Monami6 Working Group T. Ernst
Internet-Draft Keio University / WIDE
Expires: August 5, 2006 N. Montavont
GET/ENST-B
R. Wakikawa
Keio University
C. Ng
Panasonic Singapore Labs
K. Kuladinithi
University of Bremen
February 2006
Motivations and Scenarios for Using Multiple Interfaces and Global
Addresses
draft-ietf-monami6-multihoming-motivation-scenario-00
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 5, 2006.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract
Ernst, et al. Expires August 5, 2006 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Multihoming Motivations and Scenarios February 2006
In this document, multihoming is investigated from a node point of
view, and not from a site point of view as the term "multihoming" is
commonly understood so far. The purpose of this document is to
explain the motivations for fixed and mobile nodes (hosts and
routers) using multiple interfaces and the scenarios where this may
end up using multiple global addresses on their interfaces. Such
multihoming configurations can bring a number of benefits once
appropriate support mechanisms are put in place. Interestingly, this
analysis is generic, i.e. motivations and benefits of node
multihoming apply to both fixed end nodes and mobile end nodes.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Scenarios and Motivations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Need for Ubiquitous Access to the Internet . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Need to Redirect Established Sessions . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Need to Set Up Preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. Need to Select the Best Access Technology . . . . . . . . 7
3.5. Need to Dispatch Traffic over Distinct Paths . . . . . . . 8
3.6. Need for Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.7. Need to Accelerate Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Goals and Benefits of Multihoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1. Permanent and Ubiquitous Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2. Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.3. Load Sharing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.4. Load Balancing/Flow Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.5. Preference Settings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.6. Aggregate Bandwidth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.1. Case 1: One Interface, Multiple Prefixes . . . . . . . . . 13
5.2. Case 2: Several Interfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.1. <!--Source-->Address Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.2. Failure Discovery and Recovery Delay . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.3. Change of Traffic Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.4. Address Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Ernst, et al. Expires August 5, 2006 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Multihoming Motivations and Scenarios February 2006
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 24
Ernst, et al. Expires August 5, 2006 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Multihoming Motivations and Scenarios February 2006
1. Introduction
New equipments shipped on the market now often integrate several
access technologies (both wired and wireless). The main purpose of
this integration is to federate all means of communications in order
to access the Internet ubiquitously (from everywhere and at any time)
as no single technology can be expected to be deployed everywhere.
Flows may thus be redirected from one interface to the other
following the loss of connectivity or change of the network
conditions. Besides providing an Internet access of wide spread and
reach, integrating several access technologies also allow to increase
bandwidth availability or to select the the most appropriate
technology according to the type of flow or choices of the user,
since each network interface has different cost, performance,
bandwidth, access range, and reliability.
Once multiple accesses are offered, users may want to select the most
appropriate set of network interface(s) depending on the network
environment, particularly in wireless networks which are mutable and
less reliable than wired networks. Users may also want to select the
most appropriate interface per communication type or to combine a set
of interfaces to get sufficient bandwidth.
The purpose of this document is to emphasize the goals and benefits
of multihoming for fixed and mobile hosts and routers in a generic
fashion, i.e. without focusing on issues pertaining to hosts, or
routers, nor mobility. This document is indeed completing other
documents focusing on these latter issues: Issues pertaining to site
multihoming in fixed networks are discussed in [1]. Mobility issues
pertaining to mobile nodes and mobile networks are respectively
discussed in companion drafts [2] and [3]. Our document is targetted
to IPv6, although our analysis may be applicable to IPv4 as well.
The readers may refer to [4] for a description of the problem
specific to Mobile IPv4.
This document is organized as follows: first, the terms used in the
document are defined before illustrating the motivations by means of
some scenarios in Section 3. These scenarios are then used to
emphasize the goals and benefits of multihoming in Section 4. Next
follows in Section 5 an analysis of the achievable goals in two
multihoming configurations, i.e. when the node either has a single
interface or when it has multiple interfaces. Section 6 concludes
this document with a number of generic issues that will have to be
solved in order to effectively meet multihoming goals and benefits.
