[Search] [pdf|bibtex] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05                                             
IETF MONAMI6 Working Group                                  N. Montavont
Internet-Draft                                                GET/ENST-B
Expires: August 30, 2007                                     R. Wakikawa
                                                         Keio University
                                                                T. Ernst
                                                                   INRIA
                                                                   C. Ng
                                                Panasonic Singapore Labs
                                                          K. Kuladinithi
                                                    University of Bremen
                                                       February 26, 2007


                 Analysis of Multihoming in Mobile IPv6
                draft-ietf-monami6-mipv6-analysis-02.txt

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 30, 2007.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).







Montavont, et al.        Expires August 30, 2007                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft      Analysis of Multihoming in MIPv6       February 2007


Abstract

   Mobile IPv6 as specified in RFC3775 [1] allows a mobile node to
   maintain its IPv6 communications while moving between subnets.  This
   document investigates configurations where a mobile node running
   Mobile IPv6 is multihomed.  The use of multiple addresses is foreseen
   to provide ubiquitous, permanent and fault-tolerant access to the
   Internet, particularly on mobile nodes which are more prone to
   failure or sudden lack of connectivity.  However, Mobile IPv6
   currently lacks support for such multihomed nodes.  The purpose of
   this document is to detail all the issues arising through the
   operation of Mobile IPv6 on multihomed mobile nodes.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6

   3.  Nodes capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8

   4.  Taxonomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

   5.  Scenarios  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     5.1.  (H1,C1): 1 HoA, 1 CoA  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     5.2.  (Hn,C1): n HoAs, 1 CoA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     5.3.  (H1,Cn): 1 HoA, n CoAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     5.4.  (Hn,Cn): n HoAs, n CoAs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     5.5.  (Hn,C0): n HoAs, no CoAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

   6.  Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     6.1.  General IPv6-related Issues  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
       6.1.1.  Path Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
       6.1.2.  Ingress Filtering  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
       6.1.3.  Failure detection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     6.2.  MIPv6-specific Issues  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
       6.2.1.  Binding Multiple CoAs to a given HoA . . . . . . . . . 21
       6.2.2.  Simultaneous Location in Home and Foreign Networks . . 22
     6.3.  Considerations for MIPv6 Implementation  . . . . . . . . . 22
       6.3.1.  Using one HoA as a CoA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
       6.3.2.  Binding a new CoA to the Right HoA . . . . . . . . . . 23
       6.3.3.  Binding HoA to interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
       6.3.4.  Flow redirection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
     6.4.  Summary  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

   7.  TODO List  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26




Montavont, et al.        Expires August 30, 2007                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft      Analysis of Multihoming in MIPv6       February 2007


   8.  Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

   9.  Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

   10. Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

   11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

   Appendix A.  Why a MN may want to redirect flows . . . . . . . . . 32

   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 35







































Montavont, et al.        Expires August 30, 2007                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft      Analysis of Multihoming in MIPv6       February 2007


1.  Introduction

   The emergence of performant wireless technologies has favored node
   mobility within the Internet.  Nowadays, and even more tomorrow,
   nodes are highly mobile and they can change their point of attachment
   to the Internet at any time, even during active network connections.
   Mobile IPv6 as specified in RFC3775 [1] allows mobile nodes to
   maintain their communication while changing their point of attachment
   to the Internet.

   Besides, mobile nodes can be connected to multihomed networks or they
   may have multiple interfaces to benefit from heterogeneous
   technologies.  The use of multiple addresses (allocated to either a
   single interface or multiple interfaces) is foreseen to provide
   ubiquitous, permanent and fault-tolerant access to the Internet,
   particularly on mobile nodes which are prone to failure or sudden
   lack of connectivity.  However, the current specification of Mobile
   IPv6 lacks support for mobile nodes with multiple addresses used
   simultaneously, i.e. multihomed mobile nodes.  These addresses would
   be assigned to a single interface or to multiple interfaces, which
   poses a number of issues.

   This document has two goals.  The first goal is to define the
   requirements from the point of view of multihomed mobile nodes
   operating Mobile IPv6.  The second goal is to define the issues
   arising when we attempt to fulfill these requirements.  The
   definition of the potentially needed solutions is out of scope of
   this document.  These should be defined in a separate document.

   In order to reach the goals of this document, we define a taxonomy
   which is used to describe the different situations where a mobile
   node is multihomed.  For each case, we show the configuration a
   multihomed node may have (the number of Home Addresses, and the
   number of Care-of Addresses).  We also illustrate each scenario with
   example diagrams.

   To understand the foundation of this document, the reader should read
   the companion document
   draft-ietf-monami6-multihoming-motivation-scenario [2] which outlines
   the motivations, the goals and the benefits of multihoming for both
   fixed and mobile nodes (i.e. generic IPv6 nodes).  Real-life
   scenarios as illustrated in that document are the base motivations of
   the present study.  The reader should also understand the operation
   of the Mobile IPv6 protocol (RFC3775 [1]).

   The document is organized as follows: in Section 2, we introduce the
   terminology related to multihoming and used in this document.  In
   Section 3, we discuss what is required on the mobile nodes to fully



Montavont, et al.        Expires August 30, 2007                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft      Analysis of Multihoming in MIPv6       February 2007


   benefit from a multihomed configuration.  Then we propose in
   Section 4 a taxonomy to classify the different cases where mobile
   nodes are multihomed.  Thereafter the taxonomy is used in Section 5
   to describe a number of multihomed configuration specific to Mobile
   IPv6.  Finally we discuss in Section 6 and Section 6.3 all issues
   related to a multihomed mobile node and we identify what is missing
   in order to reach the goals outlined in
   draft-ietf-monami6-multihoming-motivation-scenario [2].  These issues
   are classified into IPv6 issues, Mobile IPv6-specific issues, and
   advices to implementers.









































Montavont, et al.        Expires August 30, 2007                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft      Analysis of Multihoming in MIPv6       February 2007


2.  Terminology

   The terms used in the present document are defined in RFC3753 [3],
   RFC3775 [1] and draft-ietf-monami6-multihoming-motivation-scenario
   [2].

