses the problem PS7 described in
Section 4.
REQ6: Operation and Management considerations.
A DMM solution needs to consider configuring a device,
monitoring the current operational state of a device,
responding to events that impact the device, possibly by
modifying the configuration and storing the data in a format
that can be analyzed later. Different management protocols
are available. For example:
(a) SNMP [RFC1157] with definition of standardized management
information base MIB objects for DMM, that allows
monitoring traffic steering in a consistent manner across
different devices,
(b) NETCONF [RFC6241] with definition of standardized YANG
[RFC6020] modules for DMM to achieve a standardized
configuration,
(c) syslog [RFC3164] which is a one-way protocol allowing a
device to report significant events to a log analyzer in
a network management system.
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires December 7, 2014 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs June 2014
(d) IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Protocol, which serves
as a means for transmitting traffic flow information over
the network [RFC7011], with a formal description of IPFIX
Information Elements [RFC7012].
It is not the goal of the requirements document to impose
which management protocol(s) should be used. An inventory of
the management protocols and data models is covered in RFC
6632.
The following lists the operation and management
considerations required for a DMM solution; the list may not
be exhaustive and may be expanded according to the needs of
the solutions:
A DMM solution MUST describe in what environment and how it
can be scalably deployed and managed.
A DMM solution MUST support mechanisms to test if the DMM
solution is working properly. For example, when a DMM
solution employs traffic indirection to support a mobility
session, implementations MUST support mechanisms to test that
the appropriate traffic indirection operations are in place,
including the setup of traffic indirection and the subsequent
teardown of the indirection to release the associated network
resources when the mobility session has closed.
A DMM solution SHOULD expose the operational state of DMM to
the administrators of the DMM entities. For example, when a
DMM solution employs separation between session identifier and
forwarding address, it should expose the association between
them.
When flow mobility is supported by a DMM solution, the
solution SHOULD support means to correlate the flow routing
policies and the observed forwarding actions.
A DMM solution SHOULD support mechanisms to check the liveness
of forwarding path. If the DMM solution sends periodic update
refresh messages to configure the forwarding path, the refresh
period SHOULD be configurable and a reasonable default
configuration value proposed. Information collected can be
logged or made available with protocols such as SNMP
[RFC1157], NETCONF [RFC6241], IPFIX [RFC7011], or syslog
[RFC3164].
A DMM solution MUST provide fault management and monitoring
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires December 7, 2014 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs June 2014
mechanisms to manage situations where update of the mobility
session or the data path fails. The system must also be able
to handle situations where a mobility anchor with ongoing
mobility sessions fails.
A DMM solution SHOULD be able to monitor usage of DMM
protocol. When a DMM solution uses an existing protocol, the
techniques already defined for that protocol SHOULD be used to
monitor the DMM operation. When these techniques are
inadequate, new techniques MUST be developed.
In particular, the DMM solution SHOULD
(a) be able to monitor the number of mobility sessions per
user as well as their average duration.
(b) provide indication on DMM performance such as
1 the handover delay which includes the time necessary
to re-establish the forwarding path when the point of
attachment changes,
2 the protocol reactivity which is the time between
handover events such as the attachment to a new access
point and the completion of the mobility session
update.
(c) provide means to measure the signaling cost of the DMM
protocol.
(d) if tunneling is used for traffic redirection, monitor
1 the number of tunnels,
2 their transmission and reception information,
3 the used encapsulation method and overhead
4 the security used at a node level.
DMM solutions SHOULD support standardized configuration with
NETCONF [RFC6241], using YANG [RFC6020] modules, which SHOULD
be created for DMM when needed for such configuration.
However, if a DMM solution creates extensions to MIPv6 or
PMIPv6, the allowed addition of the definition of management
information base (MIB) objects to MIPv6 MIB [RFC4295] or
PMIPv6 MIB [RFC6475] needed for the control and monitoring of
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires December 7, 2014 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs June 2014
the protocol extensions SHOULD be limited to read-only
objects.
Motivation: A DMM solution that is designed from the beginning
for operability and manageability can avoid difficulty or
incompatibility to implement efficient operations and
management solutions.
These requirements avoid DMM designs that make operations and
management difficult or costly.
REQ7: Security considerations
A DMM solution MUST support any security protocols and
mechanisms needed to secure the network and to make continuous
security improvements. In addition, with security taken into
consideration early in the design, a DMM solution MUST NOT
introduce new security risks, or amplify existing security
risks, that cannot be mitigated by existing security protocols
and mechanisms.
Motivation: Various attacks such as impersonation, denial of
service, man-in-the-middle attacks, and so on, may be launched
in a DMM deployment. For instance, an illegitimate node may
attempt to access a network providing DMM. Another example is
that a malicious node can forge a number of signaling messages
thus redirecting traffic from its legitimate path.
