Network Working Group H. Chan (Ed.)
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies (more
Intended status: Informational co-authors on P. 17)
Expires: June 25, 2013 D. Liu
China Mobile
P. Seite
France Telecom - Orange
H. Yokota
KDDI Lab
J. Korhonen
Nokia Siemens Networks
December 22, 2012
Requirements for Distributed Mobility Management
draft-ietf-dmm-requirements-03
Abstract
This document defines the requirements for Distributed Mobility
Management (DMM) in IPv6 deployments. The traditionally hierarchical
structure of cellular networks has led to deployment models which are
in practice centralized. Mobility management with logically
centralized mobility anchoring in current mobile networks is prone to
suboptimal routing and raises scalability issues. Such centralized
functions can lead to single points of failure and inevitably
introduce longer delays and higher signaling loads for network
operations related to mobility management. The objective is to
enhance mobility management in order to meet the primary goals in
network evolution, i.e., improve scalability, avoid single points of
failure, enable transparent mobility support to upper layers only
when needed, and so on. Distributed mobility management must be
secure and compatible with existing network deployments and end
hosts.
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
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires June 25, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs December 2012
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on June 25, 2013.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 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 June 25, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs December 2012
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Centralized versus distributed mobility management . . . . . . 6
3.1. Centralized mobility management . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Distributed mobility management . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. Distributed deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2. Transparency to Upper Layers when needed . . . . . . . . . 10
4.3. IPv6 deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.4. Existing mobility protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.5. Co-existence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.6. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.7. Flexible multicast distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. Co-authors and Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires June 25, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs December 2012
1. Introduction
In the past decade a fair number of mobility protocols have been
standardized [RFC6275] [RFC5944] [RFC5380] [RFC6301] [RFC5213].
Although the protocols differ in terms of functions and associated
message formats, we can identify a few key common features:
a centralized mobility anchor providing global reachability and an
always-on experience to the user;
extensions to the base protocols to optimize handover performance
while users roam across wireless cells; and
extensions to enable the use of heterogeneous wireless interfaces
for multi-mode terminals (e.g. smartphones).
The presence of the centralized mobility anchor allows a mobile node
to remain reachable when it is not connected to its home domain. The
anchor point, among other tasks, ensures connectivity by forwarding
packets destined to, or sent from, the mobile node. In practice,
most of the deployed architectures today have a small number of
centralized anchors managing the traffic of millions of mobile nodes.
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 have stringent requirements in terms
of delay. Notions of localization and distribution of local agents
have been introduced to reduce signaling overhead [Paper-
Distributed.Centralized.Mobility]. Unfortunately, today we witness
difficulties in getting such protocols deployed, resulting in sub-
optimal choices for the network operators.
Moreover, the availability of multi-mode devices and the possibility
of using several network interfaces simultaneously have motivated the
development of even more protocol extensions to add more capabilities
and to combine IP multicasting to the base protocol. In the end,
deployment is further complicated with the multitude of extensions.
Mobile users are, more than ever, consuming Internet content; such
traffic imposes new requirements on mobile core networks for data
traffic delivery. The presence of content providers closer to the
mobile/fixed Internet Service Providers network requires taking into
account local Content Delivery Networks (CDNs) while providing
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires June 25, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs December 2012
mobility services. Moreover, 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 [TS.23829]) through alternative access networks (e.g.
WLAN) [Paper-Mobile.Data.Offloading]. Gateway selection mechanism is
also taking the user proximity into account within EPC [TS.29303].
These mechanisms were not pursued in the past owing to charging and
billing reasons. However assigning a gateway anchor node from a
visited network in roaming scenario has until recently been done and
are limited to voice services only. Issues such as charging and
billing require solutions beyond the mobility protocol.
When demand exceeds capacity, both traffic offloading and CDN
mechanisms 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 towards so-called
"flat networks" is reinforced by a shift in user traffic behavior.
