Sang il Choi, Sang tae Kim, Seok joo Koh
Internet Draft Kyungpook National University
Intended status: <Informational> September 24, 2010
Expires: March 2011
Network-based Mobility Control in LISP Networks
draft-sichoi-lisp-ar-00.txt
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with
the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with
the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may not be
modified, and derivative works of it may not be created, and it may
not be published except as an Internet-Draft.
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with
the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may not be
modified, and derivative works of it may not be created, except to
publish it as an RFC and to translate it into languages other than
English.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
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."
Choi, Kim and Koh Expires March 24, 2011 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Network-based Mobility Control in LISP Network September
2010
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 March 24, 2009.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 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.
Abstract
This document proposed a network-based mobility control scheme in
wireless/mobile networks using the Locator-Identifier Separation
Protocol (LISP). In the existing host-based mobility control, LISP
Tunnel Router (TR) is implemented at mobile node. In the proposed
scheme, each TR is implemented at the first-hop access router that
mobile nodes are attached to in the wireless network. For network-
based mobility control, we present the data delivery and handover
control operations. It is expected that the proposed network-based
scheme can reduce implementation overhead and handover latency of MN,
compared to the existing host-based scheme.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................ 3
2. Conventions used in this document ........................... 3
3. Network Models .............................................. 4
4. Data Delivery Operations .................................... 5
5. Handover Control Operations ................................. 7
6. Security Considerations ..................................... 8
7. IANA Considerations ......................................... 8
8. Conclusions ................................................. 8
9. References .................................................. 9
9.1. Normative References ................................... 9
9.2. Informative References ................................. 9
10. Acknowledgments ............................................ 9
Choi, Kim and Koh Expires March 24, 2011 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Network-based Mobility Control in LISP Network September
2010
1. Introduction
The Locator-Identifier Separation Protocol (LISP)[2] gives a lot of
scaling benefits by separating the current IP address spaces into
Endpoint Identifiers(EIDs) and Routing Locators (RLOCs), such as
reduction of routing tables size, more cost effective multi-homing,
and traffic engineering capabilities.
For mobility support, the LISP mobility architecture [3] is being
discussed, in which it is assumed that a LISP mobile node (MN)
implements the light-weight Tunnel Router (TR) functionality and
thus MN acts as Ingress TR (ITR) or Egress TR (ETR)in mobile
networks. In this LISP-MN architecture, a Map Server (MS) [4] is
used as an anchor point for MN to provide the scalability of control
plane, and the shortest path is used to minimize the latency of data
packet delivery [2].
However, this host-based mobility scheme tends to induce large
handover latency during handover, since MN acts as a TR and thus
obtains a new RLOC from the network. In this document, we propose a
network-based mobility scheme to support fast handover. In the
proposed scheme, a LISP TR is implemented at the first-hop access
router (AR) that MN is attached to, rather than MN. The proposed
network-based mobility scheme can reduce implementation overhead of
MN since MN has no the functionality of TR, and reduce the handover
latency of MN since the configuration of a new RLOC is omitted. All
the other functionalities follow the LISP-MN architecture[3].
2. Conventions used in this document
In examples, "C:" and "S:" indicate lines sent by the client and
server respectively.
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].
Choi, Kim and Koh Expires March 24, 2011 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Network-based Mobility Control in LISP Network September
2010
3. Network Models
Since TR's implemented location, the proposed scheme has a different
structure with the conventional method from network models.
+--+ /------------\ +--+ +------------+ +--+ /--------\ +----+
|CN|--| LISP |--|TR|--| Internet |--|AR|--|Wireless|--| MN |
| | |Site Network| | | |(Map Server)| | | | | |(TR)|
+--+ \------------/ +--+ +------------+ +--+ \--------/ +----+
Figure 1 Network Architecture
Figure 1 shows a simplified network model for host-based LISP
mobility control [3], in which correspondent node (CN) is in the
LISP site network, and MN is in the mobile network. Each TR may act
as ITR or ETR, and for simplicity it is assumed that the MS in
Internet also acts as LISP Map Server [4].