Consequently, the specific node or nodes to which the traffic
is redirected may be under a denial of service attack, whereas
other nodes do not receive their traffic. Accordingly,
security mechanisms/protocols providing access control,
integrity, authentication, authorization, confidentiality,
etc. should be used to protect the DMM entities as they are
already used to protect against existing networks and existing
mobility protocols defined in IETF. Yet if a candidate DMM
solution is such that even the proper use of these existing
security mechanisms/protocols are unable to provide sufficient
security protection, that candidate DMM solution is causing
uncontrollable security problems.
This requirement prevents a DMM solution from introducing
uncontrollable problems of potentially insecure mobility
management protocols which make deployment infeasible because
platforms conforming to the protocols are at risk for data
loss and numerous other dangers, including financial harm to
the users.
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires December 7, 2014 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs June 2014
REQ8: Multicast considerations
DMM SHOULD enable multicast solutions to be developed to avoid
network inefficiency in multicast traffic delivery.
Motivation: Existing multicast deployment have been introduced
after completing the design of the reference mobility
protocol, often leading to network inefficiency and non-
optimal forwarding for the multicast traffic. Instead DMM
should consider multicast early so that the multicast
solutions can better consider efficiency nature in the
multicast traffic delivery (such as duplicate multicast
subscriptions towards the downstream tunnel entities). The
multicast solutions should then avoid restricting the
management of all IP multicast traffic to a single host
through a dedicated (tunnel) interface on multicast-capable
access routers.
This requirement addresses the problems PS1 and PS8 described
in Section 4.
6. Security Considerations
Please refer to the discussion under Security requirement in Section
5.
7. IANA Considerations
None
8. Contributors
This requirements document is a joint effort among numerous
participants working in a team. Valuable comments and suggestions in
various reviews from the following area directors and IESG members
have also contributed to much improvements: Russ Housley, Catherine
Meadows, Adrian Farrel, Barry Leiba, Alissa Cooper, Ted Lemon, Brian
Haberman, Stephen Farrell, Joel Jaeggli, Alia Atlas, and Benoit
Claise. In addition to the authors, each of the following has made
very significant and important contributions to the working group
draft in this work:
Charles E. Perkins
Huawei Technologies
Email: charliep@computer.org
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires December 7, 2014 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs June 2014
Melia Telemaco
Alcatel-Lucent Bell Labs
Email: telemaco.melia@googlemail.com
Elena Demaria
Telecom Italia
via G. Reiss Romoli, 274, TORINO, 10148, Italy
Email: elena.demaria@telecomitalia.it
Jong-Hyouk Lee
Sangmyung University, Korea
Email: jonghyouk@smu.ac.kr
Kostas Pentikousis
EICT GmbH
Email: k.pentikousis@eict.de
Tricci So
ZTE
Email: tso@zteusa.com
Carlos J. Bernardos
Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Av. Universidad, 30, Leganes, Madrid 28911, Spain
Email: cjbc@it.uc3m.es
Peter McCann
Huawei Technologies
Email: Peter.McCann@huawei.com
Seok Joo Koh
Kyungpook National University, Korea
Email: sjkoh@knu.ac.kr
Wen Luo
ZTE
No.68, Zijinhua RD,Yuhuatai District, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012, China
Email: luo.wen@zte.com.cn
Sri Gundavelli
Cisco
sgundave@cisco.com
Hui Deng
China Mobile
Email: denghui@chinamobile.com
Marco Liebsch
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires December 7, 2014 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs June 2014
NEC Laboratories Europe
Email: liebsch@neclab.eu
Carl Williams
MCSR Labs
Email: carlw@mcsr-labs.org
Seil Jeon
Instituto de Telecomunicacoes, Aveiro
Email: seiljeon@av.it.pt
Sergio Figueiredo
Universidade de Aveiro
Email: sfigueiredo@av.it.pt
Stig Venaas
Email: stig@venaas.com
Luis Miguel Contreras Murillo
Telefonica I+D
Email: lmcm@tid.es
Juan Carlos Zuniga
InterDigital
Email: JuanCarlos.Zuniga@InterDigital.com
Alexandru Petrescu
Email: alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com
Georgios Karagiannis
University of Twente
Email: g.karagiannis@utwente.nl
Julien Laganier
Juniper
Email: julien.ietf@gmail.com
Wassim Michel Haddad
Ericsson
Email: Wassim.Haddad@ericsson.com
Dirk von Hugo
Deutsche Telekom Laboratories
Email: Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de
Ahmad Muhanna
Award Solutions
Email: asmuhanna@yahoo.com
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires December 7, 2014 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs June 2014
Byoung-Jo Kim
ATT Labs
Email: macsbug@research.att.com
Hassan Ali-Ahmad
Orange
Email: hassan.aliahmad@orange.com
Alper Yegin
Samsung
Email: alper.yegin@partner.samsung.com
David Harrington
Effective Software
Email: ietfdbh@comcast.net
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC1157] Case, J., Fedor, M., Schoffstall, M., and J. Davin,
"Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", STD 15,
RFC 1157, May 1990.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3164] Lonvick, C., "The BSD Syslog Protocol", RFC 3164,
August 2001.
