Network Working Group                                             F. Xia
Internet-Draft                                               B. Sarikaya
Intended status: Informational                                Huawei USA
Expires: September 5, 2009                                 March 4, 2009


Prefix Management for Mobile IPv6 Fast Handover on Point-to-Point Links
                     draft-xia-mipshop-fmip-ptp-03

Status of this Memo

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

   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 September 5, 2009.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2009 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



Xia & Sarikaya          Expires September 5, 2009               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft    Prefix Mgmt for FMIPv6 over P2P Links       March 2009


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















































Xia & Sarikaya          Expires September 5, 2009               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft    Prefix Mgmt for FMIPv6 over P2P Links       March 2009


Abstract

   The Mobile IPv6 Fast Handovers (FMIPv6) specification currently does
   not explicitly define prefix management over point-to-point links
   when a Mobile Node (MN) uses a prefix to formulate a new Care-of-
   Address (CoA).  In this document a mechanism is developed for
   assigning unique prefixes to the MN by the Previous Access Router
   (PAR).  The New Access Router (NAR) dynamically assigns a unique
   prefix called dedicated prefix to any MN that is performing a
   handover.  Both reactive and predictive modes of FMIPv6 are
   explained.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Problem Statement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   4.  Prefix Management on Point-to-Point Links  . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.1.  Predictive mode  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.2.  Reactive Mode  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   5.  HI and Hack Extension  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     5.1.  HI Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     5.2.  HAck Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     5.3.  Dedicated Prefix Option  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   7.  IANA consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   8.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   9.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     9.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     9.2.  Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   Appendix A.  Change Log  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13


















Xia & Sarikaya          Expires September 5, 2009               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft    Prefix Mgmt for FMIPv6 over P2P Links       March 2009


1.  Introduction

   Mobile IPv6 Fast Handovers (FMIPv6) [I-D.ietf-mipshop-rfc5268bis]
   aims at reducing the handover latency by reducing the time to
   configure a new care-of address (NCoA) for a MN.  In FMIPv6, the MN
   formulates a prospective NCoA when it is still present on the PAR's
   link.

   [RFC4968] provides different IPv6 link models that are suitable for
   802.16 based networks and provides analysis of various considerations
   for each link model and the applicability of each link model under
   different deployment scenarios.  [RFC5121] specifies the addressing
   and operation of IPv6 over the IPv6 specific part of the packet
   convergence sublayer of IEEE Std 802.16e [802.16e], and point-to-
   point link model is recommended.  Also, 3GPP and 3GPP2 have earlier
   adopted the point-to-point link model based on the recommendations in
   [RFC3314].

   In this document, we first explain the problems associated with
   FMIPv6 on point-to-point links followed by a detailed description of
   prefix management for FMIPv6 operation on point-to-point links.

   In Section 3 we describe why the point-to-point link address
   formation procedures are needed in FMIPv6, in Section 4 we define a
   procedure NAR can use to dynamically assign unique prefixes in point-
   to-point links and in Section 5 we define necessary messages/option
   for the operation in Section 4.


2.  Terminology

   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 [RFC2119].

   The terminology in this document is based on the definitions in
   [I-D.ietf-mipshop-rfc5268bis], in addition to the ones specified in
   this section.

   Point-to-Point Link Model:  In this model, a set of MAC transport
      connections between a MN and an AR are treated as a single link.
      Each link is allocated a separate, unique prefix or a set of
      unique prefixes by the AR.  Please refer to [RFC4968] for detail.
      In this model, a host's only neighbor is its default router.







Xia & Sarikaya          Expires September 5, 2009               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft    Prefix Mgmt for FMIPv6 over P2P Links       March 2009



   Dedicated Prefix:  A unique prefix used by a MN in point-to-point
      link model.