Ernst, et al. Expires August 5, 2006 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Multihoming Motivations and Scenarios February 2006
2. Terminology
This draft is based on the terminology defined in [5]. For the
purpose of clarity, we remind the definition of interface. Terms
related to multihoming are not known to be defined in existing IETF
RFCs.
Interface
A node's point of attachment to a link (as defined in [5])
Multihomed Node
A node (either a host or a router) is multihomed when it has
several IPv6 addresses to choose between, i.e. in the following
cases when it is either:
* multi-prefixed: multiple prefixes are advertised on the link(s)
the node is attached to, or.
* multi-interfaced: the node has multiple interfaces to choose
between, on the same link or not.
Ernst, et al. Expires August 5, 2006 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Multihoming Motivations and Scenarios February 2006
3. Scenarios and Motivations
The following real-life scenarios highlight the motivations for
multihoming. Each scenario usually yields more than one of the goals
and benefits outlined in Section 4. All scenarios focus on wireless
technologies though no mobility management may be involved (one can
use wireless access at office).
3.1. Need for Ubiquitous Access to the Internet
Mona is just getting out of a meeting with customers in a building.
She calls her head office. This audio communication is initiated via
a private wireless local area network (WLAN) link realized over one
of the available WI-FI hot-spots in the building. This is going to
be a long call and she must attend another meeting a few minutes
drive from here. She walks to a taxi stand, and boards a taxi. The
audio communication is automatically transferred to the public
wireless metropolitan area network (WMAN) over the WIMAX network
deployed in the city, with no interruption of the communication.
This scenario illustrates the need for a mobile user to use multiple
types of access technologies in order to maintain ongoing
communications when a user is moving out of the coverage area of a
specific technology.
3.2. Need to Redirect Established Sessions
Oliver is on his way to work waiting at a train station. He uses
this opportunity and the presence of a WLAN hot-spot to download the
news from his favorite on-line news channel. While Oliver is
downloading the news, he receives a phone call over a wide area
cellular link. Oliver decides he wishes to initiate a video flow for
this communication. The bandwidth and traversal delay of the wide
area cellular link is not adequate for the video conference, so both
flows (video/audio) are transferred to the WLAN link provided by the
hot-spot. This transfer occurs transparently and without affecting
the other active flows.
This scenario illustrates the need for a nomadic user to dynamically
redirect flows from one type of access technology to another based on
some user preferences or traffic requirements.
3.3. Need to Set Up Preferences
Nami works at home for a publishing company. She has an in-house
network and get access to the Internet via ADSL, a public 802.11b
WLAN from the street and satellite. She has subscribed to the
cheapest ADSL service with limited uplink bandwidth. Also, the
Ernst, et al. Expires August 5, 2006 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Multihoming Motivations and Scenarios February 2006
satellite link she has access to is downlink only, but it is
extremely cheap for TV broadcasting. She has noticed the 802.11b
link is unreliable at some point in time during the day, so she
chooses to send requests and periodic refreshments for joining the TV
broadcasting via ADSL rather than 802.11b although it is free. On
the other hand, she has configured her network to use the 802.11b
link at night to publish web content comprising video. Once a week,
she communicates with overseas peer staff by videoconferencing.
Voice being the most important, she has configured her VoIP session
over ADSL. Video is sent at maximum rate when 802.11b is working
fine, otherwise the video is sent at lower rate.
This scenario illustrates the need in a fixed environment to
simultaneously use multiple access technologies and to select the
most appropriate one according to user preferences. No assumptions
are made whether flows need to be redirected or not from one access
technology to another.