[RFC3753] Manner, J. and M. Kojo, "Mobility Related Terminology",
RFC 3753, June 2004.
[RFC4295] Keeni, G., Koide, K., Nagami, K., and S. Gundavelli,
"Mobile IPv6 Management Information Base", RFC 4295,
April 2006.
[RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V., Chowdhury, K.,
and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 5213, August 2008.
[RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for the
Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
October 2010.
[RFC6241] Enns, R., Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., and A.
Bierman, "Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)",
RFC 6241, June 2011.
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires December 7, 2014 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs June 2014
[RFC6275] Perkins, C., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support
in IPv6", RFC 6275, July 2011.
[RFC6475] Keeni, G., Koide, K., Gundavelli, S., and R. Wakikawa,
"Proxy Mobile IPv6 Management Information Base", RFC 6475,
May 2012.
[RFC6632] Ersue, M. and B. Claise, "An Overview of the IETF Network
Management Standards", RFC 6632, June 2012.
[RFC7011] Claise, B., Trammell, B., and P. Aitken, "Specification of
the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Protocol for the
Exchange of Flow Information", STD 77, RFC 7011,
September 2013.
[RFC7012] Claise, B. and B. Trammell, "Information Model for IP Flow
Information Export (IPFIX)", RFC 7012, September 2013.
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.bhandari-dhc-class-based-prefix]
Bhandari, S., Halwasia, G., Gundavelli, S., Deng, H.,
Thiebaut, L., Korhonen, J., and I. Farrer, "DHCPv6 class
based prefix", draft-bhandari-dhc-class-based-prefix-05
(work in progress), July 2013.
[I-D.korhonen-6man-prefix-properties]
Korhonen, J., Patil, B., Gundavelli, S., Seite, P., and D.
Liu, "IPv6 Prefix Properties",
draft-korhonen-6man-prefix-properties-02 (work in
progress), July 2013.
[I-D.wakikawa-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation]
Wakikawa, R., Pazhyannur, R., Gundavelli, S., and C.
Perkins, "Separation of Control and User Plane for Proxy
Mobile IPv6",
draft-wakikawa-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation-03 (work in
progress), April 2014.
[I-D.yokota-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
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires December 7, 2014 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs June 2014
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.MIP]
Chan, H., "Distributed Mobility Management with Mobile
IP", Proceedings of IEEE International Communication
Conference (ICC) Workshop on Telecommunications: from
Research to Standards, June 2012.
[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.Review]
Chan, H., Yokota, H., Xie, J., Seite, P., and D. Liu,
"Distributed and Dynamic Mobility Management in Mobile
Internet: Current Approaches and Issues", Journal of
Communications, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 4-15, February 2011.
[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.
[Paper-Mobile.Data.Offloading]
Lee, K., Lee, J., Yi, Y., Rhee, I., and S. Chong, "Mobile
Data Offloading: How Much Can WiFi Deliver?", SIGCOMM
2010, 2010.
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires December 7, 2014 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs June 2014
[RFC5380] Soliman, H., Castelluccia, C., ElMalki, K., and L.
Bellier, "Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 (HMIPv6) Mobility
Management", RFC 5380, October 2008.
[RFC5944] Perkins, C., "IP Mobility Support for IPv4, Revised",
RFC 5944, November 2010.
[RFC6224] Schmidt, T., Waehlisch, M., and S. Krishnan, "Base
Deployment for Multicast Listener Support in Proxy Mobile
IPv6 (PMIPv6) Domains", RFC 6224, April 2011.
[RFC6301] Zhu, Z., Wakikawa, R., and L. Zhang, "A Survey of Mobility
Support in the Internet", RFC 6301, July 2011.
[RFC6705] Krishnan, S., Koodli, R., Loureiro, P., Wu, Q., and A.
Dutta, "Localized Routing for Proxy Mobile IPv6",
RFC 6705, September 2012.
[RFC6909] Gundavelli, S., Zhou, X., Korhonen, J., Feige, G., and R.
Koodli, "IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector Option for Proxy
Mobile IPv6", RFC 6909, April 2013.
[TS.23.401]
3GPP, "General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) enhancements
for Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network
(E-UTRAN) access", 3GPP TR 23.401 10.10.0, March 2013.
[TS.29303]
3GPP, "Domain Name System Procedures; Stage 3", 3GPP
TR 23.303 11.2.0, September 2012.
Authors' Addresses
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
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires December 7, 2014 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs June 2014
Pierrick Seite
Orange
4, rue du Clos Courtel, BP 91226, Cesson-Sevigne 35512, France
Email: pierrick.seite@orange.com
Hidetoshi Yokota
KDDI Lab
2-1-15 Ohara, Fujimino, Saitama, 356-8502 Japan
Email: yokota@kddilabs.jp
Jouni Korhonen
Broadcom Communications
Porkkalankatu 24, FIN-00180 Helsinki, Finland
Email: jouni.nospam@gmail.com
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires December 7, 2014 [Page 24]
