Network Working Group A. Muhanna (Ed.)
Internet-Draft Ericsson
Intended status: Standards Track B. Patil
Expires: January 13, 2011 Nokia
S. Chakrabarti
IP Infusion
G. Montenegro
Microsoft Corporation
Y. Wu
ZTE USA
July 12, 2010
IPv4 Mobility Extension for Multicast and Broadcast Packets
draft-ietf-mip4-mcbc-01.txt
Abstract
This document specifies a new Mobile IPv4 extension which is used to
negotiate the Multicast-Broadcast Encapsulation Delivery style in the
case of Mobile IPv4 Foreign Agent Care-of Address mode registration.
With this extension the mobile node is able to negotiate the type of
traffic that needs to be encapsulated for delivery to the foreign
agent while other types of traffic use the direct delivery style.
This mechanism eliminates the tunnel overhead between the mobile node
and the foreign agent. Multicast and broadcast applications on a
mobile IPv4 mobile node are better served with this extension.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF 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, 2011.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
Muhanna (Ed.), et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Multicast and Broadcast IPv4 Mobility Ext July 2010
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 & Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Multicast-Broadcast Encapsulating Delivery Style . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Multicast-Broadcast Encapsulating Delivery Extension . . . 6
3.2. Packet Header Formats for Visited Network Traffic . . . . 7
3.3. Packet Header Formats for Homebound Traffic . . . . . . . 8
4. Multicast-Broadcast Encapsulating delivery Style Vs
RFC3024 Encapsulating delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Link-layer Assisted Delivery Style (LLADS) . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix A. Appendix-A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Muhanna (Ed.), et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Multicast and Broadcast IPv4 Mobility Ext July 2010
1. Introduction
The IP Mobility Protocol [RFC3344] describes multicast and broadcast
packet transmission between the mobile node and the home network or
visited network. Reverse Tunneling for Mobile IP [RFC3024] includes
support for reverse tunneling of multicast and broadcast packets to
the home network using the encapsulating delivery style between the
mobile nodes and the foreign agent. However, [RFC3024] says that
once the encapsulated delivery style is negotiated, all packets
exchanged between the mobile node and the foreign agent must be
delivered encapsulated. The delivery (of packets between the MN and
FA) methods specified in the base mobile IPv4 specification [RFC3344]
prevents an MN from sending unicast packets to the FA. Tunnelling
overhead is an issue especially on wireless links with the current
specification. Multicast and broadcast applications for a MN running
mobile IPv4 client software also are negatively impacted. In
particular, this imposition prevents direct delivery of unicast
packets from the mobile node to the foreign agent. This causes a
huge tunnel overhead in the (typically) wireless medium between the
mobile node and the foreign agent and indirectly makes it impossible
for the mobile node to use any of the multicast and broadcast
services.
Additionally, [RFC3344] sections 4.3 and 4.4 discusses multicast and
broadcast routing to and from the mobile node in the presence of
triangular routing and with a co-located Care-of address. Reverse
tunneling for Mobile IP [RFC3024] uses the optimal direct delivery
style from the mobile node via the foreign agent if only unicast
traffic is being reverse tunneled. If, however, multicast or
broadcast packets are also meant to be reverse tunneled, it
introduces the Encapsulating Delivery Style. Unfortunately, once the
encapsulating delivery style is negotiated, it applies to all reverse
tunneling traffics, including unicast. [RFC3344] also mandates, in
the case of FA Care-of Address mode, that all multicast and broadcast
packets be delivered encapsulated to mobile node. This also imposes
tunnel overhead for multicast and broadcast packets. While tunneling
overhead on wired links may be acceptable, it has a higher cost and
throughput impact in wireless links. Even though, Mobile IP has been
deployed for 3G data services, there has not been much usage of
multicast or broadcast data transfer to or from the mobile node.
Services like PTT (Push-To-Talk) rely on multicast. Other services
such as IPTV also use multicast to distribute streaming video to
mobile nodes. Hence it is essential to ensure that the mobile IPv4
clients support multicast and broadcast packet delivery in an optimal
manner.
Current mobile IPv4 specifications [RFC3344] and [RFC3024] do not
clearly address multicast/broadcast packet delivery for a MN with FA
Muhanna (Ed.), et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Multicast and Broadcast IPv4 Mobility Ext July 2010
care-of-address. for example, for encapsulating delivery style, the
source address of the outer and inner IP header is the home address
of the mobile node as described in section 5.2.2 of [RFC3024]. In
addition, section 5.4 talks about local delivery of multicast/
broadcast packets in the visited network but some corner cases are
not completely specified. In particular, multicast messages from the
mobile node to the visited network may be needed for retrieving
service information. A mobile node may use all-mobility-agent
multicast as the destination address and its home-address as the
source-address for local service discovery. In this case, the
foreign agents must consider all messages with the all-mobility-agent
multicast as the destination address as special case and reply back
directly to the mobile-node. However, this scenario makes foreign
agent processing a bit more complex when reverse-tunnel is setup and
the mobile-node sends multicast messages towards the reverse tunnel
using its home-address as the source address. The all-mobility-
agents multicast address is used for router solicitation by the
mobile node, so foreign agent implementations must use it as a
special address. This leads to complexity if in the reverse tunnel
the mobile node uses its home address as the source address for other
multicast messages destined to the home and visited network.