   In this draft we are using the following terms and abbreviations:

   o  MIPv6

      The Mobile IPv6 protocol specified in RFC3775 [1]

   o  MN

      a Mobile Node using MIPv6

   o  HA

      a Mobile IPv6 Home Agent

   o  HoA

      a Mobile IPv6 Home Address

   o  CoA

      a Mobile IPv6 Care-of Address

   o  Multihomed MN

      In the companion document [2], a node is said to be multihomed
      when it has multiple IPv6 addresses, either because multiple
      prefixes are advertised on the link(s) the node is attached to, or
      because the node has multiple interfaces (see the entire
      definition).  For a mobile node operating MIPv6, this may
      translate into the following definition:

      A MN (as defined above) is said multihomed when it has either i)
      multiple addresses which are used as source addresses or ii)
      multiple tunnels to transmit packets, or both.  A MN may have
      multiple HoAs/CoAs in the following cases:

      *  A MN would have multiple HoAs if multiple prefixes are
         available on the home link or if it has multiple interfaces
         named on (presumably) distinct home links.

      *  A MN would have multiple CoAs if multiple prefixes are
         available on the foreign link or if it has multiple interfaces



Montavont, et al.        Expires August 30, 2007                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft      Analysis of Multihoming in MIPv6       February 2007


         attached to (presumably) distinct foreign links.

   o  A valid address

      An address that is topologically correct (it is configured from
      the prefix available on the link the interface is attached to) and
      routable.

   o  Simultaneously using multiple addresses

      A MN is simultaneously using multiple addresses at the same time
      when an incoming packet with the destination address set to any of
      these addresses reaches the MN, or when any of these addresses can
      be used by the MN to set the source address of outcoming packets.

   o  Simultaneously using multiple interfaces

      A MN is simultaneously using multiple interfaces when it can
      exchange IP packets over any of these interfaces.
































Montavont, et al.        Expires August 30, 2007                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft      Analysis of Multihoming in MIPv6       February 2007


3.  Nodes capabilities

   Generic goals and benefits of multihoming are discussed in
   draft-ietf-monami6-multihoming-motivation-scenario [2].  These goals
   are ubiquitous access, flow redirection, reliability, load sharing,
   inteface switching, preference settings, and aggregate bandwidth.
   These generic goals overlap, i.e., they are not totally independent.
   Reaching one of them may imply to reach another goal as well.  For
   this reason, the following non-overlapping goals may be extracted
   from these generic goals:

   1.  Reliability

   2.  Load Sharing

   3.  Interface switching/Flow Distribution

   In this section, after determining a set of capabilities that allows
   a MN to achieve these design goals, we explicitly indicate which
   capability is needed to reach which goal.  We will determine later in
   the document (in Section 5) which capabilities are already fulfilled
   by Mobile IPv6 and what issues remain.

   Basically, Internet connectivity is guaranteed for a MN as long as at
   least one path is maintained between the MN and the fixed Internet.
   This path can be divided into two portions: the path between the MN
   to its HA(s) and the path between the HA(s) and the CN.  If RO is in
   place between the MN and a CN, an additional path between the MN and
   the CN must be guaranteed.  In some cases, it may be necessary to
   divert packets from a (perhaps failed) path to an alternative
   (perhaps newly established) path (e.g. for matters of reliability,
   preferences), or to split traffic between multiple paths (e.g. for
   load sharing, interface switching).  The use of an alternative path
   must be transparent at layers above layer 3 if broken sessions and
   the establishment of new transport sessions has to be avoided.

   In order to meet some of the goals (particularly interface switching
   and load sharing), multiple paths must be maintained simultaneously
   between the mobile node and its CN.

   This translates into the following capabilities:

   1.  A MN equipped with multiple global addresses must be able to use
       them simultaneously

   2.  A MN equipped with multiple interfaces must be able to attach
       distinct interfaces to distinct access networks (distinct foreign
       links or distinct home links, or a combination of both).



Montavont, et al.        Expires August 30, 2007                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft      Analysis of Multihoming in MIPv6       February 2007


   3.  A MN should be able to share its traffic load among its valid
       global addresses

   4.  A mechanism should be available to quickly activate a backup
       interface and redirect traffic when an interface fails (e.g.,
       loss of connection).

   5.  A mechanism should be available to quickly redirect flow from one
       address to another when it is needed.  Some of the triggers of
       flow redirection are given in Appendix A.

   6.  If multiple HAs are available to manage bindings for a given HoA,
       the MN should be able to use them simultaneously.

   One has to consider whether these goals can be achieved with
   transparency or without transparency.  Transparency is achieved when
   switching between interfaces does not cause the disruption of on-
   going sessions.  To be achieved with transparency, a necessary (may
   or may not be sufficient) condition is for the end-point addresses at
   the transport/application layer to remain unchanged.  This is in view
   of the large amount of Internet traffic currently carried by TCP,
   which unlike SCTP, cannot handle multiple end-point address pairs.

   Each of the aforementioned goals can be achieved independently.  We
   define here what of the above capabilities are needed for each goal:

   1.  Reliability: 2, 4, 5, 6

   2.  Load Sharing: 1, 6

   3.  Interface switching/Flow Distribution: 1, 2, 3, 5




















Montavont, et al.        Expires August 30, 2007                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft      Analysis of Multihoming in MIPv6       February 2007


4.  Taxonomy

   In order to examine the issues preventing a MIPv6 mobile node to meet
   the requirements listed in Section 3 we use in the present document
   the following taxonomy (Hx,Cy) where:

   o  x = number of Home Addresses (HoAs)

   o  y = number of Care-of Addresses (CoAs)

   A value of '1' implies there is a single instance of the parameter,
   whereas a value of 'n' indicates that there are multiple instances of
   the parameter.  A value '*' indicates that the number can be '1' or
   'n'.

   An illustration of this taxonomy is given in Figure 1.