3.  Problem Statement

   The following are operations as per [I-D.ietf-mipshop-rfc5268bis]:
   o  Movement detection.  The protocol enables a MN to quickly detect
      that it has moved to a new subnet by providing the new access
      point and the associated subnet prefix information when the MN is
      still connected to its current subnet.  For instance, the MN may
      discover available access points using link-layer specific
      mechanisms (i.e., a "scan" in WLAN) and then request subnet
      information corresponding to one or more of those discovered
      access points.  A MN sends a Router Solicitation for Proxy
      Advertisement (RtSolPr) to its access router to resolve one or
      more Access Point Identifiers (AP-ID) to subnet-specific
      information.  In response, the access router sends a Proxy Router
      Advertisement (PrRtAdv) message containing one or more [AP-ID, AR-
      Info] tuples, which a MN can use in readily detecting movement:
      when attachment to an access point with AP-ID takes place, the MN
      knows the corresponding new router's coordinates including its
      prefix, IP address, and L2 address.
   o  NCoA configuration.  AR-Info contains an access router's L2 and IP
      addresses, and the prefix valid on the interface to which the
      Access Point (identified by AP-ID) is attached.  With the prefix
      provided in the PrRtAdv message, the MN formulates a prospective
      NCoA.

   In point-to-point link model, each MN has one or more dedicated
   prefixes, that is, different MNs have different prefixes.  The
   prefixes could be allocated dynamically.  When a MN attaches to an
   AR, the AR should delegate one or more dedicated prefixes for it;
   when the MN detaches from the AR, the MN's prefixes are released, and
   can be reused by other MNs.  The number of unique prefixes in this
   operation can be huge.

   NCoA formulation in point-to-point links requires a PAR to
   dynamically request a dedicated prefix from a NAR, and then advertise
   it to the MN through a Proxy Router Advertisement (PrRtAdv) message.
   [I-D.ietf-mipshop-rfc5268bis] does not specify such dependencies.

   After NCoA is formulated from a dedicated prefix, other operations
   such as proxying NCoA with proxy neighbor cache at the NAR and
   duplicate address detection need to be specified.




Xia & Sarikaya          Expires September 5, 2009               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft    Prefix Mgmt for FMIPv6 over P2P Links       March 2009


4.  Prefix Management on Point-to-Point Links

   The best solution to the problem described in the previous section is
   as follows: NARs assign a unique prefix to each MN that could
   handover under this NAR.  This prefix will be included in AR-Info.
   PAR sends this prefix in the PrRtAdv message to MN.  In the PrRtAdv
   message, A-bit and L-bit MUST be turned on.  MN creates its NCoA
   based on the prefix received in PrRtAdv message.

4.1.  Predictive mode

   New FMIPv6 message exchange is introduced for PAR to ask for MN's
   dedicated prefix as shown in Figure 1.  In
   [I-D.ietf-mipshop-rfc5268bis], HI is assumed to be sent after the FBU
   for handover indication.  Here, modified HI/Hack messages are used
   for prefix request/response.  Details are described in Section 5.

   NAR MAY use DHCP prefix delegation (PD) to request/ release prefixes
   from a DHCP server.  The DHCP messages are triggered by the HI for
   prefix request.  NAR MAY also use AAA prefix delegation (PD) to
   request/ release prefixes for this MN from an AAA server.  The
   mechanisms for NAR to acquire the prefixes are outside the scope of
   this document.

   Lifetime in Dedicated Prefix Option Figure 1 is used to prevent
   prefix depletion because of erroneous movement in which the mobile
   node receives a dedicated prefix prior to a handover that it is
   moving to a new access point but it either moves to a different one
   or it aborts movement altogether.  Not until timeout of the prefix
   does the NAR release it.





















Xia & Sarikaya          Expires September 5, 2009               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft    Prefix Mgmt for FMIPv6 over P2P Links       March 2009