Currently different organizations [3GPP2] define their own mechanism
to obtain local information such as DNS server IP address through
AAA. All Mobility-agent multicast is used for router solicitation by
the mobile node and the implementation can treat this address
specially at the foreign agent. However, the implementation of
foreign agent needs to apply multicast-address filtering and gets
very complex if the mobile client uses the home address as source
address for other multicast messages destined to the home and visited
network, in the reverse tunnel mode. Even if multicast packets are
delivered locally, the return packet which has the destination
address as the home address will be routed back all the way to the
home agent of the mobile node to be tunneled back to the foreign
agent and then to the mobile node. [RFC3024] recommends selective
reverse tunneling by delivering packets directly to the foreign
agent, while encapsulating them for reverse tunnel delivery. But the
specification is not clear about the source addresses of the packets
from the mobile node in case of selective direct delivery. Although
it clearly states that for the mobile node which uses co-located
care-of address mode.
This specification aims to clarify the delivery of multicast messages
when reverse tunneling is used, adds the capability to selectively
negotiates which type of traffic to be delivered using encapsulating
delivery, e.g., only for multicast and broadcast packets from mobile
node to foreign agent, while allowing direct delivery for other type
of traffic, e.g., unicast, and explores direct delivery options of
Muhanna (Ed.), et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Multicast and Broadcast IPv4 Mobility Ext July 2010
multicast messages between the mobile node and the foreign agent by
using link-layer capabilities.
Section 3 describes the new delivery extension for multicast-
broadcast packets in reverse tunnel mode.
2. Conventions & Terminology
2.1. 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].
2.2. Terminology
All the general mobility related terminology and abbreviations are to
be interpreted as defined in IP Mobility Protocol [RFC3344] and
Reverse tunneling for Mobile IP [RFC3024]. The following terms are
used in this document.
MN
Mobile Node.
FA
Foreign Agent.
FA-CoA
Foreign Agent as the Mobile Node Care-of Address.
3. Multicast-Broadcast Encapsulating Delivery Style
The Mobile IP reverse tunneling [RFC3024] defines the Encapsulating
delivery style for delivering multicast and broadcast packets from
the mobile node to the foreign agent in the FA-CoA mode. It also
mandates Encapsulating delivery mode for sending multicast/broadcast
packets to reverse-tunnel to home agent via the foreign agent. But
[RFC3024] section 2 says that all reverse-tunneled traffic is
encapsulated when Encapsulating Delivery is negotiated. The
"Multicast-Broadcast Encapsulating Delivery Style" (MBEDS) extension
defined in this specification applies encapsulation only to the
reverse-tunneled multicast and broadcast packets, leaving direct
delivery for reverse-tunneled unicast packets. The main motivation
Muhanna (Ed.), et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Multicast and Broadcast IPv4 Mobility Ext July 2010
for adding this extension is to save the overhead of additional IP
header for unicast packets which consequently will enable the use of
Multicast and Broadcast packets when Mobile IPv4 is in use. This
procedure works for both shared media like ethernet, IEEE 802.11 and
links of a point-to-point nature such as those defined by 3GPP, 3GPP2
and IEEE 802.16.
3.1. Multicast-Broadcast Encapsulating Delivery Extension
The proposed extension is used in Mobile IPv4 signaling to negotiate
the Multicast-Broadcast Encapsulation Delivery Style. Foreign agents
SHOULD support the Multicast-Broadcast Encapsulating Delivery Style
Extension. A registration request MAY include either a regular
encapsulating delivery extension (see section 3.3 in [RFC3024]) or a
Multicast-Broadcast Encapsulating Delivery extension, but not both.
If both extensions are present, the foreign agent will consider that
an error scenario and the FA MUST reject the registration request by
sending a registration reply with the code field set to "Poorly
Formed Request".
If a foreign agent supports MBEDS, then the foreign agent SHOULD
advertise the MBEDS extension in its router advertisement to inform
the mobile node about the type of delivery style it supports. This
will avoid the possibility of multiple registration requests to
figure out which encapsulating mode the foreign agent supports.