              Mobile Node

           HoA1         HoA2   ... HoAn   --> Permanent Address (Hx)
            |            |          |
      +-----+--------+   |          |
      |     |        |   |          |
     CoA1   +--CoA2  +---CoA3  ... CoAn   --> Temporary Address (Cy)
      |          |        |         |
     Link1      Link2    Link3 ... Linkn  -->     IPv6 Link (n/a *)
      |          |        |         |
      +-----+----+        |         |
            |             |         |
           IF1            IF2  ... IFn    -->   Physical layer

   CoA1, CoA2, CoA3 are bound to HoA1 on IF1 and IF2
   CoA3 is bound to HoA2 on IF2

   * because number of IPv6 links is equal to the number of CoAs, y

                  Figure 1: Illustration of the Taxonomy

   As the taxonomy suggests, the fact that a mobile node has several
   HoAs is independent from the fact that this mobile node has multiple
   interfaces.  The fact that a mobile node has multiple interfaces does
   not imply that it has multiple HoAs and vice-versa.  Similarly, the
   number of CoAs is independent from the number of HoAs and the number
   of interfaces.  While a node would probably have at least one CoA per
   interface, multiple prefixes available on a link may lead the node to
   configure several CoAs on that link.

   The proposed taxonomy has two parameters because each of them has an



Montavont, et al.        Expires August 30, 2007               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft      Analysis of Multihoming in MIPv6       February 2007


   influence on either the mobile node behavior / management, or the
   potential benefits the mobile node may obtain from such a
   configuration.

   The configurations denoted by these parameters will have an impact on
   the way multihoming is supported.  Depending on the number of HoAs
   and CoAs, different policies will be needed, such as "which CoA has
   to be mapped to which HoA", "must all the CoAs be mapped with all the
   HoAs", etc.










































Montavont, et al.        Expires August 30, 2007               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft      Analysis of Multihoming in MIPv6       February 2007


5.  Scenarios

   In this section, we detail the reachable multihoming goals under each
   type of configuration.  For each configuration, we give a basic
   explanation and we list which of the goals outlined in Section 3 are
   achievable provided that supporting mechanisms are either already
   existing or could be added.  Other goals are not achievable due to
   the inherent configuration of the node.  Then, we briefly discuss the
   current situation with MIPv6 and we point to issues discussed later
   in this document in Section 6.1, Section 6.2 and Section 6.3.

5.1.  (H1,C1): 1 HoA, 1 CoA

   A mobile node in this configuration with a single network interface
   is not multihomed.  This scenario is the common case of a MN running
   Mobile IPv6 and away from its home link: the node has one HoA and one
   CoA which is configured on the foreign link.  None of the multihoming
   goals are achievable.

   When the node in the same configuration has several interfaces, it
   may lead to a special situation where a node is connected to both its
   home link and a foreign link.  The MN is multihomed since it would be
   able to use both interfaces.  The Home Address might be directly used
   on the interface which is connected to the home link, and a Care-of
   Address is configured on the other interface which is connected to a
   foreign link.  There cannot be more than two active interfaces,
   otherwise the mobile node would either have (A) multiple interfaces
   on the home link, or (B) multiple interfaces on foreign links.  For
   (A), there would be multiple HoAs.  For (B) there would be multiple
   CoAs.  These two cases would fall in another scenario, either (Hn,C*)
   (see Section 5.2, Section 5.4 and Section 5.5) or (H*,Cn) (see
   Section 5.3 and Section 5.4).

   Achievable goals (when the node has a single interface): Reliability,
   Load Sharing.

   Achievable goals (when the node has multiple interfaces):
   Reliability, Load Sharing, Interface switching

   Current situation with MIPv6 (when the node has multiple interfaces):

   o  Reliability

      These goals are achievable, but in a limited manner.  The MN can
      build a CoA on the interface connected to the foreign network, but
      it cannot register the CoA with its HA and receive packets from
      the HA via tunnel to the CoA at the same time it receives packet
      on the HoA from the Home Link.  As a result, without binding



Montavont, et al.        Expires August 30, 2007               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft      Analysis of Multihoming in MIPv6       February 2007


      separately to CNs (i.e. route optimization), the MN is not able to
      use both addresses simultaneously.  In addition, in case of
      failure, the MN cannot redirect flows from one valid address to
      another.  If the MN looses its connection established using the
      address on the foreign link, all flows must be re-initiated with
      another address (either the HoA, or a new address obtained on
      another foreign link).  Fault recovery is thus only possible
      without transparency, and the MIPv6 features can only recover the
      failure of the Home Address.  This issue is detailed in
      Section 6.2.2.

      It might be possible for MN to register the CoA with selected CNs
      (i.e. route optimization).  In this case, the MN can enjoy
      benefits of increased reliability for communications sessions
      opened with these CNs.  When the CoA fails, the MN can either bind
      a new CoA, or remove the binding and directly get the packets to
      its HoA.

      Reliability could be achieved through bi-casting since the MN has
      two addresses and should be able to request any CN to duplicate
      traffic to both of them.  However, MIPv6 does not allow the MN to
      request bi casting on the CN (see Section 6.2.2).

   o  Load Sharing, Interface Switching

      The MN is able to use both interfaces at the same time, according
      to some preference settings on its side to decide which one to use
      for which application.  Therefore load sharing and interface
      switching can be achieved when sessions are initiated by the MN.
      When a CN initiates a session with the MN, it would choose the
      destination address depending on the available information about
      the MN (e.g., DNS request).  Presently there is no mechanism
      allowing the MN to indicate on which interface (i.e., address) a
      CN may reach it.  If only one address is known by the distant
      node, load sharing and interface switching cannot be achieved.
      See in Section 6.1.1 where such path selection issues are
      discussed.

5.2.  (Hn,C1): n HoAs, 1 CoA

   The MN is multihomed, since it has several HoAs.  This case may
   happen when a node is getting access to the Internet through
   different HAs (possibly distinct operators) and each offers a Mobile
   IPv6 service to the node.  That way, the node will have a HoA per HA.
   Alternatively, a single home network may be multihomed to the
   Internet, leading to having multiple prefixes on the home link.  Thus
   the MN would have multiple HoAs for a single home link.  In either
   case, the node would need to configure a single CoA on the visited



Montavont, et al.        Expires August 30, 2007               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft      Analysis of Multihoming in MIPv6       February 2007


   IPv6 subnet, and bind that single CoA to all the HoAs it owns.  If
   the MN has multiple interfaces, only one interface is connected to a
   foreign network.  The other interfaces are connected to their home
   links, or are inactive.

   Achievable goals: Reliability, Load Sharing, Interface switching (if
   the MN has more than one interface)

   Current situation with MIPv6:

   o  Reliability

      In case a HoA fails, (a failure could happen in the home network
      of the MN, e.g. when one HA of the MN is disconnected from the
      network), the session using the HoA must be restarted since MIPv6
      does not provide any mechanism to hand-over transparently from a
      fail HoA to another one.  Currently, fault tolerance cannot be
      achieved in this case, since established communications cannot be
      preserved.  See the corresponding discussion in Section 6.3.4.