3.4. Need to Select the Best Access Technology
Alice is a paramedic. Her ambulance is called at the scene of a car
accident. She initiates a communication to a hospital via a wide
area cellular link for the relay of low bit-rate live video from the
site of the crash to assess the severity of the accident. It is
identified that one of the passengers has suffered a severe head
injury. The paramedic decides to consult a specialist via video
conferencing. This session is initiated from the specialist via the
same wide area cellular link. Meanwhile, the paramedic requests for
the download of the patient medical records from the hospital
servers. The paramedic decides in mid-session that the wide area
cellular link is too slow for this download and transfers the
download to the ambulance satellite link. Even though this link
provides a significantly faster bit rate it has a longer traversal
delay and only down-link is available. For this, only the down-
stream of the download is transferred while up-stream proceeds over
the wide area cellular link. Connectivity with the ambulance is
managed over a WLAN link between the paramedic and the ambulance.
Even though the paramedic has performed a partial hand-off for the
transfer of the download down-stream to the satellite link, the
upstream and the video conferencing session remains on the wide area
cellular link. This serves best the time constraint requirements of
the real time communications.
This scenario illustrates the need in a mobile environment for both
ubiquitous access to the Internet using whatever available interface
and the need to dispatch flows to particular access media according
to traffic characteristics or preferences. The fact that the actual
connexion to the Internet is maintained via the ambulance to which
Ernst, et al. Expires August 5, 2006 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Multihoming Motivations and Scenarios February 2006
the paramedic is connected to via a WLAN link illustrates to need to
express preferences on the path to be taken from a remote computer
(i.e. a mobile router in the ambulance in this case).
3.5. Need to Dispatch Traffic over Distinct Paths
Max drives his car and constantly keeps some sort of Internet
connectivity through one of the available access technologies. His
car navigator downloads road information from the Internet and his
car-audio plays on-line audio streaming. When his car passes an area
where both high-data-rate WLAN and low-data rate cellular network are
available, it distributes load to the WLAN access and the cellular
network access. When his car passes an area where only a wide
coverage-range cellular network is available, the connection is
maintained via the cellular network.
This scenario illustrates the need to save traffic transiting in a
particular access network when there is a possibility to send data
over an alternative route.
3.6. Need for Reliability
Dr. Ingrid performs an operation via long-distance medical system.
She watches a patient in a battle field over the screen which
delivers real-time images of the patient. Sensors on her arms
deliver her operational actions and a robot performs the actual
operation in the battle field. Since the operation is critical, the
delivery of patient images and Dr. Ingrid's action is done by bi-
casting from/to multiple interfaces bound to a distinct technology or
distinct radio range. So in case packets are delayed or one of the
interface fails to maintain connectivity to the network, her distant
operation can be continued.
This scenario illustrates the need to use multiple access
technologies in order to improve reliability upon failure of one of
the access technologies.
3.7. Need to Accelerate Transmission
Roku is at the airport waiting to board the plane. She receives a
call from her husband. This audio communication is received via a
wireless local area network (WLAN) link realized over one of the
available hot-spots. She knows this is going to be a long flight and
wishes to catch up on some work. Roku uses a WLAN connection to
download the necessary data. However, there is not enough time and
she decides to accelerate the download. Her notebook is equipped
with an additional WLAN interface. She decides to use this
additional WLAN interface to connect to another access point, and
Ernst, et al. Expires August 5, 2006 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Multihoming Motivations and Scenarios February 2006
distribute the different download flows between the two wireless
interfaces.
This scenario illustrates the need to use multiple accesses to the
Internet in order to accelerate the amount of data that could be
transmitted over a period of time.
Ernst, et al. Expires August 5, 2006 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Multihoming Motivations and Scenarios February 2006
4. Goals and Benefits of Multihoming
The scenarios presented in the previous section are now used to
highlight the goals and benefits of node multihoming. The goals
cannot really be distinguished from the benefits, but there are
several situations where multihomed is either advisable or
beneficial.
Figure 1 summarizes which goal applies to the scenarios introduced in
Section 3. Note that all these goals and benefits apply to both
fixed end nodes and mobile end nodes, though the scenarios may either
focused on a fixed used (F), or nomadic usage (N), or a mobile usage
(M). Nomadic and mobile users are both on the move, while a fixed
user doesn't physically move. The difference between nomadic usages
and mobile usages is that sessions are not required to be maintained
when the access network is changed as a result of physical move
within the topology. No assumptions are made whether mobility
support mechanims may be useful or not in any of the fixed, nomadic
and mobile usages in order to maintain sessions. This is out of
scope of the present document.
