[Search] [txt|pdf|bibtex] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00                                                            
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       not be published except as an Internet-Draft.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]