IETF Internet Draft C. Janneteau, ed.
Expires: April 2003 H. Y. Lach
A. Olivereau
A. Petrescu
Motorola
October 2002
Requirements for NEtwork MObility Support
<draft-janneteau-nemo-requirements-00.txt>
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
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.
Abstract
This draft introduces some scenarios for mobile networks, i.e. IP
networks that change their points of attachment to the Internet,
and proposes requirements for network mobility support in the
context of the NEMO working group.
Table of Contents
Status of this Memo................................................i
Abstract...........................................................i
Conventions used in this document..................................1
1. Introduction....................................................1
2. Definitions.....................................................1
3. Scenarios.......................................................1
4. General Requirements for Network Mobility Support...............2
5. Additional Requirements for the Base Network Mobility Support...3
Acknowledgments....................................................4
References.........................................................4
Authors' Address...................................................5
Janneteau et al. Expires April 2003 [Page i]
INTERNET-DRAFT Network Mobility Requirements October 2002
Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in
this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [1].
1. Introduction
Node mobility has been previously addressed in various IETF WGs.
However, with the rise of interests in vehicular networks and
personal area networks (PAN), which imply aggregated mobility of
nodes and devices therein, the overall IP connectivity framework
needs to be extended to provide support of mobile networks, in
addition of mobile nodes. This is the aim of the NEMO WG.
This draft starts with a description of mobile network scenarios,
followed by a recommendation of technical requirements for the
solution. Requirements are divided into two categories: general
requirements defining the scope of a network mobility solution,
and additional requirements specific to the base network mobility
support developped by the NEMO WG.
2. Definitions
Definitions that pertain to mobile networks protocols are mainly
derived from Mobile IP [4] and Mobile IPv6 [3]. Mobile-network
terminology is defined in [2].
3. Scenarios
The formation of a mobile network can exist in various levels of
complexity. In the simplest case, a mobile network contains just a
mobile router and a host. In the most complicated case, a mobile
network is itself a multi-level aggregation of mobile networks with
collectively thousands of mobile routers and hosts.
The idea of the mobile router is taken for granted to refer to the
router in a mobile network that attaches the mobile network
dynamically to various parts of an IP infrastructure. Each mobile
node and router can have one or more IP interfaces.
Here are the scenarios of various instances of mobile networks:
- A cellphone with one cellular interface and one Bluetooth
interface together with a Bluetooth-enabled PDA constitute a
very simple instance of a mobile network. The cellphone is the
mobile router while the PDA is used for web browsing or runs a
personal web server.
- A train's passengers use their laptops with Wireless LAN cards
to connect to Wireless LAN Access Points deployed in the train.
The mobile router is used to link together the Access Points
and to provide connectivity to the Internet. Similar scenario
can occur as well on a plane, on a ship, and any moving
vehicles.
Janneteau et al. Expires April 2003 [Page 1]
INTERNET-DRAFT Network Mobility Requirements October 2002
- A car network links its electronic devices (such as brake or
injection electronics but also the onboard computer offering
maps on LCD's or the audio player) to the mobile router that
is connected to the Internet via a cellular network.
- Multi-level aggregation of mobile networks can be desirable.
For example, a person carrying a personal area network of a
cellphone and a PDA getting into a car, might wish to offer
Internet access to the car's electronic devices, or it might
want to use the car's own mobile router to connect his/her PDA
to the Internet (instead of the cellphone).
- More complex cases, but still real, arise when a larger number
of larger sets of equipments interact. One specific case is a
typical Fire Department deployment in action. A MESA [5]
firefighter would carry a personal area network (with a mobile
router and numerous IP-enabled devices). The firefighter's
mobile router has a wireless connection to a vehicle whose
mobile router is attached to a private public-safety backbone
via a wireless link (maybe satellite link). Being part of the
public-safety network, the firefighter can receive data such as
building plans, and send data such as photographs, thermal
images, lifesign information, etc.
4. General Requirements for Network Mobility Support
The following requirements define the scope of a network mobility
solution in NEMO:
- Permanent connectivity and unicast session continuity: The
solution MUST allow all nodes in the mobile network to be
reachable via their permanent IP addresses, as well as
maintain ongoing sessions as the mobile router changes its
point of attachement within the topology.
- Implementation in the IP layer: The solution MUST be
implemented at the IP layer level. It MUST be transparent to
any upper layer so that any upper layer protocol can run
unchanged on top of an IP layer extended with network mobility
support.
- Mobile networks of any size: The solution MUST support mobile
networks of any size. The solution MUST be applicable to small
networks (e.g. a PAN comprising a few devices attached to a
single mobile router) and large networks (e.g. several
subnetworks with a very large numbers of MNNs). It is worth
mention that NEMO WG will consider only leaf networks, i.e.
mobile networks (irrespective of their size) that will not
carry transit traffic.
- No change to the Internet addressing and routing architecture:
The solution MUST NOT require changes to the Internet
addressing nor routing architecture. It MUST be independent of
any routing protocols and MUST preserve route aggregation in
the Internet.