+--+ /------------\ +--+ +------------+ +----+ /--------\ +--+
|CN|--| LISP |--|TR|--| Internet |--| AR |--|Wireless|--|MN|
| | |Site Network| | | |(Map Server)| |(TR)| | | | |
+--+ \------------/ +--+ +------------+ +----+ \--------/ +--+
Figure 2 Network model for network-based LISP mobility control
Figure 2 shows a network model for the proposed network-based LISP
mobility control, in which TR of MN is deployed with the first-hop
AR that MN is attached to.
Choi, Kim and Koh Expires March 24, 2011 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Network-based Mobility Control in LISP Network September
2010
4. Data Delivery Operations
We compare data delivery operations of the two schemes, in which it
is assumed that CN first sends a data packet to MN.
CN TR Map AR MN/TR
(EID1) (RLOC1) Server (EID2&RLOC2)
| | | | Network |
| | | | Attachment & |
| | | | RLOC2 |
| | | | Configuration |
| | | | |
| | |<------- Map Register ------->|
| | | (EID2-RLOC2 Binding) |
| | | | |
|=Data Packet==>|-Map Request->|-----Map Request(with EID2)-->|
| (with EID2) | (with EID2) | | |
| | | | |
| |<------------Map Reply(with RLOC2)-----------|
| | | | |
| |=LISP Encapsulated Data Packet(EID2:RLOC2)==>|
| | | | |
|<==Data Packet=|<========LISP Encapsulated Data Packet=======|
| (EID1) | (EID1:RLOC1) |
| | | | |
Figure 3 Data delivery in host-based mobility control
Figure 3 shows the data delivery procedures of the existing host-
based scheme. If MN enters an AR region, it configures RLOC by using
the DHCP or address auto-configuration. Then, MN/TR binds its EID2
and RLOC2 to MS. When CN sends a data packet, its TR sends a Map
Request to MS, which is delivered to MN. The MN will respond with a
Map Reply to TR. After that, the data packets can be exchanged
between CN and MN using the LISP encapsulation at TR and MN.
Choi, Kim and Koh Expires March 24, 2011 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Network-based Mobility Control in LISP Network September
2010
CN TR Map AR/TR MN
(EID1) (RLOC1) Server (RLOC2) (EID2)
| | | | Network |
| | | |<--Attachment->|
| | | Map | |
| | |<--Register-->| |
| | |(EID2-RLOC2 Binding) |
| | | | |
|=Data Packet=>|-Map Request->|-Map Request->| |
| (with EID2) | (with EID2) | (with EID2) | |
| | | | |
| |<----Map Reply(with RLOC2)---| |
| | | | |
| |=====LISP Encapsulated =====>|==Data Packet=>|
| | Data Packet(EID2:RLOC2) | (with EID2) |
| | | | |
|<=Data Packet=|<=====LISP Encapsulated======|<=Data Packet==|
| (EID1) | Data Packet | (EID2) |
| | (EID1:RLOC1) | |
| | | | |
Figure 4 Data delivery in network-based mobility control
Figure 4 describes the data delivery procedures of the proposed
network-based scheme. Differently from the host-based scheme of
Figure 3, the TR functionality is performed by AR, not MN, and thus
the RLOC configuration is not required. The AR/TR will send the Map
Register to MS and the Reply to TR of CN, on behalf of MN. The LISP
data encapsulation will be also done at TR.
Choi, Kim and Koh Expires March 24, 2011 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Network-based Mobility Control in LISP Network September
2010
5. Handover Control Operations
We compare the handover control operations of the two schemes, in
which it is assumed that MN moves from ARold to ARnew region during
data transmissions with CN.
CN TR MN/TR
(EID1) (RLOC1) ARold ARnew (EID2&RLOC2/3)
| | | | |
|<=Data Packet=>|<======LISP Encapsulated Data Packet======>|
| (EID1:EID2) | (EID1:RLOC1&EID2:RLOC2) |
| | | | Network |
| | | |<-Atacchement->|
| | | | & RLOC3 |
| | | | Configuration |
| | | | |
| |<------Map Request (with EID2:RLOC3)-------|
| | | | |
| |-------Map Reply (for EID2:RLOC3)--------->|
| | | | |
|<=Data Packet=>|<======LISP Encapsulated Data Packet======>|
| (EID1:EID2) | (EID1:RLOC1&EID2:RLOC3) |
| | | | |
Figure 5 Handover in host-based mobility control
Figure 5 shows the handover procedures in the host-based scheme [3].
