Mobility for IPv4 Working Group S. Gundavelli, Ed.
Internet-Draft K. Leung
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco
Expires: June 26, 2014 G. Tsirtsis
Qualcomm
H. Soliman
Elevate Technologies
A. Petrescu
CEA LIST
December 23, 2013
Flow Binding Support for Mobile IP
draft-ietf-mip4-multiple-tunnel-support-07.txt
Abstract
This specification defines extensions to Mobile IP protocol for
allowing a mobile node with multiple interfaces to register a care-of
address for each of its network interfaces and to simultaneously
establish multiple IP tunnels with its home agent. This essentially
allows the mobile node to utilize all the available network
interfaces and build an higher aggregated logical pipe with its home
agent for its home address traffic. Furthermore, these extensions
also allow the mobile node and the home agent to negotiate flow
policies for binding individual traffic flows with the registered
care-of addresses.
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 June 26, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
Gundavelli, et al. Expires June 26, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Flow Binding Support for Mobile IP December 2013
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Solution Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Example Call Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Message Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Multipath Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Flow-Binding Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3. New Error Codes for Registration Reply . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Protocol Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1. Mobile Node Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2. Home Agent Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. Routing Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. Protocol Configuration Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Gundavelli, et al. Expires June 26, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Flow Binding Support for Mobile IP December 2013
1. Introduction
With the ubiquitous availability of wireless networks supporting
different access technologies, mobile devices are now equipped with
multiple wireless interfaces and have the ability to connect to the
network over any of those interfaces and access the network. In many
deployments, it is desirable for a mobile node to leverage all the
available network connections and have IP mobility support for its IP
sessions.
The operation defined in the Mobile IP Protocol [RFC5944], allows a
mobile node to continue to use its home address as it moves around
the internet. Based on the mode of operation, there will be a Mobile
IP tunnel that will be established between the home agent and the
mobile node, or between the home agent and the foreign agent where
the mobile node is attached. In both of these modes, there will only
be one interface on the mobile node that is receiving the traffic
from the home agent. However, this is not efficient and requires an
approach where the mobile node can use more than one interfaces for
reaching the home network. The objective being efficient use of all
available links to obtain higher aggregated bandwidth for the
tunneled traffic between the home agent and the mobile node.
This specification defines extensions to Mobile IPv4 protocol for
allowing a mobile node with multiple interfaces to register a care-of
address for each of its network interfaces and to simultaneously
establish multiple IP tunnels with its home agent. Furthermore, this
specification also defines extensions to allow the mobile node and
the home agent to optionally negotiate flow policies for binding
individual traffic flows with the registered care-of addresses.
2. Conventions & Terminology
2.1. Conventions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2.2. Terminology
All the mobility related terms used in this document are to be
interpreted as defined in [RFC5944] and [RFC3753]. In addition this
document uses the following terms.
Binding Identifier (BID)
Gundavelli, et al. Expires June 26, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Flow Binding Support for Mobile IP December 2013
It is an identifier for a specific binding of a mobile node. A
binding defines an association between a mobile node's home
address and its registered care-of address. A mobile node, when
it registers multiple bindings with its home agent, each using
different care-of addresses, then each of those bindings are given
a unique identifier. The Binding Identifier is unique within all
the bindings for a given mobile node.
Flow Identifier (FID)
It is an identifier for a given IP flow, uniquely identified by
source address, destination address, protocol type, source port
and destination port. In the context of this document, the IP
flows associated with a mobile node are the IP flows using its
home address.
3. Solution Overview
The illustration below in Figure-1 is of a mobile node attached to
the network over three different access technologies, Wi-Fi, LTE and
CDMA. The mobile node is assigned an home address, HoA-1, and has
configured the care-of addresses CoA-1 (Wi-Fi), CoA-2 (LTE) and CoA-3
(CDMA). The mobile node has registered the three care-of addresses
with the home agent and has established Mobile IP tunnels, Tunnel-1,
Tunnel-2 and Tunnel-3 over each of those access networks. The IP
traffic using mobile node's home address (HoA-1) can be routed
through any of the three tunnel paths. The mobile node's IP flows,
Flow-1, Flow-2 and Flow-3 are routed between the home agent and the
mobile node over these different Mobile IP tunnels based on the
negotiated flow policy.
