Network Working Group H. Chan (Ed.)
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Informational July 12, 2012
Expires: January 13, 2013
Requirements of distributed mobility management
draft-ietf-dmm-requirements-01
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. This document defines the requirements for distributed
mobility management for IPv6 deployment. The objectives are to match
the mobility deployment with the current trend in network evolution,
to improve scalability, to avoid single point of failure, to enable
transparency to upper layers only when needed, etc. The distributed
mobility management also needs to be compatible with existing network
deployments and end hosts, and be secured.
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 13, 2013.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Chan (Ed.) Expires January 13, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs July 2012
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Centralized versus distributed mobility management . . . . . . 5
3.1. Centralized mobility management . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Distributed mobility management . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. Distributed deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. Transparency to Upper Layers when needed . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3. IPv6 deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.4. Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.5. Existing mobility protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.6. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Co-authors and Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Chan (Ed.) Expires January 13, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs July 2012
1. Introduction
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;
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 point, among other tasks, ensures reachability of
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 from the perspective of mobile nodes, 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
Chan (Ed.) Expires January 13, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs July 2012
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,
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 DMM charter addresses 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 so that it may avoid the establishment of non-
optimal tunnels between two topologically distant anchors.
This document describes the motivations of distributed mobility
management in Section 1. Section 3 compares distributed mobility
management with centralized mobility management. The requirements to
address these problems are given in Section 4.
Chan (Ed.) Expires January 13, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs July 2012
The problem statement and the use cases [I-D.yokota-dmm-scenario] can
be found in the following review paper: [Paper-
Distributed.Mobility.Review].
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].
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
[RFC5213], and in Mobility Related Terminology [RFC3753]. These
terms include mobile node (MN), correspondent node (CN), home agent
(HA), local mobility anchor (LMA), mobile access gateway (MAG), and
context.
In addition, this draft introduces the following term.
Mobility context
is the collection of information required to provide mobility
support for a given mobile node.
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
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.
Chan (Ed.) Expires January 13, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs July 2012
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 a mobile
node (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 IPv6
[RFC6275] and Proxy Mobile IPv6 [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.
UMTS 3GPP SAE MIP/PMIP
+------+ +------+ +------+
| GGSN | | P-GW | |HA/LMA|
+------+ +------+ +------+
/\ /\ /\
/ \ / \ / \
/ \ / \ / \
/ \ / \ / \
/ \ / \ / \
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| SGSN | | SGSN | | S-GW | | S-GW | |MN/MAG| |MN/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).
Chan (Ed.) Expires January 13, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs July 2012
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| 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.yokota-dmm-scenario].
[Paper-New.Perspective] discusses some initial steps towards a clear
definition of what mobility management may be, to assist in better
developing distributed architecture. [Paper-
Characterization.Mobility.Management] analyses current mobility
solutions and proposes an initial decoupling of mobility management
into well-defined functional blocks, identifying their interactions,
as well as a potential grouping, which later can assist in deriving
more flexible mobility management architectures. According to the
split functional blocks, this paper proposes three ways into which
mobility management functional blocks can be grouped, as an initial
way to consider a better distribution: location and handover
management, control and data plane, user and access perspective.
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
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
Chan (Ed.) Expires January 13, 2013 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs July 2012
packet destined to the HoA from any corresponding node (CN) from any
network can be routed via the nearest copy of the HA. In addition,
[Paper-Distributed.Mobility.SAE] proposes to distribute the function
of HA into many mobility agents (MAs) each serving a portion of MNs
using a distributed hash table structure. A lookup to the hash table
will point to the MA serving an MN. In [Paper-
Distributed.Mobility.PMIP] and [Paper-Distributed.Mobility.MIP], 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.
4. Requirements
After comparing distributed mobility management against centralized
deployment in Section 3, this section states the requirements as
follows:
4.1. Distributed deployment
REQ1: Distributed deployment
IP mobility, network access and routing solutions provided by
DMM MUST enable a distributed deployment of mobility
management of IP sessions so that the traffic can be routed in
an optimal manner without traversing centrally deployed
mobility anchors.
Motivation: The motivations of this requirement are to match
mobility deployment with current trend in network evolution:
more cost and resource effective to cache and distribute
contents when combining distributed anchors with caching
systems (e.g., CDN); improve scalability; avoid single point
of failure; mitigate threats being focused on a centrally
deployed anchor, e.g., home agent and local mobility anchor.