+===================================+===========================+
| | Scenarios | |
| +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| Goals | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
+===================================+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+
| Ubiquitous Access | o | | | o | o | | |
+-----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| Flow Redirection | o | o | o | o | o | | |
+-----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| Reliability | | | o | o | o | o | |
+-----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| Load Sharing | | | | | o | | |
+-----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| Load Balalancing | | | o | o | | | o |
+-----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| Preference Settings | | o | o | o | | | |
+-----------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| Aggregate Bandwidth | | | | o | | | o |
+===================================+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+
| Usage: F=Fixed N=Nomadic M=Mobile | M | N | F | M | M | F | N |
+===================================+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+
Figure 1: Goals Applying to Each Scenario
Ernst, et al. Expires August 5, 2006 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Multihoming Motivations and Scenarios February 2006
4.1. Permanent and Ubiquitous Access
To provide an extended coverage area via distinct access
technologies.
Multiple interfaces bound to distinct technologies can be used to
ensure a permanent connectivity is offered, anywhere, anytime, with
anyone.
4.2. Reliability
To act upon failure at one point of attachment, i.e. the functions of
a system component (e.g. interface, access network) are assumed by
secondary system components when the primary component becomes
unavailable (e.g. failure). Connectivity is guaranteed as long as at
least one connection to the Internet is maintained.
A potential means is to duplicate network component, another is to
duplicate a particular flow simultaneously through different routes.
This minimizes packet loss typically for real-time communication and
burst traffic. It also minimizes delay of packet delivery caused by
congestion and achieves more reliable real-time communication than
single-casting. For mobile computing, bi-casting avoids dropping
packets when a mobile node changes its interface during communication
[6].
4.3. Load Sharing
To spread network traffic load among several routes. This is
achieved when traffic load is distributed among different connections
between the node and the Internet [7].
4.4. Load Balancing/Flow Distribution
To separate a flow between multiple points of attachment
(simultaneously active or not) of a node, usually chosing the less
loaded connection or according to preferences on the mapping between
flows and interfaces.
4.5. Preference Settings
This goal is to provide the user, the application or the ISP the
ability to choose the preferred transmission technology or access
network based on cost, efficiency, policies, bandwidth requirement,
delay, etc.
Ernst, et al. Expires August 5, 2006 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Multihoming Motivations and Scenarios February 2006
4.6. Aggregate Bandwidth
This goal is to provide the user or the application with more
bandwidth.
Bandwidth available to the user or the application may be limited by
the underlying technology (e.g. GSM has scarce bandwidth) or by some
policies (e.g. monthly rate paid by the user). Multiple interfaces
connected to different links or ISPs can increase the total bandwidth
available to the user or application.
Ernst, et al. Expires August 5, 2006 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Multihoming Motivations and Scenarios February 2006
5. Analysis
From the definition of a multihomed node it follows that a multihomed
node has several IPv6 addresses to choose between. In order to
expose the goals and benefits to manage multihomed nodes, we propose
to distinguish two main cases: either the node has only one
interface, or the node has several interfaces. In the former case,
the node is multihomed when multilpe prefixes are advertised on the
link the node is attached to. This distinction is important and
sometimes subtle but the implications are important.
5.1. Case 1: One Interface, Multiple Prefixes
The single-interfaced node is multihomed when several prefixes are
advertised on its interface. The node must therefore configure
several IPv6 addresses.
A typical example is a node with a 802.11b interface, connected to an
access point. The access point is connected trough an Ethernet link
to two access routers. Each access router is configured to advertise
distinct network prefixes by Router Advertisements on the link and
can be used as default router. Several reasons may lead to configure
two access routers on the same link: for instance, the access points
may be shared between different ISPs, or two access routers may be
used for redundancy or load sharing purposes. The node will then
build two global IPv6 addresses on its interface.