Gundavelli, et al. Expires June 26, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Flow Binding Support for Mobile IP December 2013
Flow-1
|
|Flow-2
| |
| |Flow-3 _----_
| | | CoA-1 _( )_ Tunnel-1
| | | .---=======( Wi-Fi )========\ Flow-1
| | | | (_ _) \
| | | | '----' \
| | | +=====+ _----_ \ +=====+ _----_
| | '-| | CoA-2 _( )_ Tunnel-2 \ | | _( )_ --
| '---| MN |---====( LTE )=========-----| HA |-( Internet )--
'-----| | (_ _) Flow-3 / | | (_ _) --
+=====+ '----' / +=====+ '----'
| | _----_ /
HoA-1--' | CoA-3 _( )_ Tunnel-3 /
.------====( CDMA )========/ Flow-2
(_ _)
'----'
Figure 1: Mobile Node with multiple tunnels to the home agent
The above table is an example of how the individual flows are bound
to different care-of addresses registered with the home agent.
+-------+----------------------+------------------------------------+
| Flow | CoA/Tunnel/BID | Negotiated Flow Policy |
| Id | | |
+-------+----------------------+------------------------------------+
| 1. | CoA-1/Tunnel-1/BID-1 | All SIP Flows over WiFI |
| 2. | CoA-2/Tunnel-2/BID-2 | All HTTP Flows over LTE |
| 3. | CoA-3/Tunnel-3/BID-3 | All SSH Flows over CDMA |
+-------+----------------------+------------------------------------+
Table 1: Example - Flow Binding Table
3.1. Example Call Flow
Figure 2 shows a scenario where a mobile node is attached two WLAN
and LTE access networks negotiates multipath support with the home
agent. Furthermore, the mobile node and the home agent also
negotiate the flow policies which bind specific application traffic
to specific access networks.
Gundavelli, et al. Expires June 26, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Flow Binding Support for Mobile IP December 2013
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
| MN | | WLAN | | LTE | | HA |
| | |Network| |Network| | |
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
| | | |
* MIP Registration of the Care-of Address obtained from WLAN Network
|<--- (1) --------->| | |
| | RRQ (Multipath, Flow-Binding) |
|---- (2) ----------------------------------------------->|
| | RRP | |
|<--- (3) ------------------------------------------------|
| MIP Tunnel through WLAN Network |
|=====(4)===========*=====================================|
* MIP Registration of the Care-of Address obtained from LTE Network
|<--- (5) ---------------------------->| |
| | RRQ (Multipath, Flow-Binding) |
|---- (6) ----------------------------------------------->|
| | RRP | |
|<--- (7) ------------------------------------------------|
| MIP Tunnel through LTE Access |
|=====(8)==============================*==================|
| |
* *
(Policy-based Routing Rule) (Policy-based Routing Rule)
Figure 2: Multipath Negotiation - Call Flow
4. Message Extensions
This specification defines the following new extensions to Mobile IP.
4.1. Multipath Extension
This extension is used for requesting multipath support. It
indicates that the sender is requesting the home agent to register
the current care-of address listed in this Registration Request as
one of the many care-addresses through which the mobile node can be
reached. It is also for carrying the information specific to the
interface to which the care-of addresses that is being registered is
bound.
This extension is a non-skippable extension and MAY be added by the
Gundavelli, et al. Expires June 26, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Flow Binding Support for Mobile IP December 2013
mobile node to the Registration Request message. There MUST NOT be
more than one instance of this extension present in the message.
This extension MUST NOT be added by the home agent or by the foreign
agent either to the Registration Request or to the Registration
Reply.
This extension should be protected using the Mobile-Home
Authentication extension [RFC5944]. As specified in Section 3.2 and
Section 3.6.1.3 of [RFC5944], the mobile node MUST place this
Extension before the Mobile-Home Authentication Extension in the
registration messages, so that this extension is integrity protected.
The format of this extension is as shown below. It adheres to the
short extension format described in [RFC5944].
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 | Sub-Type | If-ATT |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| If-Label | Binding-Id |B|O| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Multipath Extension
Type
Type: <IANA-1>
Length
The length of the extension in octets, excluding Type and
Length fields. This field MUST be set to value of 6.