      The CoA may change when the MN has multiple interfaces and is
      disconnected from its home link (e.g. failure of the interface, or
      movement).  In such a situation, MIPv6 allows to transparently
      redirect flows using the old CoA as a temporarily address (i.e.
      the HoA was used as the main address) to another CoA.  For
      sessions directly opened via the CoA, the loss of the address
      implies a re-initiation of the session.

      In conclusion, fault recovery can only be done in some cases, when
      flows were initiated via a HoA.

      Achieving reliability through bi-casting could be achieved in this
      scenario by registering two addresses with a single HoA.  However
      MIPv6 does not provide any mechanism to associate more than one
      CoA with one HoA.  Moreover, in this particular case, one HoA
      should be taken as a CoA regarding the other HoA. (see discussions
      in Section 6.2.1 and Section 6.3.1).

   o  Load Sharing

      In Bidirectional Tunnel (BT) mode, load sharing only affects the
      path between the CN and the HA(s), and not the path between the MN
      and the HA(s), as long as the CoA does not change.  In RO mode,
      the path between the MN and the CN does not change if the CoA does
      not change.  As an entry in the binding cache is identified by a
      HoA, the MN can register the same CoA with all HoAs, on any
      distant node.  A mechanism would then be needed for the MN to
      select which HoA should be used when a new communication flow is



Montavont, et al.        Expires August 30, 2007               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft      Analysis of Multihoming in MIPv6       February 2007


      initiated.  A similar mechanism is needed on the CN side if it
      knows that multiple HoAs are assigned to the same MN.  With such
      mechanisms, it would be possible to use multiple HoAs at the same
      time, and load sharing could be performed.  However, it can be
      noted that load sharing on the path between the CN and the MN's HA
      might not be the most bandwidth contraint part of the overall path
      from the CN to the MN.  Thus this load sharing might not show
      important enhancements.  See in Section 6.1.1 where such path
      selection issues are discussed.  It is also possible that the MN
      register one HoA as a CoA for another HoA (see discussions in
      Section 6.3.1).

   o  Interface Switching

      Interface switching is achievable when the MN has several
      interfaces.  In this case, the MN is attached to one foreign link
      via one of its interfaces, and it is attached to home link(s) with
      its other interface(s).  In this case, the MN can spread flows
      over its interfaces.  Note that if a CN initiates a communication,
      the interface that it will use on the MN would depend on the
      information it has about this MN.

5.3.  (H1,Cn): 1 HoA, n CoAs

   The MN is multihomed since it has several CoAs.  This case may for
   instance occur when the interface of the node is connected to a link
   where multiple IPv6 prefixes are available.  One possible reason for
   this is that the visited network is multihomed and because of that,
   multiple prefixes are available in it, one per provider.  Another
   possible configuration is a MN with several interfaces connected to
   different links.  Note that one of the interfaces of the MN may be
   connected to its home link.

   Achievable goals: Reliability, Load Sharing, Interface switching (if
   the MN is equipped with several interfaces)

   Current situation with MIPv6:

   o  Reliability

      Fault recovery will be limited to the case where one of the CoAs
      become unreachable for a particular peer.  For instance, a CoA may
      become unreachable because the ISP which provides the IPv6 prefix
      fails.  Fault recovery in MIPv6 is achieved by associating an
      alternate CoA to replace the failed one.  However, efficient
      mechanisms are needed to determine that a CoA has failed (see
      Section 6.1.3) and to determine which CoA should be used instead
      (see below).



Montavont, et al.        Expires August 30, 2007               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft      Analysis of Multihoming in MIPv6       February 2007


   o  Load Sharing and Interface Switching

      This configuration allows to share the load and set preferences
      among different paths between the HA and the MN when BT mode is
      used, and between the CN and the MN when RO mode is used.  In
      order to achieve load sharing and interface switching under this
      scenario, the MN would need to register several CoAs with its
      unique HoA.  However, the present specification of MIPv6 only
      allows the MN to register a single CoA per HoA.  This is discussed
      in Section 6.2.1.  When a single HoA is bounded to several CoAs at
      the same time, the MN or HA/CN must be able to select the
      appropriate CoA.  This selection could be done based on user/
      application preferences (see Section 6.1.1).

5.4.  (Hn,Cn): n HoAs, n CoAs

   The MN is multihomed since it has multiple addresses.  This case can
   be viewed as a combination of the two cases described above: the MN
   has several HoAs (e.g. given by different operators) and several CoAs
   (e.g. because the node is receiving multiple IPv6 prefixes).  As an
   example, we can consider a node with three interfaces, two of them
   connected to their home link (two different HoAs) and the last one
   connected to a visited link where two IPv6 prefixes are available.

   Achievable goals: reliability, load sharing and interface switching

   Current situation with MIPv6:

   o  Reliability

      If one CoA becomes unreachable (similar to scenario (H1,Cn) in
      Section 5.3), the MN can redirect flows to another CoA by
      associating any other available CoAs to the corresponding HoA.  If
      the MN can not use one of its HoA anymore (similar to scenario
      (Hn,C1) in Section 5.2), the MN will have to re-initiate all flows
      which were using the corresponding HoA.  Redirection between the
      addresses available for the MN will be different depending on this
      HoA / CoA binding policies.

   o  Load Sharing, Interface Switching

      Currently, the MN can register only one CoA per HoA (see
      Section 6.2.1), but it can register the same or different CoAs
      with multiple HoAs.  If the MN chooses to bind the same CoA to all
      its HoAs, we fall in the (Hn,C1) case.  In this case, load sharing
      can only be performed if route optimization is not used, on the
      CN-HA path, as a different HoA may be used per CN.  If the MN
      chooses to bind a different CoA for each HoA, load sharing will be



Montavont, et al.        Expires August 30, 2007               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft      Analysis of Multihoming in MIPv6       February 2007


      done along the whole path across the MN and its CNs.  Preference
      settings may define which CoA (eventually several if bi-casting is
      used) should be bound to which HoA (see Section 6.1.1).

