Network Working Group                                           V.Liu
Internet Draft                                                  H.Deng
Intended status: Standards Track                          China Mobile
Expires: Nov 15, 2015                                            D.Liu
                                                              Alibaba
                                                                X.Wei
                                                               Huawei
                                                                J.Liu
                                                                  ZTE
                                                          July 6, 2015

                         Address Selection for DMM
                    draft-liu-dmm-address-selection-02


Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on November 6, 2015.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors. All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully,
   as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this
   document. Code Components extracted from this document must include
   Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust
   Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in
   the Simplified BSD License.





Liu, et al.             Expires Nov 15, 2015                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft         liu-dmm-address-selection             July 2015


   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully,
   as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this
   document.

Abstract

   In DMM scenario, it is possible for the MN to use multiple mobility
   anchor points and corresponding prefixes. In that case, MN needs to
   know the property of the addresses then it can select the optimized
   one for application to use. This document defines new IP network
   prefix types to assist address selection for applications.

Table of Contents


   1. Introduction ................................................ 2
   2. Definition of New Prefix Types                                         ............................... 3
   3. Mobile Node Operation                                ........................................ 3
   4. An Example of How This Draft Works                                             ........................... 3
      4.1. MN Handoffs From MAR to a Next MAR ...................... 3
      4.2. MN Handoffs From MAR Back to Its Previous MAR ........... 5
   5. Security Considerations                                  ...................................... 6
   6. IANA Considerations ......................................... 6
   7. References .................................................. 6
      7.1. Normative References                                    .................................... 6
      7.2. Informative References                                      .................................. 6

1. Introduction

   In DMM scenario, mobility anchors would be deployed in a distributed
   manner, and as specified in RFC7333 [RFC7333], one of the aims of DMM
   is to reduce the routing redundancy between mobile node and
   correspondent node, which means providing a more optimal
   communication path for application traffic between mobile node and
   correspondent node. To achieve routing optimization for specific
   application traffic, the basic idea is to make the traffic using IP
   address(s) anchored at current anchor, so that downlink traffic from
   correspondent node to mobile node will go directly to mobile node.

   Different application sessions could require different IP address
   consistency support from network layer, for example, if the
   application layer cannot bear the IP address to be changed during the
   session, then the IP address for the session should be kept unchanged;
   but if the application layer could provide mechanism to deal with IP


Liu, et al.             Expires Nov 15, 2015                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft         liu-dmm-address-selection             July 2015


   address change, then the application could choose select a new
   optimal address during the session, to get reduce routing redundancy.

   This document defines new IP network prefix types to assist address
   selection for applications.

2. Definition of New Prefix Types

   Two types of IP network prefix are defined in this section. The
   extension of specific protocol to convey the defined new types of IP
   network prefix to MN is out of scope of this document.

   Local home network prefix.  It means that this prefix is allocated
   and advertised by current router which the MN attaches to. Remote
   home network prefix.  It means that this prefix is allocated by
   another router instead of the router that the MN currently attaches
   to.

3. Mobile Node Operation

   This section describes how the applications on the mobile node could
   select the optimal IP address based on different types of prefixes.
   For example, for on-going session, application always choose to use
   the prefix that it used before it handovers to a new location. For
   the newly initiate application, it will use the prefix that allocated
   by current router, e.g. local home network prefix. The mobile node
   can use advanced socket API to select the proper prefix, for example,
   extension to RFC 5014.The detail mechanism is out the scope of this
   document.

4. An Example of How This Draft Works

   This section describes how the prefix types defined above solves the
   source address selection. Two different use cases are presented below.
   We assume a new Type flag "T" in Prefix Information option is used to
   indicate the new defined prefix type.

4.1. MN Handoffs From MAR to a Next MAR







Liu, et al.             Expires Nov 15, 2015                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft         liu-dmm-address-selection             July 2015










         _______     _______    _______
        |       |   |       |  |       |
        |  CN1  |   |  CN2  |  |  CN3  |
        |_______|   |_______|  |_______|
            '           .            .
     Flow#1 '    Flow#2 .            |  Flow#3
            '   ...'''''.'''''''.... .
          ..'''         .           '''..
        .'  '      IP network        .   '.
        :   '           .            |    :
         '..'       +-------+        . ..'
            '''...  |       |.......'''
            '       | MAR2  | \      .
            '       |       |. \     |
            '       |       | . \    .
            '       +-------+\  .\   |
       +-------+   HNP2(L)   \  + ------+
       |       |   HNP1(R)      \ |       | HNP3(L)
       | MAR1  |-----------------|  MAR3 | HNP2(R)
       |       | ''''''''''''''''|       | HNP1(R)
       |       |-----------------|       |
       +-------+                 +-------+
       HNP1(L)                    ' . |
                            Flow#1  ' . .  Flow#3
                                    ' . |
         +-----+            Flow#2 +-----+
         | MN  | -----move-------> | MN  |
         +-----+                   +-----+













Liu, et al.             Expires Nov 15, 2015                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft         liu-dmm-address-selection             July 2015


   T=L: Local home network prefix using common IP forwarding and routing
   mechanisms

   T=R: Remote home network prefix using mobility anchoring and
   tunneling to maintain communications

         Figure 1: Source address selection in DMM

   As shown in figure1, flow#1, flow#2 and flow#3 are initiated and
   anchored at MAR1, MAR2 and MAR3 respectively.