Sub-Type
This field MUST be set to a value of 1 (Multipath Extension).
Interface Access-Technology Type (If-ATT)
This 8-bit field identifies the Access-Technology type of the
interface through which the mobile node is connected. The
permitted values for this are from the Access Technology Type
registry defined in [RFC5213].
Gundavelli, et al. Expires June 26, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Flow Binding Support for Mobile IP December 2013
Interface Label (If-Label)
This 8-bit field represents the interface label represented as
an unsigned integer. The mobile node identifies the label for
each of the interfaces through which it registers a CoA with
the home agent. When using static traffic flow policies on the
mobile node and the home agent, the label can be used for
generating forwarding policies. For example, the operator may
have policy which binds traffic for Application "X" needs to
interface with Label "Y". When a registration through an
interface matching Label "Y" gets activated, the home agent and
the mobile node can dynamically generate a forwarding policy
for forwarding traffic for Application "X" through mobile IP
tunnel matching Label "Y". Both the home agent and the mobile
node can route the Application-X traffic through that
interface. The permitted values for If-Label are 1 through
255.
Binding-Identifier (BID)
This 8-bit field is used for carrying the binding identifier.
It uniquely identifies a specific binding of the mobile node,
to which this request can be associated. Each binding
identifier is represented as an unsigned integer. The
permitted values are 1 through 254. The BID value of 0 and 255
are reserved. The mobile node assigns a unique value for each
of its interfaces and includes them in the message.
Bulk Re-registration Flag (B)
This flag, if set to a value of (1), is to notify the home
agent to consider this request as a request to update the
binding lifetime of all the mobile node's bindings, upon
accepting this specific request. This flag MUST NOT be set to
a value of (1), if the value of the Registration Overwrite Flag
(O) flag is set to a value of (1).
Registration Overwrite (O)
This flag, if set to a value of (1), notifies the home agent
that upon accepting this request, it should replace all of the
mobile node's existing bindings with this binding. This flag
MUST NOT be set to a value of (1), if the value of the Bulk Re-
registration Flag (B) is set to a value of (1). This flag MUST
be set to a value of (0), in de-registration requests.
Gundavelli, et al. Expires June 26, 2014 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Flow Binding Support for Mobile IP December 2013
Reserved (R)
This 14-bit field is unused for now. The value MUST be
initialized to (0) by the sender and MUST be ignored by the
receiver.
4.2. Flow-Binding Extension
This extension contains information that can be used by the mobile
node and the home agent for binding mobile node's IP flows to a
specific multipath registration. There can be more than one instance
of this extension present in the message.
This extension is a non-skippable extension and MAY be added to the
Registration Request by the mobile node, or by the home agent to the
Registration Reply. There MUST NOT be more than one instance of this
extension present in the message. This extension MUST NOT be added
by the foreign agent either to the Registration Request or to the
Registration Reply.
This extension should be protected by Mobile-Home Authentication
extension [RFC5944]. As specified in Section 3.2 and Section 3.6.1.3
of [RFC5944], the mobile node MUST place this Extension before the
Mobile-Home Authentication Extension in the registration messages, so
that this extension is integrity protected.
The format of this extension is as shown below. It adheres to the
long extension format described in [RFC5944].
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 | Sub-Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Action | BID Count | ... BID List ... ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TS Format | Traffic Selector ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: Flow-Binding Extension
Type
Gundavelli, et al. Expires June 26, 2014 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Flow Binding Support for Mobile IP December 2013
Type: <IANA-2>
Sub-Type
This field MUST be set to a value of 1 (Flow-Binding
Extension).
Length
The length of the extension in octets, excluding Type, Length
and Sub-Type fields.
Action
+---------+-------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Action | Value | Comments |
+---------+-------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Drop | 0 | Drop matching packets. A filter rule |
| | | indicating a drop action MUST include a single |
| | | BID byte, the value of which MAY be set to 255 |
| | | by the sender and the value of which SHOULD be |
| | | ignored by the receiver. |
| Forward | 1 | Forward matching packets to the 1st BID in the |
| | | list of BIDs the filter rule is pointing to. |
| | | If the 1st BID becomes invalid (i.e., the |
| | | corresponding CoA is deregistered) use the next |
| | | BID in the list. |
+---------+-------+-------------------------------------------------+
Table 2: Action Rules for the Traffic Selector
BID Count
Total number of binding identifiers that follow this field.