In particular, there is an increase in 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, overcoming the suboptimal
route stretch of a centralized mobility scheme.
While deploying today's mobile networks, service providers face new
challenges. Mobility patterns indicate that, more often than not,
mobile nodes remain attached to the same point of attachment for
considerable periods of time [Paper-Locating.User] . Therefore it is
not uncommon to observe that 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 ever-increasing
costs for the service provider. Infrequent node mobility coupled
with application intelligence suggest that mobility can be provided
selectively, 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 towards a
more flat network and the dynamic activation/deactivation of mobility
protocol support as an enabler to distributed mobility management.
The former aims at positioning mobility anchors (HA, LMA) closer to
the user; ideally, mobility agents could be collocated with the
first-hop router. The latter, facilitated by the distribution of
mobility anchors, aims at identifying when mobility support must be
activated and identifying sessions that do not require mobility
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires June 25, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs December 2012
management support -- thus reducing the amount of state information
that must be maintained in various mobility agents of the mobile
network. The key idea is that dynamic mobility management relaxes
some of the constraints of previously-standardized mobility
management solutions and, by doing so, it can avoid the establishment
of non-optimal tunnels between two topologically distant anchors.
Given this motivational background in this section, this document
compares distributed mobility management with centralized mobility
management in Section 3. The requirements to address these problems
are given in Section 4. Finally, security considerations are
discussed in Section 5.
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
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 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 term.
Mobility context
is the collection of information required to provide mobility
management support for a given mobile node.
3. Centralized versus distributed mobility management
Mobility management functions may be implemented at different layers
of the 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
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires June 25, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs December 2012
for existing hosts and network applications which are already in
deployment but lack mobility support.
At the IP layer, a mobility management protocol supporting session
continuity is typically based on the principle of distinguishing
between identifier and routing address and maintaining a mapping
between the two. In Mobile IP, the home address serves as an
identifier of the device whereas the care-of-address (CoA) takes the
role of the routing address. The binding between these two is
maintained at the home agent (mobility anchor). If packets can be
continuously delivered to a mobile node at its home address, then all
sessions using that home address are unaffected even though the
routing address (CoA) changes.
The next two subsections explain centralized and distributed mobility
management functions in the network.
3.1. Centralized mobility management
In centralized mobility management, the mapping information between
the persistent node identifier and the changing IP address of a
mobile node (MN) is kept at a single mobility anchor. At the same
time, packets destined to the 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
cellular networks such as the Third Generation Partnership Project
(3GPP) UMTS networks, CDMA networks, and 3GPP Evolved Packet System
(EPS) networks employ centralized mobility management too. In
particular, Gateway GPRS Support Node (GGSN) and Serving GPRS Support
Node (SGSN) in the 3GPP UMTS hierarchical network, and the Packet
data network Gateway (P-GW) and Serving Gateway (S-GW) in the 3GPP
EPS network, respectively, act as anchors in a hierarchy.
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires June 25, 2013 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs December 2012
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
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 or fully distributed. In the
former case only the data plane is distributed. Fully distributed
mobility management implies that both the data plane and the control
plane are distributed. These different approaches are described in
detail in [I-D.yokota-dmm-scenario]. 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.
A distributed mobility management scheme for future flat IP-based
mobile network architecture consisting of access nodes is proposed in
[Paper-Distributed.Dynamic.Mobility]. Its benefits over centralized
mobility management are shown through simulations in [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-
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires June 25, 2013 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs December 2012
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 flat IP architecture, it is recommended to first consider
whether existing mobility management protocols can be extended to
serve a flat IP architecture.
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 distributed deployment for mobility management
of IP sessions so that traffic does not need to traverse
centrally deployed mobility anchors and thus can be routed in
an optimal manner.
Motivation: This requirement is motivated by current trends in
network evolution: (a) it is cost- and resource-effective to
cache and distribute content by combining distributed mobility
anchors with caching systems (e.g., CDN); (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 problems PS1, PS2, PS3, and PS4 in the
following.
