Network Working Group H. Chan (Ed.)
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Informational D. Liu
Expires: August 7, 2014 China Mobile
P. Seite
Orange
H. Yokota
KDDI Lab
J. Korhonen
Broadcom Communications
February 3, 2014
Requirements for Distributed Mobility Management
draft-ietf-dmm-requirements-14
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 centralized
deployment models. As some wireless networks are evolving away from
the hierarchical structure, a distributed model for mobility
management can be useful to them.
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 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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 7, 2014.
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires August 7, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs February 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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Centralized versus distributed mobility management . . . . . . 5
3.1. Centralized mobility management . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Distributed mobility management . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires August 7, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs February 2014
1. Introduction
In the past decade a fair number of network-layer mobility protocols
have been standardized [RFC6275] [RFC5944] [RFC5380] [RFC6301]
[RFC5213]. Although the 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.
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) which
had not taken mobility service into account before. 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 (e.g. WLAN) [Paper-Mobile.Data.Offloading]. In
addition, a gateway selection mechanism takes the user proximity
into account within EPC [TS.29303]. Yet these mechanisms were
not pursued in the past owing to charging and billing which
require solutions beyond the mobility protocol. Consequently,
assigning a gateway anchor node from a visited network in
roaming scenario has until recently been done and are limited to
voice services only.
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"
works best for 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.
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires August 7, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs February 2014
(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 towards a
more flat 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
[RFC5213], and in Mobility Related Terminology [RFC3753]. These
terms include the following: mobile node (MN), correspondent node
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires August 7, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs February 2014
(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.
Flat mobile network
has few levels of routing hierarchy introduced into the data path
by the mobility management system.
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 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
routing 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 routing 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 routing
address with the session identifier. Packets addressed to the
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires August 7, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs February 2014
session identifier will first route to the original network which re-
directs them using the routing address to deliver to the session.
Re-directing packets this way can result in long routes. An existing
optimization routes directly using the routing 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 routing address
is kept at a single mobility anchor, and packets destined to the
session identifier are routed 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
Third Generation Partnership Project (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 August 7, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs February 2014
3G 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 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
mobility/routing management (RM) capability.
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| RM | | RM | | RM | | RM |
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
|
+----+
| MN |
+----+
Figure 2. Distributed mobility management.
Mobility management may be partially or fully distributed
[I-D.yokota-dmm-scenario]. In the former case only the data plane is
distributed, implicitly assuming separation of data and control
planes as described in [I-D.wakikawa-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation].
Fully distributed mobility management implies that both the data
plane and the control plane are distributed. While mobility
management can be distributed, it is not necessary for other
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires August 7, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs February 2014
functions such as subscription management, subscription database, and
network access authentication to be similarly distributed.
A distributed mobility management scheme for a flat mobile network 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
Routing 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 flat
network. Centralized mobility management, which is non-optimal
with a flat 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
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires August 7, 2014 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs February 2014
mobility context for each MN usually requires more concentrated
resources in a centralized design, thus reducing scalability.
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
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires August 7, 2014 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs February 2014
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. 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 processing
IP mobility, network access and routing solutions provided by
DMM MUST enable distributed processing for mobility management
so that traffic can avoid traversing single mobility anchor
far from the optimal route.
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
DMM solutions MUST enable network-layer mobility but it MUST
be possible 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, for example, when a mobile router moves together
with a host and an application in the host is interrupted by a
change of IP address of the mobile router. However 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.
Motivation: The motivation of this requirement is to enable
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires August 7, 2014 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs February 2014
more efficient routing 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.
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 and hosts
The DMM solution may require loose, tight or no integration
into existing mobility protocols and host IP stack.
Regardless of the integration level, the DMM solution 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 allowed by the trust relationship
between them.
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires August 7, 2014 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs February 2014
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: Security considerations
A DMM solution MUST NOT introduce new security risks, or
amplify existing security risks, that cannot be mitigated by
existing security mechanisms or protocols.
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 is 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. can be used to protect the DMM entities
as they are already used to protect against existing networks
and existing mobility protocols defined in IETF.
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.
REQ7: 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 routing 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
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires August 7, 2014 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs February 2014
(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
5.6.
7. IANA Considerations
None
8. Contributors
This requirements document is a joint effort among numerous
participants working in a team. In addition to the authors, each of
the following has made very significant and important contributions
to this work:
Charles E. Perkins
Huawei Technologies
Email: charliep@computer.org
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
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires August 7, 2014 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs February 2014
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
Marco Liebsch
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
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires August 7, 2014 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs February 2014
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
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
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
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
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires August 7, 2014 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs February 2014
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., and S. Gundavelli,
"Separation of Control and User Plane for Proxy Mobile
IPv6", draft-wakikawa-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation-00
(work in progress), July 2013.
[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
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
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires August 7, 2014 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs February 2014
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.
[RFC3753] Manner, J. and M. Kojo, "Mobility Related Terminology",
RFC 3753, June 2004.
[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.
[RFC6705] Krishnan, S., Koodli, R., Loureiro, P., Wu, Q., and A.
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires August 7, 2014 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs February 2014
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
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
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires August 7, 2014 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs February 2014
Jouni Korhonen
Broadcom Communications
Porkkalankatu 24, FIN-00180 Helsinki, Finland
Email: jouni.nospam@gmail.com
Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires August 7, 2014 [Page 19]