Permitted value for this field are 1 through 8; Each binding
identifier is represented as an unsigned integer in a single
octet field. There is no delimiter between two binding
identifier values, they are spaced consecutively.
TS Format
An 8-bit unsigned integer indicating the Traffic Selector
Format. Value (0) is reserved and MUST NOT be used. When the
value of TS Format field is set to (1), the format that follows
is the IPv4 Binary Traffic Selector specified in section 3.1 of
[RFC6088], and when the value of TS Format field is set to (2),
Gundavelli, et al. Expires June 26, 2014 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Flow Binding Support for Mobile IP December 2013
the format that follows is the IPv6 Binary Traffic Selector
specified in section 3.2 of [RFC6088].
Traffic Selector
A variable-length opaque field for including the traffic
specification identified by the TS format field. It identifies
the traffic selectors for matching the IP traffic and binding
them to specific binding identifiers.
4.3. New Error Codes for Registration Reply
This document defines the following error code values for use by the
home agent in the Code field of the Registration Reply.
MULTIPATH_NOT_ALLOWED (Multipath Support not allowed for this
mobility session): <IANA-3>
INVALID_FB_IDENTIFIER (Invalid Flow Binding Identifier): <IANA-4>
5. Protocol Operation
5.1. Mobile Node Considerations
The configuration variable, EnableMultipathSupport, determines if
multipath support is enabled or disabled on the mobile node. If
multipath support is not enabled, then this specification does not
apply. If multipath support is enabled on a mobile node, then the
following considerations apply.
o The mobile node should register a care-of address for each of the
active egress interfaces that it wishes to register with the home
agent. It can do so by sending a Registration Request to the home
agent through each of those interfaces.
o Each of the Registration Requests that is sent MUST include the
care-of address of the respective interface. The Registration
Request has to be routed through the specific interface for which
the registration is sough for. Some of these interfaces may be
connected to networks with a configured foreign agent on the link
and in such foreign agent based registrations, the care-of address
MUST be the address of the foreign agent.
o A Multipath extension Section 4.1 reflecting the interface
parameters MUST be present in each of the Registration Requests.
This serves as an indication to the home agent that the
Registration Request is a Multipath registration and the home
agent MUST register this care-of address as one of the many
Gundavelli, et al. Expires June 26, 2014 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Flow Binding Support for Mobile IP December 2013
care-of addresses through which the mobile node's home address is
reachable. The mobile node MUST place this Extension before the
Mobile-Home Authentication Extension in the Registration Request
message.
o If the mobile node is configured to exchange IP flow policy to the
home agent, then the Flow-Binding extension Section 4.2 reflecting
the flow policy can be included in the message. Otherwise, the
Flow-Binding extension MUST NOT be present in the message.
o The mobile node on receiving a Registration Reply with the code
value set to MULTIPATH_NOT_ALLOWED, MAY choose to register without
the Multipath extension specified in this document. This implies
the home agent has not enabled multipath support for this mobility
session and hence multipath support must be disabled on the mobile
node.
o The mobile node on receiving a Registration Reply with the code
value set to INVALID_FB_IDENTIFIER, MUST re-register that specific
binding for with the home agent.
o The mobile node at any time can extend the lifetime of a specific
care-of address registration by sending a Registration Request to
the home agent with a new lifetime value. The message MUST be
sent as the initial multipath registration and must be routed
through that specific interface. The message MUST include the
Multipath extension Section 4.1 with the value in the Binding-Id
field set to the binding identifier assigned to that binding.
Alternatively, the home agent can send a single Registration
Request with the Bulk Re-registration Flag (B) set to a value of
(1). This serves as a request to the home agent to consider this
request as a request to update the registration lifetime of all
the mobile node's registrations.
o The mobile node at any time can de-register a specific care-of
address by sending a Registration Request to the home agent with a
lifetime value of (0). The message MUST be sent as the initial
multipath registration and must be routed through that specific
interface. The message must include the Multipath extension
Section 4.1 with the value in the Binding-Id field set to the
binding identifier assigned to that binding Alternatively, the
home agent can send a single Registration Request with the Bulk
Re-registration Flag (B) set to a value of (1) and a lifetime
value of (0). This serves as a request to the home agent to
consider this request as a request to de-register all the mobile
node's care-of addresses.