If the MN includes an MBEDS extension, if MUST do so after the
Mobile-Home Authentication Extension, and before the Mobile-Foreign
Authentication Extension, if present. The Encapsulating Delivery
Style Extension MUST NOT be included if the 'T' bit is not set in the
Registration Request.
If no delivery style extension is present, Direct Delivery per RFC
3024 is assumed.
The Multicast-Broadcast Encapsulation Extension format is as in
Figure 1 below.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Bit-field Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Multicast-Broadcast Encapsulating Extension
Muhanna (Ed.), et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Multicast and Broadcast IPv4 Mobility Ext July 2010
Type
<IANA>
Length
8-bit unsigned integer indicating the length in octets of the Bit-
Field . It is set to 2.
Bit-Field Value
A 16-bit bit-field. Value specifies what type of packets are
encapsulated. The following bits are defined (0 being the right-
most bit, 15 the left-most bit):
0:
All packets are encapsulated between a mobile node and a
foreign agent. It is same as the Encapsulating Delivery Style
in RFC3024. NOTE: obsolete EDS in 3024?.
1:
Only multicast and broadcast packets are encapsulated (MBEDS).
2:
Link-layer Assisted Delivery Style (LLAS) for local network.
All other bits values are reserved.
NOTE: Only MBEDS packets are reverse tunneled after being
decapsulated at the foreign agent, not those directly destined to the
foreign-agent address or all mobility agent address. These are
processed locally by the foreign agent.
3.2. Packet Header Formats for Visited Network Traffic
Other than Mobile IP agent solicitation packets, there might be some
multicast or broadcast packets meant for consumption at the visited
network. If the mobile node can acquire a local IP address, then it
MUST direct deliver the multicast and broadcast traffic for local
use. If the mobile node can have only one IP address, (i.e. home
address) then it MUST send all the multicast and broadcast packets
encapsulated. These packets will be sent to the home network through
the reverse tunnel after being decapsulated at the foreign agent;
Muhanna (Ed.), et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Multicast and Broadcast IPv4 Mobility Ext July 2010
only exceptions are the multicast solicitation messages for the
mobility agent.
In some cases, the mobile node may want to send multicast or
broadcast packets to visited network entities other than the foreign
agent. In those cases they should always be direct delivered by
acquiring a local IP address or using link-layer mechanism if
possible. Please see the section 'Link-layer Assisted Delivery
Style' below for details.
3.3. Packet Header Formats for Homebound Traffic
The packet format and processing for encapsulated multicast and
broadcast traffic is the same as defined in section 5.2 of Reverse
Tunneling for Mobile IP [RFC3024]. Additionally, the packet format
and processing for unicast traffic is the same as defined in section
5.1 of the same specification.
4. Multicast-Broadcast Encapsulating delivery Style Vs RFC3024
Encapsulating delivery
RFC3024 encapsulating delivery style does not require the foreign-
agent to advertise an extension as well for the mobile node
efficiency. MBEDS provides an option for foreign agent to advertise
the extension with supported extension types, so that a mobile node
can request a delivery style that the foreign agent supports.
RFC3024 encapsulating delivery style requires all multicast,
broadcast and unicast traffic to be encapsulated in order to be
reverse tunneled. In MBEDS unicast packets are always direct
delivered to the foreign agent. Most of the the cases a node sends
unicast packets for communication with a correspondent node and
occasionally it may send broadcast or multicast packets to the home
network. Thus this new style of delivery relieves the overhead of
encapsulation for most traffic.
MBEDS introduces TLV style extension for delivery style. Therefore,
this extension can be used to negotiate different delivery styles in
the future. Currently, it can be backward compatible with RFC3024
encapsulating delivery style when the value field is zero. NOTE: We
should make this a bit field to allow for easier advertisement and
other extensions.
A mobile node SHOULD use either RFC3024 style encapsulating delivery
extension or the MBEDS extension (defined in this document), but not
both at the same time. If both extensions are received at the
foreign-agent, the foreign agent MUST reject the registration request
Muhanna (Ed.), et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Multicast and Broadcast IPv4 Mobility Ext July 2010
by sending a registration reply with error (70) "Poorly Formed
Request".