Before handover, MN/TR with EID2:RLOC2 is communicating to CN with
EID1:RLOC1. By handover to new AR region, MN/TR shall configure a
new RLOC3 address using DHCP or address auto-configuration scheme.
After that, the Map Request/Reply messages are exchanged to TR of CN
to update the modified RLOC3, which is based on [3].
Choi, Kim and Koh Expires March 24, 2011 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Network-based Mobility Control in LISP Network September
2010
CN TR AR/TRold AR/TRnew MN
(EID1) (RLOC1) (RLOC2) (RLOC3) (EID2)
| | | | |
| | LISP | | |
|<=Data Packet=>|<====Encapsulated=====>|<====Data Packet======>|
| (EID1:EID2) | Data Packet | (EID1:EID2) |
| |(EID1:RLOC1&EID2:RLOC2)| | |
| | | | |
| |<--Map Request (with EID2:RLOC3)--|<--Network->|
| | | | Attachment |
| | | | |
| |----Map Reply (for EID2:RLOC3)--->| |
| | | | Data |
|<=Data Packet=>|<=LISP Encapsulated Data Packet==>|<==Packet==>|
| (EID1:EID2) | (EID1:RLOC1&EID2:RLOC3) | (EID1:EID2)|
Figure 6 Handover in network-based mobility control
Figure 6 describes the handover in the proposed network-based scheme.
Differently from Figure 5 RLOC3 of ARnew is used and MN does not
need to configure the new RLOC. With network attachment, the Map
Request/Reply messages are exchanged between TR of CN and TR of MN
(ARnew) to update the modified RLOC3.
6. Security Considerations
TBD
7. IANA Considerations
TBD
8. Conclusions
This document proposed a LISP-based mobility control scheme in the
mobile networks. From the analysis and comparison of handover
latency for three candidate schemes, the following two points are
suggested in the LISP mobility architecture: 1) each LISP Tunnel
Router should be located with the first-hop 'access router' of
mobile nodes, rather than the mobile node, and 2) for handover
support, the RLOC update operation should be performed between
Ingress TR and Egress TR so as to provide the route optimization.
Choi, Kim and Koh Expires March 24, 2011 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Network-based Mobility Control in LISP Network September
2010
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.skr
9.2. Informative References
[2] D. Farinacci, V. Fuller, D. Oran, and D. Meyer, "Locator/ID
Separation Protocol (LISP)", Internet-Draft, April 2010.
[3] D. Farinacci, V. Fuller, D. Lewis, and D. Meyer, "LISP Mobile
Node", Internet Draft, February 2010.
[4] D. Fuller, and D. Farinacci, "LISP Map Server", Internet Draft,
April 2010.
[5] D. Johnson, C. Perkins, and K. Arkko, "Mobility support in
IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004.
[6] S. Gundavelli, K. Leung, V. Decarapalli, K. Chowdhury, and B.
Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 5213, August 2008.
[7] Ki Sik Kong, Youn Hee Han, Myung Ki Shin, and Heung Ryeol You,
"Mobility Management for All-IP Mobile Networks: Mobile IPv6
vs. Proxy Mobile IPv6", IEEE Wireless Communications, April
2008
[RFC 3775] D. Johnson, C. Perkins, and K. Arkko, "Mobility support in
IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004.
[RFC 5213] S. Gundavelli, K. Leung, V. Decarapalli, K. Chowdhury,
and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 5213, August 2008.
10. Acknowledgments
This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.
Choi, Kim and Koh Expires March 24, 2011 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Network-based Mobility Control in LISP Network September
2010
Authors' Addresses
SangIl Choi
Kyungpook National University, KOREA
Email: overcycos@gmail.com
SangTae Kim
Kyungpook National University, KOREA
Email: st.paul1978@gmail.com
SeokJoo Koh
Kyungpook National University, KOREA
Email: sjkoh@knu.ac.kr
Choi, Kim and Koh Expires March 24, 2011 [Page 10]