      In a very specific situation, one of the routable address of the
      MN (i.e., which can be directly used without tunneling to reach
      the MN) can be one of its HoA.  In this case, this HoA can be
      viewed as a CoA to bind with another HoA.  Thus the MN may be able
      to register one HoA as CoA regarding another HoA (see
      Section 6.3.1).  MIPv6 does not prevent this behavior, which allow
      to set a certain preference on addresses usage.

5.5.  (Hn,C0): n HoAs, no CoAs

   This case happens when all the interfaces are connected to their
   respective home links.  This situation is quite similar to a non-
   mobile node which is multihomed.  The node would no longer be in the
   (Hn,C0) configuration when one or more of the interfaces are attached
   to foreign links.

   The mobile node may wish to use one or more HoAs to serve as the CoA
   of another HoA (see Section 6.3.1).  In such situations, this
   scenario is reduced to a (H1,C1) or (H1,Cn) configuration as
   described in Section 5.1 or Section 5.3.

   Achievable goals: Reliability, Load Sharing, interface switching

   Current situation with MIPv6

   o  Reliability

      If the MN is disconnected from one of its interfaces, the MN
      should be able to register another valid HoA to its failed HoA
      (see issue Section 6.3.1).

   o  Load Sharing, Interface Switching

      This can be achieved when the MN is initiating the communication
      flow, as it can choose which HoA should be used.  Depending on how
      CN can discover HoAs of the MN, these goals might also be achieved
      when the CN is initiating the communication flow.  See previous
      scenario and discussions in Section 6.1.1 about the path
      selection.  If the flows binding on interfaces preferences change
      over time, the MN should be able to redirect one flow from one
      interface to another.  However, MIPv6 only allows to redirect all
      flows from one interface to another, assuming one HoA is
      registered as CoA (see issue Section 6.3.1).  If the MN policies
      indicate to redirect only one flow, a supplementary mechanism



Montavont, et al.        Expires August 30, 2007               [Page 17]


Internet-Draft      Analysis of Multihoming in MIPv6       February 2007


      would be needed.


















































Montavont, et al.        Expires August 30, 2007               [Page 18]


Internet-Draft      Analysis of Multihoming in MIPv6       February 2007


6.  Issues

   Existing protocols may not be able to handle the requirements
   expressed in Section 3.  For doing so, the issues discussed in this
   section must be addressed, and solved preferably by dynamic
   mechanisms.  Note that some issues are pertaining to MIPv6 solely,
   whereas other issues are not at all related to MIPv6.  However, such
   non MIPv6 issues must be solved in order to meet the requirements
   outlined in Section 3.

   In this section, we describe some of these issues in two main
   headings: general IPv6-related issues, and issues that are specific
   to MIPv6.  Other concerns related to implementations of MIPv6 are
   described in Section 6.3.  Issues and their area of application are
   summarized in Section 6.4

6.1.  General IPv6-related Issues

6.1.1.  Path Selection

   When there exists multiple paths from and to the MN, the MN ends up
   choosing a source address, and possibly the interface that should be
   used.  A CN that wants to establish a communication with such a MN
   may end up by choosing a destination address for this MN.

   o  Interface selection

      When the node has multiple available interfaces, the simultaneous
      or selective use of several interfaces would allow a mobile node
      to spread flows between its different interfaces.

      Each interface could be used differently according to some user
      and applications policies and preferences that would define which
      flow would be mapped to which interface and/or which flow should
      not be used over a given interface.  How such preferences would be
      set on the MN is out of scope of MIPv6 and might be implementation
      specific.  On the other hand, if the MN wishes to influence how
      preferences are set on distant nodes (Correspondent Node or Home
      Agent), mechanisms such as those proposed in
      draft-soliman-flow-binding [4] could be used.

   o  HoA Selection

      When multiple HoAs are available, the MN and its communicating
      peers (HA and CNs) must be able to select the appropriate HoA to
      be used for a particular packet or flow.

      This choice would be made at the time of a new communication flow



Montavont, et al.        Expires August 30, 2007               [Page 19]


Internet-Draft      Analysis of Multihoming in MIPv6       February 2007


      set up.  Usual IPv6 mechanisms for source and destination address
      selection, such as "Default Address Selection for IPv6" (RFC3484)
      [5] or DNS SRV Protocol (RFC2782) [6] could be used.

      However, in RFC3484 it is said that "If the eight rules fail to
      choose a single address, some unspecified tie-breaker should be
      used".  Therefore more specific rules in addition to those
      described in RFC3484 may be defined for HoA selection.

   o  CoA Selection

      When multiple CoAs are available, the MN and its communicating
      peers (HA and CNs) must be able to select the appropriate CoA to
      be used for a particular packet or flow.  The MN may use its
      internal policies to (i) distribute its flow, and (ii) distribute
      policies on distant nodes to allow them to select the preferred
      CoA.  Solutions like draft-soliman-flow-binding [4] may be used.

   Another related aspect of path selection is the concern of ingress
   filtering.  This is covered below in Section 6.1.2.

6.1.2.  Ingress Filtering

   In the (H*,Cn) case, a MN may be connected to multiple access
   networks or multiple home networks each practicing ingress filtering
   (such as those specified in RFC3704 [7] and RFC2827 [8]).  Thus, to
   avoid ingress filtering, the selection of path would be limited by
   the choice of address used.  This is related to Section 6.1.1.  The
   problem of ingress filtering however, is two-fold.  It can occur at
   the access network, as well as the home network.

   For instance, consider Figure 2 below.  In the access network, when
   the MN sends a packet through AR-A, it must use CoA=PA.MN; and when
   MN sends a packet through AR-B, it must use CoA=PB.MN.  In the home
   network, when the MN tunnels the packet to home agent HA-1, it must
   use HoA=P1.MN; and when MN tunnels the packet to home agent HA-2, it
   must use HoA=P2.MN.  This greatly limits the way MN can benefit from
   its multihoming configuration.

   As an illustration, suppose MN is choosing the interface (which would
   determine the CoA used) and the home network to use (which would
   determine the HoA used), it might be possible that the chosen CoA is
   not registered with the chosen HoA.