Gundavelli, et al. Expires June 26, 2014 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Flow Binding Support for Mobile IP December 2013
o The mobile node at any time can update the parameters of a
specific registration by sending a Registration Request to the
home agent. This includes change of care-of address associated
with a previously registered interface. The message must be sent
as the initial multipath registration and must be routed through
that specific interface. The message must include the Multipath
extension Section 4.1 with the value in the Binding-Id field set
to the binding identifier assigned to that binding and the
Overwrite Flag (O) flag MUST set to a value of (1).
o The mobile node on receiving a Registration Reply with the code
value set to 0 (registration accepted), MUST establish a mobile IP
tunnel to the home agent using that care-of address. The tunnel
encapsulation type and any other parameters are based on the
registration for that path. If there is also an exchange of flow
policy between the mobile node and the home agent, with the use of
Flow-Binding extensions then the mobile node must set up the
forwarding plane that matches the flow policy.
5.2. Home Agent Considerations
The home agent upon receipt of a Registration Request with the
Multipath extension from a mobile node, should check the
configuration variable, EnableMultipathSupport. If the value of this
variable is set to 0, the home agent MUST reject the request with a
registration reply and with the code set to MULTIPATH_NOT_ALLOWED.
The home agent upon receipt of a Registration Request with the
Multipath extension and with the Bulk Re-registration (B) flag in the
request set to a value of (1), the home agent upon accepting the
request MUST extend the lifetime of all the mobile node's bindings.
The home agent upon receipt of a Registration Request with the Flow-
Binding Extension must process the extension and upon accepting the
flow policy must set up the forwarding plane that matches the flow
policy. If the home agent cannot identify any of the binding
identifiers then it MUST reject the request with a Registration Reply
and with the code set to INVALID_FB_IDENTIFIER.
The home agent upon receipt of a Registration Request with the
Multipath extension and if the (O) flag in the request set to a value
of 1, the home agent upon accepting the request MUST consider this as
a request to replace all other mobile node's bindings with just one
binding and that is the binding associated with this request.
Gundavelli, et al. Expires June 26, 2014 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Flow Binding Support for Mobile IP December 2013
6. Routing Considerations
When multipath is enabled for a mobility session, there are
potentially multiple mobile IP tunnels established between a mobile
node and its home agent. These Mobile IP tunnels appear to the
forwarding plane as equal-cost, point-to-point links.
If there is also an exchange of flow policy between the mobile node
and the home agent, with the use of Flow-Binding extensions
Section 4.2, then the mobile node's IP traffic can be routed by the
mobility entities as per the negotiated flow policy. However, if
multipath is enabled for a mobility session, without the use of any
flow policy exchange, then both the mobile node and the home agent
are required to have a pre-configured static flow policy. The
specific details on the semantics of this static flow policy is
outside the scope of this document.
In the absence of any established traffic flow policies, most IP
hosts support two alternative traffic load-balancing schemes, Per-
flow and Per-packet load balancing. These load balancing schemes
allow the forwarding plane to evenly distribute traffic based on the
criteria of either a per-packet or on a per-flow basis, across all
the available equal-cost links through which a destination can be
reached. The default forwarding behavior of Per-flow load balancing
will ensure a given flow always takes the same path and will
eliminate any packet re-ordering issues and that is critical for
delay sensitive traffic. Whereas the per-destination load balancing
scheme leverages all the paths much more affectively, but with the
potential issue of packet re-ordering on the receiver end. A host
can choose to enable any of these approaches. Therefore, this
specification recommends the use of per-flow load balancing.
7. Protocol Configuration Variables
The following protocol configuration variables are required for
system management and these variables MUST be configurable on all the
mobility entities. The configured values for these protocol
variables MUST survive service restarts.
EnableMultipathSupport
This flag indicates whether or not the mobility entity on which
this protocol variable is configured needs to enable Multipath
support feature. This protocol variable is applicable to both the
home agent and the mobile node.
Gundavelli, et al. Expires June 26, 2014 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Flow Binding Support for Mobile IP December 2013
The default value for this flag is set to value of (1), indicating
that the multipath support is enabled.