PS1: Non-optimal routes
Routing via a centralized anchor often results in a longer
route. The problem is manifested, for example, when accessing
a local server or servers of a Content Delivery Network (CDN),
or when receiving locally available IP multicast or sending IP
multicast packets.
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires June 25, 2013 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs December 2012
PS2: Divergence from other evolutionary trends in network
architectures such as distribution of content delivery.
Centralized mobility management can become non-optimal with a
flat network architecture.
PS3: Low scalability of centralized tunnel management and mobility
context maintenance
Setting up tunnels through a central anchor and maintaining
mobility context for each MN therein requires more resources in
a centralized design, thus reducing scalability. Distributing
the tunnel maintenance function and the mobility context
maintenance function among different network entities can
increase scalability.
PS4: Single point of failure and attack
Centralized anchoring 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.
4.2. Transparency to Upper Layers when needed
REQ2: Transparency to Upper Layers when needed
DMM solutions MUST provide transparent mobility support above
the IP layer when needed. Such transparency is needed, for
example, when, upon change of point of attachment to the
Internet, an application flow cannot cope with a change in the
IP address. However, it is not always necessary to maintain a
stable home IP address or prefix for every application or at
all times for a mobile node.
Motivation: The motivation of this requirement is to enable
more efficient use of network resources and more efficient
routing by not maintaining context at the mobility anchor when
there is no such need.
This requirement addresses the problem PS5 as well as the related
problem PS6.
PS5: Wasting resources to provide mobility support to nodes that do
not need such support
IP mobility support is not always required, and not every
parameter of mobility context is always used. For example,
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires June 25, 2013 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs December 2012
some applications do not need a stable IP address during a
handover to maintain IP session continuity. Sometimes, the
entire application session runs while the terminal does not
change the point of attachment.
PS6: (Related problem) 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. Peer-to-peer communications have
particular traffic patterns that often do not benefit from
mobility support from the network. Thus, the associated
mobility support signaling (e.g., maintenance of the tunnel,
keep alives, etc.) wastes network resources for no application
gain. In such a case, it is better to enable mobility support
selectively.
4.3. IPv6 deployment
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 is to be inline with 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. 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. Existing mobility protocols
REQ4: Existing mobility protocols
A DMM solution SHOULD first consider reusing and extending
IETF-standardized protocols before specifying new protocols.
4.5. Co-existence
REQ5: Co-existence with deployed networks and hosts
The DMM solution MUST be able to co-exist with existing
network deployments and end hosts. For example, depending on
the environment in which DMM is deployed, DMM solutions may
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires June 25, 2013 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs December 2012
need to be compatible with other deployed mobility protocols
or may need to interoperate with a network or mobile hosts/
routers that do not support DMM protocols. Furthermore, a DMM
solution SHOULD work across different networks, possibly
operated as separate administrative domains, when allowed by
the trust relationship between them.
Motivation: The motivations of this requirement are (1) to
preserve backwards compatibility so that existing networks and
hosts are not affected and continue to function as usual, and
(2) enable inter-domain operation if desired.
This requirement addresses the following related problem PS7.
PS7: (Related problem) Complicated deployment with too many MIP
variants and extensions
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.
4.6. Security considerations
REQ6: Security considerations
DMM protocol solutions MUST consider security aspects,
including confidentiality and integrity. Examples of aspects
to be considered are authentication and authorization
mechanisms that allow a legitimate mobile host/router to use
the mobility support provided by the DMM solution; signaling
message protection in terms of authentication, encryption,
etc.; data integrity and confidentiality; opt-in or opt-out
data confidentiality to signaling messages depending on
network environments or user requirements.
Motivation: 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.
Various attacks such as impersonation, denial of service, man-
in-the-middle attacks, and so on, can be mounted against a DMM
service and need to be protected against.