Montavont, et al.        Expires August 30, 2007               [Page 20]


Internet-Draft      Analysis of Multihoming in MIPv6       February 2007


                 Prefix: PA +------+    +----------+    +------+
          HoA: P1.MN  /-----| AR-A |----|          |----| HA-1 |
          CoA: PA.MN /      +------+    |          |    +------+
                +----+                  |          |   Prefix: P1
                | MN |                  | Internet |
                +----+                  |          |   Prefix: P2
          HoA: P2.MN \      +------+    |          |    +------+
          CoA: PB.MN  \-----| AR-B |----|          |----| HA-2 |
                 Prefix: PB +------+    +----------+    +------+

          Figure 2: MN connected to Multiple Access/Home Networks

   It must be noted that should the MN have a way of binding both CoAs
   PA.MN and PB.MN simultaneously to each of HoAs P1.MN and P2.MN (see
   Section 6.2.1), then it can choose the CoA to use based on the access
   network it wishes to use for outgoing packets.  This solves the first
   part of the problem: ingress filtering at the access network.  It is,
   nonetheless, still limited to using only a specific home agent for
   the home-address used (i.e. the second problem of ingress filtering
   at the home network remains unsolved).  For this, mechanism such as
   those provided by Shim6 (see RFC3582 [9] and draft-ietf-shim6-proto
   [10]) may be used.

6.1.3.  Failure detection

   Currently, IPv6 has not clearly defined mechanism for failure
   detection.  A failure in the path between two nodes can be located at
   many different places: the media of one of the node is broken (i.e.,
   loss of connectivity), the path between the MN and the HA is broken,
   the home link is disconnected from the Internet, etc.  By now, MIPv6
   only relies on the ability or the inability to receive Router
   Advertisements within a stipulated period to detect the availability
   or loss of media (local failure).  Current effort [11] in the DNA
   Working Group aims to address this, such as through the use of layer
   2 triggers [12].  Movement detection might be extended to include
   other triggers such as the loss of connectivity on one interface.
   Further mechanisms would be needed to detect a failure in the path
   between a MN and its CN(s), as well as between the MN and its HA(s),
   between the MN and CN(s), or between the HA and CN(s).

6.2.  MIPv6-specific Issues

6.2.1.  Binding Multiple CoAs to a given HoA

   In the (H1,Cn) cases, multiple CoAs would be available to the MN.  In
   order to use them simultaneously, the MN must be able to bind and
   register multiple CoAs for a single HoA with both the HA and the CNs.
   The MIPv6 specification is currently lacking such ability.



Montavont, et al.        Expires August 30, 2007               [Page 21]


Internet-Draft      Analysis of Multihoming in MIPv6       February 2007


   Although in the (Hn,Cn) cases, MIPv6 allows MN to have multiple HoA
   and CoA pairs, the upper layer's choice of using a particular HoA
   would mean that the MN is forced to use the corresponding CoA.  This
   constrains the MN from choosing the best (in terms of cost, bandwidth
   etc) access link for a particular flow, since CoA is normally bound
   to a particular interface.  If the MN can register all available CoAs
   with each HoA, this would completely decouple the HoA from the
   interface, and allow the MN to fully exploit its multihoming
   capabilities.

   To counter this issue, solutions like draft-ietf-mcoa [13] may be
   used.

6.2.2.  Simultaneous Location in Home and Foreign Networks

   Rule 4 of RFC3484 specifies that a HoA will always be preferred to a
   CoA.  While this rule allows the host to choose which address to use,
   it does not allow the MN to benefit from being multihomed in some
   cases.  When a MN is multihomed, it may have one of its interfaces
   directly connected to a home link.  This may have an impact on the
   way multihoming is managed, since addresses from other interfaces
   cannot be registered as CoAs for the HoA associated to the home link
   the mobile node is connected on.

   In the special case of (H1,C*) where one of the interface is
   connected to the home link, none of the other addresses can be used
   to achieve multihoming goals with the HA.

6.3.  Considerations for MIPv6 Implementation

   In addition to the issues described in Section 6.1 and Section 6.2,
   there are other concerns implementers should take into consideration
   so that their MIPv6 implementations are more "friendly" to the use of
   multiple interfaces.  These implementation-related considerations are
   described in the sub-sections below.

6.3.1.  Using one HoA as a CoA

   In (Hn,C*) cases, the MN has multiple HoAs.  A HoA may be seen as a
   CoA from the perspective of another home link of the same MN.

   As an example, a MN has two HoAs (HoA1 and HoA2) on two distinct home
   links.  MN is connected to these two home links via two interfaces.
   If the MN looses its connectivity on its first interface, HoA1 is not
   reachable.  It may then want to register HoA2 as a CoA for HoA1 in
   order to keep receiving packets intended to HoA1, via the second
   interface.




Montavont, et al.        Expires August 30, 2007               [Page 22]


Internet-Draft      Analysis of Multihoming in MIPv6       February 2007


   According to the definition of a CoA, the current MIPv6 specification
   does not prohibit a HoA to be a CoA from the perspective of another
   HoA.

   In RFC3775 section 6.1.7 it is written: " Similarly, the Binding
   Update MUST be silently discarded if the care-of address appears as a
   home address in an existing Binding Cache entry, with its current
   location creating a circular reference back to the home address
   specified in the Binding Update (possibly through additional
   entries)."

   In order to benefit from any multihoming configuration, a MN must be
   able to register whatever address it owns with any of its HoA, as
   long as the above statement is observed.

6.3.2.  Binding a new CoA to the Right HoA

   In the (Hn,C*) cases, the MN has multiple HoAs.  When the MN moves
   and configures a new CoA, the newly obtained CoA must be bound to a
   specific HoA.  The current MIPv6 specification doesn't provide a
   decision mechanism to determine to which HoA this newly acquired CoA
   should be bound to.

   The result might be to bind the CoA to the same HoA the previous CoA
   was bound to or to another one, depending on the implementation.  It
   would indeed be better to specify the behavior so that all
   implementations are compliant.

6.3.3.  Binding HoA to interface

   In (Hn,C*) cases, MIPv6 does not provide any information on how HoAs
   should be bound on a device, and particularly there is no mechanism
   to bind HoAs to interfaces.

   This may be troublesome, for example, when we consider a MN
   configured with two HoAs and equipped with three interfaces.  When
   the MN is connected to a home link via one interface, it will need to
   bind the corresponding HoA to this interface, even if the HoA was
   initially assigned to another one.