When the value for this flag is set to value of (0), multipath
support is disabled.
8. IANA Considerations
This document requires the following IANA actions.
o Action-1: This specification defines a new Mobile IP extension,
Multipath extension. It is a non-skippable extension to the
Mobile IPv4 header in accordance to the short extension format of
[RFC5944]. The format of this option is described in Section 4.1.
The type value <IANA-1> for this extension needs to be allocated
from the registry, "Extensions to Mobile IP Registration
Messages", at < http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobileip-numbers/
mobileip-numbers.xhtml>. RFC Editor: Please replace <IANA-1> in
Section 4.1 with the assigned value and update this section
accordingly.
o Action-2: This specification defines a new Mobile IP extension,
Flow-Binding extension. It is a non-skippable extension to the
Mobile IPv4 header in accordance to the long extension format of
[RFC5944]. The format of this option is described in Section 4.2.
The type value <IANA-2> for this extension needs to be allocated
from the registry, "Extensions to Mobile IP Registration
Messages", at < http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobileip-numbers/
mobileip-numbers.xhtml>. RFC Editor: Please replace <IANA-2> in
Section 4.2 with the assigned value and update this section
accordingly.
o Action-3: This document defines new status code value,
MULTIPATH_NOT_ALLOWED (<IANA-3>), INVALID_FB_IDENTIFIER (<IANA-4>)
for use by the home agent in the Code field of the Registration
Reply, as described in Section 4.3. This value needs to be
assigned from the "Registration denied by the home agent" registry
at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters>. The
allocated value has to be greater than 127. RFC Editor: Please
replace <IANA-3> in Section 4.3 with the assigned value and update
this section accordingly.
9. Security Considerations
This specification allows a mobile node to establish multiple Mobile
IP tunnels with its home agent, by registering a care-of address for
each of its active roaming interfaces. This essentially allows the
mobile node's IP traffic to be routed through any of the tunnel paths
Gundavelli, et al. Expires June 26, 2014 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Flow Binding Support for Mobile IP December 2013
based on a static or a dynamically negotiated flow policy. This new
capability has no impact on the protocol security. Furthermore, this
specification defines two new Mobile IP extensions, Multipath
extension and the Flow-Binding extension. These extensions are
specified to be included in Mobile IP control messages, which are
authenticated and integrity protected as described in [RFC5944].
Therefore, this specification does not weaken the security of Mobile
IP Protocol, and does not introduce any new security vulnerabilities.
10. Contributors
This document reflects discussions and contributions from the
following people:
Ahmad Muhanna
asmuhanna@yahoo.com
Srinivasa Kanduru
skanduru@gmail.com
Vince Park
vpark@qualcomm.com
11. Acknowledgements
We like to thank Qin Wu, Shahriar Rahman, Mohana Jeyatharan, Yungui
Wang, Hui Deng Behcet Sarikaya, Jouni Korhonen, Michaela Vanderveen
and Antti Makela for their review and comments on this draft.
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V., Chowdhury, K.,
and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 5213, August 2008.
[RFC5944] Perkins, C., "IP Mobility Support for IPv4, Revised",
RFC 5944, November 2010.
[RFC6088] Tsirtsis, G., Giarreta, G., Soliman, H., and N. Montavont,
"Traffic Selectors for Flow Bindings", RFC 6088,
January 2011.
Gundavelli, et al. Expires June 26, 2014 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Flow Binding Support for Mobile IP December 2013
12.2. Informative References
[RFC3753] Manner, J. and M. Kojo, "Mobility Related Terminology",
RFC 3753, June 2004.
Authors' Addresses
Sri Gundavelli (editor)
Cisco
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
EMail: sgundave@cisco.com
Kent Leung
Cisco
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
EMail: kleung@cisco.com
George Tsirtsis
Qualcomm
EMail: tsirtsis@qualcomm.com
Hesham Soliman
Elevate Technologies
EMail: hesham@elevatemobile.com
Alexandru Petrescu
CEA LIST
Communicating Systems Laboratory, Point Courrier 94
Gif-sur-Yvette F-91191
France
Phone: +33 169089223
EMail: alexandru.petrescu@cea.fr
Gundavelli, et al. Expires June 26, 2014 [Page 17]