This requirement addresses the following problems PS1, PS2, PS3, and
PS4.
PS1: Non-optimal routes
Routing via a centralized anchor often results in a longer
route, and the problem is especially manifested when accessing
a local or cache server of a Content Delivery Network (CDN).
Chan (Ed.) Expires January 13, 2013 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs July 2012
PS2: Non-optimality in Evolved Network Architecture
The centralized mobility management can become non-optimal as a
network architecture evolves and becomes more flattened.
PS3: Low scalability of centralized route and mobility context
maintenance
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.
PS4: Single point of failure and attack
Centralized anchoring may be more vulnerable to single point of
failure and attack than a distributed system.
4.2. Transparency to Upper Layers when needed
REQ2: Transparency to Upper Layers when needed
The DMM solutions MUST provide transparency above the IP layer
when needed. Such transparency is needed, when the mobile
hosts or entire mobile networks [RFC3963] change their point
of attachment to the Internet, for the application flows that
cannot cope with a change of IP address. Otherwise the
support to maintain a stable home IP address or prefix during
handover may be declined.
Motivation: The motivation of this requirement is to enable
more efficient use of network resources and more efficient
routing by not maintaining a stable home IP address when there
is no such need.
This requirement addresses the problems PS5 as well as the other
related problem O-PS1.
PS5: Wasting resources to support mobile nodes not needing mobility
support
IP mobility support is not always required. For example, some
applications do not need a stable IP address during handover,
i.e., IP session continuity. Sometimes, the entire application
session runs while the terminal does not change the point of
attachment. In these situations that do not require IP
mobility support, network resources are wasted when mobility
Chan (Ed.) Expires January 13, 2013 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs July 2012
context is set up.
O-PS1: Mobility signaling overhead with peer-to-peer communication
Wasting resources when mobility signaling (e.g., maintenance
of the tunnel, keep alive, etc.) is not turned off for peer-
to-peer communication.
4.3. IPv6 deployment
REQ3: IPv6 deployment
The DMM solutions SHOULD target IPv6 as primary deployment and
SHOULD NOT be tailored specifically to support IPv4, in
particular in situations where private IPv4 addresses and/or
NATs are used.
Motivation: The motivation for this requirement is to be
inline with the general orientation of IETF. Moreover, DMM
deployment is foreseen in mid-term/long-term, hopefully in an
IPv6 world. It is also unnecessarily complex to solve this
problem for IPv4, as we will not be able to use some of the
IPv6-specific features/tools.
4.4. Compatibility
REQ4: Compatibility
The DMM solution SHOULD be able to work between trusted
administrative domains when allowed by the security measures
deployed between these domains. Furthermore, the DMM solution
MUST be able to co-exist with existing network deployment and
end hosts so that the existing deployment can continue to be
supported. For example, depending on the environment in which
DMM is deployed, the DMM solutions may need to be compatible
with other existing mobility protocols that are deployed in
that environment or may need to be interoperable with the
network or the mobile hosts/routers that do not support the
DMM enabling protocol.
Motivation: The motivation of this requirement is to allow
inter-domain operation if desired and to preserve backwards
compatibility so that the existing networks and hosts are not
affected and do not break.
This requirement addresses the following other related problem O-PS2.
Chan (Ed.) Expires January 13, 2013 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs July 2012
O-PS2: Complicated deployment with too many variants and extensions
of MIP
Deployment is complicated with many variants and extensions
of MIP. When introducing new functions which may add to the
complexity, existing solutions are more vulnerable to break.
4.5. Existing mobility protocols
REQ5: Existing mobility protocols
A DMM solution SHOULD first consider reusing and extending the
existing mobility protocols before specifying new protocols.
Motivation: The purpose is to reuse the existing protocols
first before considering new protocols.
4.6. Security considerations
REQ6: Security considerations
The protocol solutions for DMM MUST consider security, for
example authentication and authorization mechanisms that allow
a legitimate mobile host/router to access to the DMM service,
protection of signaling messages of the protocol solutions in
terms of authentication, data integrity, and data
confidentiality, opt-in or opt-out data confidentiality to
signaling messages depending on network environments or user
requirements.