Janneteau et al. Expires April 2003 [Page 2]
INTERNET-DRAFT Network Mobility Requirements October 2002
- Home equivalent operations: The solution MUST ensure
transparent continuition of routing and management operations
for a mobile router away from home. Especially, a mobile router
running a routing protocol MUST be able to pursue advertising
of its routes on its home network. Similarly, management
operations such as Router Renumbering MUST be possible for a
roaming mobile router.
- Nested mobility: The solution MUST support nested mobility. It
MUST support mobiles nodes visiting and leaving mobile
networks, as well as mobile networks attaching to other mobile
networks (nested mobile networks). The solution MUST no
restrict in any way the number of levels in the hierarchy of
nested mobile networks.
- Multihoming: The solution MUST function for multihomed mobile
networks. Cases of multihomed mobile networks include ones
with a single mobile router that has multiple attachements to
the Internet, as well as ones with multiples mobile routers to
attach to the Internet.
- Security: The solution MUST have its specific security issues
fully addressed.
- Co-existence with others protocols:
- The solution MUST allow for co-existence with the AAA and
access control frameworks (e.g. PANA). If extra mobile
network-specific concerns need to be addressed in these
frameworks, the NEMO WG will interact with related WGs.
- The solution MUST allow for co-existence with QoS protocols,
as well as Mobile IPv4 and Mobile IPv6 protocols.
- Multicast session continuity: The solution SHOULD maintain
ongoing multicast sessions of MNNs as the mobile router
changes its point of attachement within the topology.
5. Additional Requirements for the Base Network Mobility Support
The following requirements are placed on the base network mobility
solution to be specified by the NEMO WG:
- Base network mobility support for both IPv4 and IPv6: A
solution MUST be provided for both IPv4 and IPv6
environments. Each one MUST base on Mobile IPv4 and Mobile
IPv6 respectivelly. As such two different solutions MAY be
defined.
- Based on bi-directional Tunneling between MR and MR's Home
Agent (MRHA tunnel):
- The base network mobility solution for IPv6 MUST rely on the
Mobile IPv6 bi-directional tunnel between the mobile router
and its Home Agent.
- The base network mobility solution for IPv4 MUST rely on the
Mobile IPv4 bi-directional tunnel between the mobile router
and its Home Agent.
Janneteau et al. Expires April 2003 [Page 3]
INTERNET-DRAFT Network Mobility Requirements October 2002
- No changes to Correspondent Nodes: The base solution for
network mobility MUST NOT require any modification to MNN's
Correspondent Nodes.
- Network Mobility transparency to MNNs: The base solution for
network mobility MUST NOT require any modification to any
node in the mobile network (MNNs) but the mobile router.
Especially, the base solution MUST provide network mobility
management without the need for nodes behind the mobile
router to be aware of the network's mobility and take part
in NEMO Mobility Management. Upon a move, the mobile router
MUST ensure continuity of the sessions of MNNs transparently
to them.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank all the people on the NEMO (former
MONET) mailing list who have discussed requirements for network
mobility support, and have helped in shaping this draft. Special
thanks to John Boot for his contribution on MESA related scenarios.
References
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[2] Ernst, T. and Lach, H. Y., "Network Mobility Support
Terminology", draft-ernst-nemo-terminology-00.txt, IETF
Internet Draft, October 2002. (Work in Progress).
[3] Johnson, D. B. and Perkins, C., "Mobility Support in IPv6",
IETF Internet Draft, draft-ietf-mobileip-ipv6-18.txt, June
2002. (Work in Progress).
[4] Perkins, C., ed., "IP Mobility Support for IPv4", RFC 3344,
August 2002.
[5] Project MESA, "Mobile Broadband for Emergency and Safety
Applications (MESA)", http://www.projectmesa.org, accessed
February 2002.
Janneteau et al. Expires April 2003 [Page 4]
INTERNET-DRAFT Network Mobility Requirements October 2002
Authors' Addresses
Christophe Janneteau Alexis Olivereau
Motorola Labs Motorola Labs
Espace Tech de St Aubin Espace Tech de St Aubin
Gif-sur-Yvette 91193 Gif-sur-Yvette 91193
France France
Phone: +33 1 69352548 Phone: +33 1 69352516
Christophe.Janneteau@motorola.com Alexis@motorola.com
Hong-Yon Lach Alexandru Petrescu
Motorola Labs Motorola Labs
Espace Tech de St Aubin Espace Tech de St Aubin
Gif-sur-Yvette 91193 Gif-sur-Yvette 91193
France France
Phone: +33 1 69352536 Phone: +33 1 69354827
Hong-Yon.Lach@motorola.com Alexandru.Petrescu@motorola.com
Janneteau et al. Expires April 2003 [Page 5]
INTERNET-DRAFT Network Mobility Requirements October 2002
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and
distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind,
provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing
Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined
in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to
translate it into languages other than English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.
Funding for the RFC editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Janneteau et al. Expires April 2003 [Page 6]