                  HoA1          HoA2

             CoA1        CoA2         CoA3
            Iface1      Iface2       Iface3

                Figure 3: Illustration of the case (H2,C3)

   HoA must always be assigned to an activated interface and if the MN



Montavont, et al.        Expires August 30, 2007               [Page 23]


Internet-Draft      Analysis of Multihoming in MIPv6       February 2007


   is connected to its home link, the corresponding HoA must be used on
   this interface.  In some cases, the HoA then would have to be re-
   assigned to another interface in case of connection loss or
   attachment to the home link.

6.3.4.  Flow redirection

   Internet connectivity is guaranteed for a MN as long as at least one
   path is maintained between the MN and its CN.  When the current path
   fails, an alternative path must be found to substitute the failed
   one.  The redirection from the old path to the new path may result in
   broken sessions.  In this case, new transport sessions would have to
   be established over the alternate path if no mechanism is provided to
   redirect flow transparently at layers above layer 3.  The need for
   flow redirection is given in Appendix A.

   The different mechanisms that can be used to provide flow redirection
   can be split into two categories, depending on the part of the path
   that needs to be changed.  The first category is when a CoA changes
   (i.e., the used CoA become invalid or new preferences indicate that
   the used CoA is no more the CoA to use): if one of the MN's CoA needs
   to be changed, it influences the path between the MN and its HA, and
   the path between the MN and its CN in RO mode.  If the MN has
   multiple interfaces and one fails, established sessions on the failed
   interface would break if no support mechanism is used to redirect
   flows from the failed interface to another.

   The second category is when the HoA changes (i.e. the currently used
   HoA is not valid anymore, e.g., because IPv6 renumbering on the home
   link): if one of the MN's HoA needs to be changed, it influences the
   path between the CN and the HoA.  In (Hn,C*) cases, the MN has
   multiple HoAs.  If one fails, established sessions on the failed HoA
   would break if no support mechanism is used to redirect flows from a
   failed HoA to another, unless the transport session has multihoming
   capabilities, such as SCTP, to allow dynamic changing of addresses
   used.

6.4.  Summary

   THIS TABLE IS A WORK IN PROGRESS (so all boxes may not have been
   filled appropriately).  For now, please comment on the need for the
   table rather than the content)









Montavont, et al.        Expires August 30, 2007               [Page 24]


Internet-Draft      Analysis of Multihoming in MIPv6       February 2007


    +=====================================================+
    |                      # of HoAs: | 1 | 1 | n | n | n |
    |                      # of CoAs: | 1 | n | 0 | 1 | n |
    +=====================================================+
    |             General IPv6 Issues                     |
    +---------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+
    | Path Selection                  |   | o | ? | o | o |
    +---------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+
    | Ingress Filtering               |   |   | ? | o | o |
    +---------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+
    | Failure detection               |o  | o | ? | o | o |
    +---------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+
    |            MIPv6-Specific Issues                    |
    +---------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+
    | Binding Multiple CoAs to a      |   | o | ? | o | o |
    |   given HoA                     |   |   |   |   |   |
    +---------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+
    | Simultaneous location in home   |   | o | ? | o | o |
    |   and foreign networks          |   |   | ? |   |   |
    +---------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+
    |        Implementation-Related Concerns              |
    +---------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+
    | Using one HoA as a CoA          |   |   | ? | o | o |
    +---------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+
    | Binding a new CoA to the        |   |   | ? | o | o |
    |   right HoA                     |   |   |   |   |   |
    +---------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+
    | Binding HoA to interface(s)     | o | o | ? | o | o |
    +---------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+
    | Flow redirection                | o | o | ? | o | o |
    +=====================================================+

              Figure 4: Summary of Issues and Categorization


















Montavont, et al.        Expires August 30, 2007               [Page 25]


Internet-Draft      Analysis of Multihoming in MIPv6       February 2007


7.  TODO List

   Study security concerns

   Possibly discuss the possibility to use HoA on both home link and
   foreign link as in case (H1,C1):

   Mention about relation with Shim6.

   Reword all the text about the "returning home case" throughout the
   entire draft

   Consider the multiple HA addresses throughout the entire draft.






































Montavont, et al.        Expires August 30, 2007               [Page 26]


Internet-Draft      Analysis of Multihoming in MIPv6       February 2007


8.  Conclusion

   In this document, we have raised issues related to multihoming.  We
   have seen that mechanisms are needed to redirect flow from a failed
   path to a new path, and mechanisms to decide which path should better
   be taken when multiple paths are available.  This raises a number of
   issues.

   Even if MIPv6 can be used as a mechanism to manage multihomed MN,
   triggers of flows redirection between interfaces/addresses are not
   adapted to the multihoming status of the node.  Also, we have shown
   that in some scenarios MIPv6 is ambiguous in the definitions of CoA/
   HoA and in the mappings between HoAs, CoAs and network interfaces.
   Finally, we have also raised issues not directly related to MIPv6,
   but solutions for these issues are needed for mobile nodes to fully
   enjoy the benefits of being multihomed.



































Montavont, et al.        Expires August 30, 2007               [Page 27]


Internet-Draft      Analysis of Multihoming in MIPv6       February 2007


9.  Contributors

   The following people have contributed ideas, text and comments to
   earlier versions of this document: Eun Kyoung Paik from Seoul
   National University, South Korea and Thomas Noel from Universite
   Louis Pasteur, Strasbourg, France.













































Montavont, et al.        Expires August 30, 2007               [Page 28]


Internet-Draft      Analysis of Multihoming in MIPv6       February 2007


10.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank all the people who have sent comments
   so far, particularly Tobias Kufner, Marcelo Bagnulo, Romain Kuntz and
   Henrik Levkowetz for their in-depth comments and raising new issues.














































Montavont, et al.        Expires August 30, 2007               [Page 29]


Internet-Draft      Analysis of Multihoming in MIPv6       February 2007


11.  References

   [1]   Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support in
         IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004.

   [2]   Ernst, T., Montavont, N., Wakikawa, R., Ng, C., and K.
         Kuladinithi, "Motivations and Scenarios for Using Multiple
         Interfaces and Global Addresses",
         draft-ietf-monami6-multihoming-motivation-scenario-01 (work in
         progress), October 2006.