Motivation and problem statement: Mutual authentication and
authorization between a mobile host/router and an access
router providing the DMM service to the mobile host/router are
required to prevent potential attacks in the access network of
the DMM service. Otherwise, various attacks such as
impersonation, denial of service, man-in-the-middle attacks,
etc. are present to obtain illegitimate access or to collapse
the DMM service.
Signaling messages are subject to various attacks since these
messages carry context of a mobile host/router. For instance,
a malicious node can forge and send a number of signaling
messages to redirect traffic to a specific node.
Consequently, the specific node is under a denial of service
attack, whereas other nodes are not receiving their traffic.
As signaling messages travel over the Internet, the end-to-end
security is required.
Chan (Ed.) Expires January 13, 2013 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs July 2012
5. Security Considerations
Distributed mobility management (DMM) requires two kinds of security
considerations: 1) access network security that only allows a
legitimate mobile host/router to access the DMM service; 2) end-to-
end security that protects signaling messages for the DMM service.
Access network security is required between the mobile host/router
and the access network providing the DMM service. End-to-end
security is required between nodes that participate in the DMM
protocol.
It is necessary to provide sufficient defense against possible
security attacks, or to adopt existing security mechanisms and
protocols to provide sufficient security protections. For instance,
EAP based authentication can be used for access network security,
while IPsec can be used for end-to-end security.
6. IANA Considerations
None
7. Co-authors and Contributors
This problem statement document is a joint effort among the following
participants. 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
Elena Demaria: elena.demaria@telecomitalia.it
Peter McCann: Peter.McCann@huawei.com
Tricci So: tso@zteusa.com
Jong-Hyouk Lee: jh.lee@telecom-bretagne.eu
Jouni Korhonen: jouni.korhonen@nsn.com
Chan (Ed.) Expires January 13, 2013 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs July 2012
Sri Gundavelli: sgundave@cisco.com
Carlos J. Bernardos: cjbc@it.uc3m.es
Marco Liebsch: Marco.Liebsch@neclab.eu
Wen Luo: luo.wen@zte.com.cn
Georgios Karagiannis: g.karagiannis@utwente.nl
Julien Laganier: jlaganier@juniper.net
Wassim Michel Haddad: Wassam.Haddad@ericsson.com
Seok Joo Koh: sjkoh@knu.ac.kr
Dirk von Hugo: Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de
Ahmad Muhanna: amuhanna@awardsolutions.com
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.
8.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-netext-pd-pmip]
Zhou, X., Korhonen, J., Williams, C., Gundavelli, S., and
C. Bernardos, "Prefix Delegation for Proxy Mobile IPv6",
draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip-02 (work in progress),
March 2012.
[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
Communications Conference (GlobeCom), December 2009.
[Paper-Distributed.Dynamic.Mobility]
Chan (Ed.) Expires January 13, 2013 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs July 2012
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, Feb 2011.",
Proceedings of GlobeCom Workshop on Seamless Wireless
Mobility, 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.
[RFC3963] Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., and P.
Thubert, "Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol",
RFC 3963, January 2005.
[RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V., Chowdhury, K.,
and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 5213, August 2008.
Chan (Ed.) Expires January 13, 2013 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs July 2012
[RFC6275] Perkins, C., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support
in IPv6", RFC 6275, 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
Huawei Technologies
Email: charliep@computer.org
-
Jouni Korhonen
Nokia Siemens Networks
Email: jouni.korhonen@nsn.com
-
Melia Telemaco
Alcatel-Lucent Bell Labs
Email: telemaco.melia@alcatel-lucent.com
-
Elena Demaria
Telecom Italia
via G. Reiss Romoli, 274, TORINO, 10148, Italy
Email: elena.demaria@telecomitalia.it
-
Jong-Hyouk Lee
RSM Department, Telecom Bretagne
Cesson-Sevigne, 35512, France
Email: jh.lee@telecom-bretagne.eu
-
Chan (Ed.) Expires January 13, 2013 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs July 2012
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: PeterMcCann@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
-
Marco Liebsch
NEC Laboratories Europe
Email: liebsch@neclab.eu
-
Carl Williams
MCSR Labs
Email: carlw@mcsr-labs.org
-
Chan (Ed.) Expires January 13, 2013 [Page 16]