Signaling messages can be subject to various attacks since
they carry critical context information about a mobile node/
router. For instance, a malicious node can forge a number of
signaling messages thus redirecting traffic from its
legitimate path. Consequently, the specific node is under a
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires June 25, 2013 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs December 2012
denial of service attack, whereas other nodes do not receive
their traffic. As signaling messages may travel over the
Internet, end-to-end security could be required.
4.7. Flexible multicast distribution
REQ7: DMM should enable multicast solutions in flexible distribution
scenario. This flexibility enables different IP multicast
flows with respect to a mobile host to be managed (e.g.,
subscribed, received and/or transmitted) using multiple
endpoints.
Motivation: The motivation of this requirement is to consider
multicast early so that solutions can be developed to overcome
performance issues in multicast distribution scenario. The
multicast solution may therefore avoid having multicast-
capable access routers being restricted to manage all IP
multicast traffic relative to a host via a single endpoint
(e.g., regular or tunnel interface), which would lead to the
problems described in PS1 and PS6.
This requirement addresses the problems PS1 and PS8.
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 different upstream paths. This
problem may also exist or be more severe in a distributed
mobility environment.
5. Security Considerations
Distributed mobility management (DMM) requires two kinds of security
considerations: First, access network security that only allows a
legitimate mobile host/router to access the DMM service; Second, 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
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires June 25, 2013 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs December 2012
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 numerous
participants. Each individual has made significant contributions to
this work and have been listed as co-authors.
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]
Bertin, P., Bonjour, S., and J-M. Bonnin, "A Distributed
Dynamic Mobility Management Scheme Designed for Flat IP
Architectures", Proceedings of 3rd International
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires June 25, 2013 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs December 2012
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.
[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.
[RFC3753] Manner, J. and M. Kojo, "Mobility Related Terminology",
RFC 3753, June 2004.
[RFC3963] Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., and P.
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires June 25, 2013 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs December 2012
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.
[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.
[RFC6275] Perkins, C., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support
in IPv6", RFC 6275, July 2011.
[RFC6301] Zhu, Z., Wakikawa, R., and L. Zhang, "A Survey of Mobility
Support in the Internet", RFC 6301, July 2011.
[TS.23829]
3GPP, "Local IP Access and Selected IP Traffic Offload
(LIPA-SIPTO)", 3GPP TR 23.829 10.0.1, October 2011.
[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 (more co-authors on P. 17)
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 June 25, 2013 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs December 2012
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
Jouni Korhonen
Nokia Siemens Networks
Email: jouni.korhonen@nsn.com
-
Charles E. Perkins
Huawei Technologies
Email: charliep@computer.org
-
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
-
Kostas Pentikousis
Huawei Technologies
Carnotstr. 4 10587 Berlin, Germany
Email: k.pentikousis@huawei.com
-
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
-
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires June 25, 2013 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs December 2012
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
-
Sri Gundavelli
sgundave@cisco.com
-
Marco Liebsch
NEC Laboratories Europe
Email: liebsch@neclab.eu
-
Carl Williams
MCSR Labs
Email: carlw@mcsr-labs.org
-
Seil Jeon
Email: seiljeon@av.it.pt
-
Sergio Figueiredo
Email: sfigueiredo@av.it.pt
-
Stig Venaas
Email: stig@venaas.com
-
Luis Miguel Contreras Murillo
Email: lmcm@tid.es
-
Juan Carlos Zuniga
Email: JuanCarlos.Zuniga@InterDigital.com
-
Alexandru Petrescu
Email: alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com
-
Georgios Karagiannis
Email: g.karagiannis@utwente.nl
-
Julien Laganier
jlaganier@juniper.net
-
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires June 25, 2013 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs December 2012
Wassim Michel Haddad
Wassam.Haddad@ericsson.com
-
Dirk von Hugo
Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de
-
Ahmad Muhanna
amuhanna@awardsolutions.com
-
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires June 25, 2013 [Page 19]