We now analyse which of the goals detailed in Section 4 can be met
with this configuration.
o Ubiquitous Access: NO
Ubiquitous access cannot be guaranteed when the node looses
Internet connectivity through its sole interface (e.g. the node is
going outside the coverage area of its access point).
o Reliability: MAYBE
In case of failure of one IPv6 prefix, one of the address of the
node will not be valid anymore. Another available address built
from other prefixes may allow the node to recover this sort of
failure.
Bi-casting can be performed to ensure the delivery of packets on
the node. To do so, more than one IPv6 address must be used
simultaneously for one flow. Bi-casting would allow the node to
Ernst, et al. Expires August 5, 2006 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Multihoming Motivations and Scenarios February 2006
seamlessly change the address used on the node.
o Load sharing: YES
Load Sharing can be performed in the network, according to the
address used by the node. The choice of the address used by the
node and the router selection can be influenced by the load
sharing rules. This mostly benefits the network side: if
different access routers or routes can be used to forward the
node's traffic, it will share the traffic load on the network.
o Load balancing/Flow Distribution: NO
Load balancing cannot be performed as the node has only one
interface.
o Preferences: YES
The source address can be chosen according to preferences set up
by the user, or according to preferences set up in the network
(such as with the default router preferences option introduced in
Router Advertisement [8], or by the ISP.
o Aggregated Bandwidth: MAYBE
With only one interface connected to a link, the node generally
will not be able to benefit from an increased aggregated bandwidth
with multiple prefixes. However, this benefit might be gained
indirectly. For instance, by alternating between different
addresses, the total throughput may be higher (eg. due to load
sharing). Also, some web and file transfer servers limit transfer
bandwidths based on the client's address. By using different
addresses to connect to the same server, the node may also see an
increase in file transfer rate.
5.2. Case 2: Several Interfaces
In this case, the node may use its multiple interfaces either
alternatively or simultaneously. If used simultaneously, the node
uses several IPv6 addresses at the same time (at least one address
per interface, or several if several prefixes are announced on the
link(s) it is connected to). If used alternatively, the node may
switch between its interfaces (e.g, one at a time), which is the case
described above in Section 5.1. In the paragraphs below, we assume
Ernst, et al. Expires August 5, 2006 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Multihoming Motivations and Scenarios February 2006
that multiple interfaces are used simultaneously. We also note that
multiple interfaces can be connected to the same link as well as to
different links. These configurations will imply different issues.
All these multihomed configurations may yield different benefits to
the node.
A typical example is a node with two interfaces, each one on a
different technology (e.g. a WLAN 802.11b interface and a 3GPP GPRS
interface), in order to benefit from a better coverage area and the
characteristics of each technology.
We now analyse how each of the goals listed in Section 4 can be met
with such multihomed configuration:
o Ubiquitous Access: MAYBE
It is easier to guarantee ubiquitous access when the node has
multiple interfaces since distinct technologies may be available
at a given time according to the location and administrative
policies.
o Reliability: YES
Two levels of redundancy can be seen in this case: either one
address of one interface is not valid anymore (e.g. because the
corresponding prefix is not advertised on the link), or the node
loses its internet connectivity through one interface. In the
former case, another IPv6 address available on the interface would
allow the node to switch addresses for on-going flows. In the
latter case, another connection to the internet through another
interface would allow it to redirect on-going flow from the
previous interface to the new one. In either cases the node needs
to change the IPv6 address for on-going sessions from the no
longer valid address to one of the address available on the target
interface. The redirection will trigger a decision process to
choose the best target interface to redirect the flow to.
Bi-casting might be used to ensure the packets delivery on the
node. It would also allow seamless redirection between two
addresses / interfaces with zero packets loss. Bi-casting can be
performed if several IPv6 addresses can be simultaneously used for
one flow. One entity between the CN (included) and the node
(excluded) must duplicate the traffic to the destination node.