   [3]   Manner, J. and M. Kojo, "Mobility Related Terminology",
         RFC 3753, June 2004.

   [4]   Soliman, H., "Flow Bindings in Mobile IPv6",
         draft-soliman-monami6-flow-binding-00 (work in progress),
         March 2006.

   [5]   Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol
         version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484, February 2003.

   [6]   Gukbrandsen, A., Vixie, P., and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR for
         specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", RFC 2782,
         February 2000.

   [7]   Baker, F. and P. Savola, "Ingress Filtering for Multihomed
         Networks", BCP 84, RFC 3704, March 2004.

   [8]   Ferguson, P. and D. Senie, "Network Ingress Filtering:
         Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source
         Address Spoofing", BCP 38, RFC 2827, May 2000.

   [9]   Abley, J., Black, B., and V. Gill, "Goals for IPv6 Site-
         Multihoming Architectures", RFC 3582, August 2003.

   [10]  Nordmark, E. and M. Bagnulo, "Level 3 multihoming shim
         protocol", draft-ietf-shim6-proto-07 (work in progress),
         November 2006.

   [11]  Choi, J., "Goals of Detecting Network Attachment in IPv6",
         draft-ietf-dna-goals-04 (work in progress), December 2004.

   [12]  Krishnan, S., Montavont, N., Yegin, A., Veerepalli, S., and A.
         Yegin, "Link-layer Event Notifications for Detecting Network
         Attachments", draft-ietf-dna-link-information-05 (work in
         progress), November 2006.

   [13]  Wakikawa, R., "Multiple Care-of Addresses Registration",



Montavont, et al.        Expires August 30, 2007               [Page 30]


Internet-Draft      Analysis of Multihoming in MIPv6       February 2007


         draft-ietf-monami6-multiplecoa-00 (work in progress),
         June 2006.

   [14]  Arkko, J., Devarapalli, V., and F. Dupont, "Using IPsec to
         Protect Mobile IPv6 Signaling Between Mobile Nodes and Home
         Agents", RFC 3776, June 2004.













































Montavont, et al.        Expires August 30, 2007               [Page 31]


Internet-Draft      Analysis of Multihoming in MIPv6       February 2007


Appendix A.  Why a MN may want to redirect flows

   When a MN is multihomed, an addresses selection mechanism is needed
   to distribute flows over interfaces.  As policies may change over
   time, as well as the available addresses/interfaces, flow redirection
   mechanisms are needed.  While the selection policy is out of scope of
   this document, the following reasons may trigger the MN to redirect
   flow from one address to another:

   o  Failure detection: the path between the MN and its CN(s) is
      broken.  The failure can occur at different places onto this path;
      The failure can be local on the MN, where the interface used on
      the MN is disconnected from the network (e.g., a wireless
      interface which comes out of range from its point of attachment).
      Alternatively, the failure can be on the path between the MN and
      one of its HA.  Yet another alternative is that the failure can be
      on the path between the HA and the CN.  If route optimization is
      used, it can also be a failure between the MN and its CN(s).

   o  New address: a new address on the MN comes available.  This can be
      the case when the MN connects to the network with a new interface.
      The MN may decide that this new interface is most suitable for its
      current flows that are using another interface.

   o  Uninterrupted horizontal handover in mobility: If the MN is
      mobile, it may have to change its point of attachment.  When a MN
      performs a horizontal handover, the handover latency (the time
      during which the MN can not send nor receive packets) can be long
      and the flows exchanged on the interface can be interrupted.  If
      the MN wants to minimize such perturbation, it can redirect some
      or all the flows on another available interface.  This redirection
      can be done prior to the handover if L2 triggering is considered
      [12] .

   o  Change in the network capabilities: the MN can observe a
      degradation of service on one of its interface, or conversely an
      improvement of capacity on an interface.  The MN may then decide
      to redirect some or all flows on another interface that it
      considers most suitable for the target flows.

   o  Initiation of a new flow: a new flow is initiated between the MN
      and a CN.  According to internal policies, the MN may want to
      redirect this flow on a most suitable interface.








Montavont, et al.        Expires August 30, 2007               [Page 32]


Internet-Draft      Analysis of Multihoming in MIPv6       February 2007


Authors' Addresses

   Nicolas Montavont
   Ecole Nationale Superieure des telecommunications de Bretagne
   2, rue de la chataigneraie
   Cesson Sevigne  35576
   France

   Phone: (+33) 2 99 12 70 23
   Email: nicolas.montavont@enst-bretagne.fr
   URI:   http://www-r2.u-strasbg.fr/~montavont/


   Ryuji Wakikawa
   Keio University
   Department of Environmental Information, Keio University.
   5322 Endo
   Fujisawa, Kanagawa  252-8520
   Japan

   Phone: +81-466-49-1100
   Fax:   +81-466-49-1395
   Email: ryuji@sfc.wide.ad.jp
   URI:   http://www.wakikawa.org/


   Thierry Ernst
   INRIA
   INRIA Rocquencourt
   Domaine de Voluceau B.P. 105
   Le Chesnay,   78153
   France

   Phone: +33-1-39-63-59-30
   Fax:   +33-1-39-63-54-91
   Email: thierry.ernst@inria.fr
   URI:   http://www.nautilus6.org/~thierry














Montavont, et al.        Expires August 30, 2007               [Page 33]


Internet-Draft      Analysis of Multihoming in MIPv6       February 2007


   Chan-Wah Ng
   Panasonic Singapore Laboratories Pte Ltd
   Blk 1022 Tai Seng Ave #06-3530
   Tai Seng Industrial Estate
   Singapore  534415
   SG

   Phone: +65 65505420
   Email: chanwah.ng@sg.panasonic.com


   Koojana Kuladinithi
   University of Bremen
   ComNets-ikom,University of Bremen.
   Otto-Hahn-Allee NW 1
   Bremen, Bremen  28359
   Germany

   Phone: +49-421-218-8264
   Fax:   +49-421-218-3601
   Email: koo@comnets.uni-bremen.de
   URI:   http://www.comnets.uni-bremen.de/~koo/





























Montavont, et al.        Expires August 30, 2007               [Page 34]


Internet-Draft      Analysis of Multihoming in MIPv6       February 2007


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
   THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
   OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
   THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).





Montavont, et al.        Expires August 30, 2007               [Page 35]