   When MN attaches to MAR1, MAR1 sends Router Advertisement
   messages(RA) containing MN's home network prefix(HNP1) in Prefix
   Information option with T=L. This indicates that HNP1 is local home
   network prefix which is allocated and advertised by current
   router(MAR1).  MN can initiate a session with CN1 (i.e. flow#1 in
   figure1) by using IPv6 addresses derived from HNP1. Common IPv6
   routing mechanism will be applied for flow#1 as long as MN remains
   attached to MAR1.

   When MN handoffs to MAR2(flow#1 continues while MN handoffs), MAR2
   sends RA messages containing MN's new prefix(HNP2) in Prefix
   Information option with T=L together with old prefix (i.e. HNP1) with
   T=R. MN will learn that HNP2 is local home network prefix and HNP1 is
   remote home network prefix. At this moment, MN can initiate a new
   sessions with CN2 (i.e. flow#2 in the figure1) by using IPv6
   addresses derived from HNP2 as its source address.  Because this IPv6
   address is derived from a local home network prefix (i.e.  HNP2),
   common IPv6 routing mechanism will be applied for flow#2.  For flow#1,
   MAR1 plays role of LMA and MAR2 plays role of MAG. When MN handoffs
   to MAR3(flow#1 and flow#2 continue while MN   handoffs), MAR3 sends
   RA messages containing MN's new prefix(HNP3) and previous prefixes
   (HNP1 and HNP2) in Prefix Information option  with T=L for HNP3 and
   T=R for HNP1 and   HNP2.  This indicates HNP3 is local home network
   prefix, and HNP1 and HNP2 are remote home network prefixes.  At this
   moment, MN can initiates new sessions with CN3 (i.e. flow#3 in
   figure1) by using IPv6 addresses derived from HNP3 as its source
   address.  And Common   IPv6 routing mechanism will be applied for
   flow#3.

4.2. MN Handoffs From MAR Back to Its Previous MAR

   MN could also handoff back from MAR3 to MAR2 again (assuming flow#1,
   flow#2 and flow#3 continue while MN handoffs).

   In this case, as described above, MAR2 will send RA messages
   containing HNP1, HNP2 and HNP3 in Prefix Information option with T=L


Liu, et al.             Expires Nov 15, 2015                  [Page 5]


Internet-Draft         liu-dmm-address-selection             July 2015


   for HNP2 and T=R for HNP1 and HNP3. This indicates HNP2 is local home
   network prefix; HNP1 and HNP3 are remote home network prefixes.

   Assuming that MN initiates a new sessions with a new communication
   node (e.g. with CN4 which is not shown in figure1) by using IPv6
   addresses derived from HNP2 as its source address.  Because this IPv6
   address is derived from a local home network prefix (i.e.  HNP2),
   common IPv6 routing mechanism will be applied for this session.

5. Security Considerations

   TBD

6. IANA Considerations

   This document makes no request of IANA.

7. References

7.1. Normative References

   [1]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
         Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [2]  Crocker, D. and Overell, P.(Editors), "Augmented BNF for Syntax
         Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, Internet Mail Consortium and
         Demon Internet Ltd., November 1997.

   [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
             Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2234] Crocker, D. and Overell, P.(Editors), "Augmented BNF for
             Syntax Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, Internet Mail
             Consortium and Demon Internet Ltd., November 1997.

7.2. Informative References

   [3]  Faber, T., Touch, J. and W. Yue, "The TIME-WAIT state in TCP
         and Its Effect on Busy Servers", Proc. Infocom 1999 pp. 1573-
         1583.

   [Fab1999] Faber, T., Touch, J. and W. Yue, "The TIME-WAIT state in
             TCP and Its Effect on Busy Servers", Proc. Infocom 1999 pp.
             1573-1583.

   [I-D.draft-seite-dmm-dma-00] Seite, P. and P. Bertin, "Distributed
             Mobility Anchoring,draft-seite-dmm-dma-00", February 2012.


Liu, et al.             Expires Nov 15, 2015                  [Page 6]


Internet-Draft         liu-dmm-address-selection             July 2015


Authors' Addresses

   Vic Liu
   China Mobile
   32 Xuanwumen West AVE, Xicheng, Beijing
   Email: liuzhiheng@chinamobile.com


   Hui Deng
   China Mobile
   32 Xuanwumen West AVE, Xicheng, Beijing
   Email: denglingli@chinamobile.com


   Dapeng Liu
   Alibaba

   Email: max@dotalks.com


   Xinpeng Wei
   Huawei

   Email: Weixinpeng@huawei.com


   Juan Liu
   ZTE
   No.68, Zijinhua RD,Yuhuatai District,Nanjing
   Email: liu.juan45@zte.com.cn


















Liu, et al.             Expires Nov 15, 2015                  [Page 7]