Ernst, et al. Expires August 5, 2006 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Multihoming Motivations and Scenarios February 2006
o Load Sharing: YES
This benefit is mainly for the network side: if different access
routers or routes can be used to forward traffic going into and
out of the node, they can share the traffic load on the network.
If the node uses several addresses at the same time for its on-
going sessions, load sharing can be performed in the network.
This goal can be a parameter that helps the source address
selection.
o Load balancing/Flow Distribution: YES
Load balancing can be achieved on the node if several interfaces
are used simultaneously. Several interfaces can be used to spread
the traffic load on the node. This implies the choice of the IPv6
address to use for each flow and the ability to choose a different
address for each flow.
o Preferences: YES
Interface and address selection is required. The problem can be
seen exactly as in the first case (the node has only one
interface) if we consider that the interface preference is a
parameter for the address selection. Therefore in this case, the
interface selection/preference is a supplementary parameter in the
address selection algorithm.
o Aggregated Bandwidth: YES
With multiple interfaces connected to a link, the node generally
will be able to benefit from an increased aggregated bandwidth.
Ernst, et al. Expires August 5, 2006 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Multihoming Motivations and Scenarios February 2006
6. Issues
In this section, we attempt to list a number of generic issues that
will have to be solved in order to meet the multihoming goals.
Figure 2 summarizes which issues apply to each of the case detailed
in the previous section. The sign '+', '-' or '=' indicated is the
issue is more important, less important, or equally important to
solve for the case under consideration
+====================================+=====+=====+
| | Cases |
| +-----+-----+
| Issues | (1) | (2) |
+====================================+=====+=====+
| Source Address Selection | o = | o = |
+------------------------------------+-----+-----+
| Recovery Delay | o | o + |
+------------------------------------+-----+-----+
| Change of e2e Path Characteristics | o - | o + |
+------------------------------------+-----+-----+
| Address Change | o + | o + |
+====================================+=====+=====+
Figure 2: Issues and their Importance for Each Case
6.1. <!--Source-->Address Selection
The multihomed node has several addresses, which implies the
appropriate address must be chosen when an IPv6 communication is
established (e.g. when a TCP connection is opened). An address
selection mechanism is therefore needed.
The choice of the address can be influenced by many parameters: user
preferences, ingress filtering, preference flag in Router
Advertisement, destination prefix, type of interface, link
characteristics, etc.
6.2. Failure Discovery and Recovery Delay
A particular access to the Internet may become unavailable while it
is being used. The time needed for detecting an address has become
invalid and the time to redirect communications to one of its other
addresses is considered as critical. Efficient failure detection and
recovery mechanisms are therefore required.
Note that transport sessions with multihoming capabilies such as SCTP
may be able to continue easily since SCTP has built-in transmission
Ernst, et al. Expires August 5, 2006 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Multihoming Motivations and Scenarios February 2006
rate control mechanims to take into account the differences between
two paths.
6.3. Change of Traffic Characteristics
The change of path for a specific session (e.g. due to change of
interface) may cause changes on the end-to-end path characteristics
(higher delay, different PMTU, etc). This could have an impact on
upper layer protocols such as transport protocols (particularly TCP)
or applications that are sensitive to changes.
6.4. Address Change
In some situations, it will be necessary to divert some or all of the
sessions from one interface or prefix to another (e.g. due to loss of
network connection or the access router becoming unreachable - this
could be particularly frequent for mobile nodes). With no support
mechanism, an address change would cause on-going sessions using the
invalid former address to terminate, and to be restarted using the
new address. To avoid this, the node needs a recovery mechanism
allowing to redirect all current communications to one of its other
IPv6 addresses.
In the case of a mobile node changing its point of attachment using
the same interface, all flows must be redirected to the new location
in order to maintain sessions. A mobility management solution may be
required, such as Mobile IPv6 [9] for mobile hosts or NEMO Basic
Support [10] for mobile routers. Additional mechanisms may be needed
if the node was using several addresses on its old link, such as
which flow to redirect, which address must be associated with the new
address(es). The scalability of the operations involved in the
redirection of flows may also be an issue, if we consider that the
node had several addresses on the old link and several flows and/or
correspondents. Issues pertaining to Mobile IPv6 and NEMO Basic
Support are explained in companion drafts [2] and [3] respectively.