5. Link-layer Assisted Delivery Style (LLADS)
This section discusses direct-delivery of multicast and broadcast
packets between the mobile node and the foreign agent by taking
advantage of link-layer mechanisms. Certain link-layers allow for
direct delivery from the MN to the FA (and vice-versa) without the
need for encapsulation. In effect, this is assumed by RFC 3024 for
Direct Delivery Style. In this mode, a unicast packet at the IP
layer is carried over a unicast link-layer delivery mechanism. For
example, the FA's MAC address is the link-layer destination address,
or the packet is sent on a link of a point-to-point nature as in 3G
networks. Broadcast and multicast packets, however are typically
sent using a link-layer broadcast or multicast mechanism: a broadcast
or multicast MAC address for IEEE 802.11 networks. If, however,
these packets had the FA unicast MAC address while carrying an IP
layer broadcast or multicast destination, then there would be no need
for encapsulation to remove the ambiguity. The packet would be
unequivocally directed at, and consumed by the FA. Notice that in
links of a point-to-point nature, there is no ambiguity even for
multicast and broadcast packets: these are unequivocally delivered to
the FA. The Link-layer Assisted Delivery Style allows for direct
delivery of unicast, multicast and broadcast packets over link-layers
that can support it. In particular, it requires that regardless of
whether the IP layer packet is unicast, broadcast or multicast, (1)
when sending from MN to FA, the FA unicast address always be used,
and (2) when sending from FA to MN, the MN unicast address always be
used. The FA advertises such capability per the extension defined
above, and the MN requests it in its registration request.
The LLADS imposes the least amount of tunneling overhead of the
delivery styles as it effectively uses the equivalent of direct
delivery for unicast, broadcast and multicast. It enables the MN to
deliver packets to the FA for the foreign agent to reverse tunnel
them back to the MN's home network.
However LLADS does not by itself allow the MN to deliver packets such
that the FA know whether or not it should reverse tunnel them, or
process them as local packets (e.g., perhaps forwarding them to local
services). Certain networks have the capability of enabling
additional context at the link-layer to effect different
classification and treatment of packets otherwise indistinguishable
at the IP layer, e.g., by establishing additional PDP contexts in
3GPP or additional service flows (and the corresponding CIDs) in
WiMAX networks. In such networks, it is possible for the MN and the
Muhanna (Ed.), et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Multicast and Broadcast IPv4 Mobility Ext July 2010
FA to establish additional context such that packets sent by the MN
to the FA are classified correctly upon arrival into either packets
meant for local consumption, or packets meant to be reverse tunneled.
In the absence of any IP layer differentiation (i.e., by sending
packets meant for local consumption with the MN's local care-of
address as source address), such link-layer mechanisms can provide
the necessary means for the FA to select the correct processing for
packets received from the MN. Such link-layer mechanisms, however,
are out of scope of this document.
6. Security Considerations
This draft does not introduce any security threats on the top of what
is defined in IP Mobility Protocol [RFC3344]. If included, the
Multicast-Broadcast Encapsulating Delivery Style extension MUST be
added after the MN-HA authentication extension and before the MN-FA
authentication extension, if present.
7. IANA Considerations
This document defines a new IP Mobility extension, as described in
Section 3.1 and uses a type <IANA-TBD>. The Multicast-Broadcast
Encapsulation Delivery Extension type is assigned from the range of
values associated with the skippable IP Mobility extensions.
8. Acknowledgments
The authors like to thank Charlie Perkins, Alex Bachmutsky, De Juan
Huarte Federico, Parviz Yegani, Jayshree Bharatia for their comments
and contribution in shaping up this document. We also thank the
WiMAX Forum NWG members for their valuable input and suggestions
during the initial discussion of the problem.
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.
[RFC3024] Montenegro, G., "Reverse Tunneling for Mobile IP,
revised", RFC 3024, January 2001.
[RFC3344] Perkins, C., "IP Mobility Support for IPv4", RFC 3344,
Muhanna (Ed.), et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Multicast and Broadcast IPv4 Mobility Ext July 2010
August 2002.
9.2. Informative references
[3GPP2] "3GPP2 - Third Generation Partnership Project 2: X.P0028-
200", Online web site http://www.3gpp2.org.
[NWG] "NWG - WiMAX Network Architecture Group", Online web
site http://www.wimaxforum.org.
Appendix A. Appendix-A
TBD.
Authors' Addresses
Ahmad Muhanna (Editor)
Ericsson Inc.
2201 Lakeside Blvd.
Richardson, TX 75082
USA
Email: ahmad.muhanna@ericsson.com
Basavaraj Patil
Nokia
6021 Connection Drive
Irving, TX 75039
USA
Email: basavaraj.patil@nokia.com
Samita Chakrabarti
IP Infusion
1188 Arquest Street
Sunnyvale, CA
USA
Email: samitac@ipinfusion.com
Muhanna (Ed.), et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Multicast and Broadcast IPv4 Mobility Ext July 2010
Gabriel Montenegro
Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052
USA
Email: gabriel.montenegro@microsoft.com
Yingzhe Wu
ZTE USA
10105 Pacific Heights Blvd, Suite 250
San Diego, CA 92121
USA
Email: yingzhe.wu@zteusa.com
Muhanna (Ed.), et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 12]