Ernst, et al. Expires August 5, 2006 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Multihoming Motivations and Scenarios February 2006
7. Conclusion
In this document we show the concrete need for multihoming at the
level of the end node. We emphasized the needs and goals of having
multiple interfaces at the communicating end node. Such interfaces
could be used as one as the replacement of the other (ubiquitous
access to the Internet, reliability) or simultaneously (load sharing,
load balancing/flow distribution, preference settings or aggregate
bandwidth).
Such goals are motivated for fixed nodes and mobile nodes, but the
needs prevail for mobile nodes (hosts and routers). Goals can only
be met once some issues are solved. Issues specific to mobile hosts
and mobile routers are investigated in documents of the MONAMI6 and
NEMO working groups at the IETF.
Ernst, et al. Expires August 5, 2006 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Multihoming Motivations and Scenarios February 2006
8. Contributors
This document is based on an earlier document to which Thomas Noel
(ULP, Strasbourg) and EunKyoung Paik (SNU, Seoul) also participated
in the addition to the authors listed in the present document.
Ernst, et al. Expires August 5, 2006 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Multihoming Motivations and Scenarios February 2006
9. Acknowledgments
We would like to thank all the people who have provided comments on
this draft, and also co-authors of earlier documents in which authors
of this present document have been engaged. As such, we would like
to thank Niko A. Fikouras, Hesham Soliman, Ken Nagami, and many
others.
10. References
[1] Abley, J., Black, B., and V. Gill, "Goals for IPv6 Site-
Multihoming Architectures", RFC 3582, August 2003.
[2] Montavont, N., Wakikawa, R., Ernst, T., Ng, C., and K.
Kuladinithi, "Analysis of Multihoming in Mobile IPv6",
draft-ietf-monami6-mipv6-analysis-00 (work in progress),
February 2006.
[3] Ng, C., "Analysis of Multihoming in Network Mobility Support",
draft-ietf-nemo-multihoming-issues-05 (work in progress),
February 2006.
[4] Fikouras, N., "Mobile IPv4 Flow Mobility Problem Statement",
draft-nomad-mip4-flow-mobility-pb-00.txt (work in progress),
Feb 2004.
[5] Manner, J. and M. Kojo, "Mobility Related Terminology",
RFC 3753, June 2004.
[6] Malki, K. and H. Soliman, "Simultaneous Bindings for Mobile
IPv6 Fast Handovers", draft-elmalki-mobileip-bicasting-v6-06
(work in progress), July 2005.
[7] Hinden, R. and D. Thaler, "IPv6 Host to Router Load Sharing",
draft-ietf-ipv6-host-load-sharing-04 (work in progress),
June 2005.
[8] Draves, R. and D. Thaler, "Default Router Preferences and More-
Specific Routes", RFC 4191, November 2005.
[9] Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support in
IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004.
[10] Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., and P. Thubert,
"Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol", RFC 3963,
January 2005.
Ernst, et al. Expires August 5, 2006 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Multihoming Motivations and Scenarios February 2006
Authors' Addresses
Thierry Ernst
Keio University / WIDE
Jun Murai Lab., Keio University.
K-square Town Campus, 1488-8 Ogura, Saiwa-Ku
Kawasaki, Kanagawa 212-0054
Japan
Phone: +81-44-580-1600
Fax: +81-44-580-1437
Email: ernst@sfc.wide.ad.jp
URI: http://www.sfc.wide.ad.jp/~ernst/
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.net/
Ernst, et al. Expires August 5, 2006 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Multihoming Motivations and Scenarios February 2006
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/
Ernst, et al. Expires August 5, 2006 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Multihoming Motivations and Scenarios February 2006
Intellectual Property Statement
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.
Disclaimer of Validity
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 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.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). 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.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Ernst, et al. Expires August 5, 2006 [Page 24]