     MN                    PAR                      NAR   DHCP/AAA
      |                     |                        |      Server
      |                     |                        |          |
      |------RtSolPr------->|                        |          |
      |                     |   HI(Prefix Request)   |          |
      |                     |----------------------->|Prefix    |
      |                     |                        |-Request->|
      |                     |                        |<-Reply---|
      |                     |  HAck(Prefix Response) |          |
      |                     |<-----------------------|          |
      |<-----PrRtAdv--------|                        |          |
      |                     |                        |No FBU    |
      |                     |                        |Release   |
      |                     |                        |Prefix    |
      |------FBU----------->|--------HI------------->|          |
      |                     |<------HAck-------------|          |
      |          <--FBack---|--FBack--->             |          |
    disconnect            forward                    |          |
      |                   packets===================>|          |
      |                     |                        |          |
      |                     |                        |          |
    connect                 |                        |          |
      |                     |                        |          |
      |--------- UNA ------------------------------->|          |
      |<=================================== deliver packets     |
      |                                              |          |


                        Figure 1: Prefix Signaling

   In some wireless networks, the handover control may reside in the
   network even though the decision to undergo handover may be mutually
   agreed between the MN and the network.  In such a case, the PAR can
   send an unsolicited PrRtAdv containing the link-layer address, IP
   address, and dedicated prefix of the mobile node when the network
   decides that a handover is imminent.  In this network-initiated
   handover scenario, there isn't explicit RtSolPr to trigger PAR to
   request a prefix and implementation specific trigger MUST be used by
   PAR to send HI message for prefix request.

4.2.  Reactive Mode

   In the reactive mode, there are two cases.  A MN receives PrRtAdv
   message or otherwise.
   o  The MN receives PrRtAdv message and formulates NCoA before
      attaching to the NAR.  The MN and the NAR operate in line with the
      procedure defined in [I-D.ietf-mipshop-rfc5268bis].




Xia & Sarikaya          Expires September 5, 2009               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft    Prefix Mgmt for FMIPv6 over P2P Links       March 2009


   o  The MN can't formulate NCoA before attaching to the NAR.  IP
      connectivity should be established first.  The MN can configure
      its IP address using stateless address configuration, or using
      stateful address configuration.  In the former case, the NAR
      SHOULD send un-solicited RA to expedite MN's address
      configuration.  Once NCoA formulation is finished, the MN operates
      according to [I-D.ietf-mipshop-rfc5268bis].

   In both cases, MN formulates NCoA from the dedicated prefix.  Since
   MN has already handed over to NAR this prefix is retained.


5.  HI and Hack Extension

5.1.  HI Extension

   The Handover Initiate (HI),defined in [I-D.ietf-mipshop-rfc5268bis],
   is a Mobility Header message sent by an Access Router (typically PAR)
   to another Access Router (typically NAR) to initiate the process of a
   MN's handover.

   In [I-D.ietf-mipshop-rfc5268bis], the PAR uses a Code value of 0 when
   it processes an FBU with PCoA as source IP address, while uses a Code
   value of 1 when it processes an FBU whose source IP address is not
   PCoA.  A new Code value of 2 is used for the dedicated prefix
   request.  Dedicated Prefix Option defined in Section 5.3 MAY be
   included.  NAR allocates dedicated prefix based on the prefix
   preference in the option.  If the option is not included, NAR
   allocates a prefix according to it's discretion.

5.2.  HAck Extension

   Handover Acknowledgment message defined in
   [I-D.ietf-mipshop-rfc5268bis] is a Mobility Header message that MUST
   be sent (typically by NAR to PAR) as a reply to the Handover Initiate
   message.  In this document, HAck is extended to respond to a
   dedicated prefix request.
   o  One new Code value is defined.  Here, a Code value of 6 is used
      for dedicated prefix response.
   o  Dedicated Prefix Option defined in Section 5.3 MUST be included
      for prefix delegation.

5.3.  Dedicated Prefix Option

   This option is of the form shown in Figure 2.






Xia & Sarikaya          Expires September 5, 2009               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft    Prefix Mgmt for FMIPv6 over P2P Links       March 2009


       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |      Type     |    Length     | Option-Code   | Prefix Length |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                        Lifetime                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      +                                                               +
      |                                                               |
      +                        Prefix                                 +
      |                                                               |
      +                                                               +
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


                     Figure 2: Dedicated Prefix Option



     Type       To be assigned by IANA

     Length     The length of the option in units of 8 octets.

     Prefix Length
                8-bit unsigned integer.  The number of leading bits
                in the Prefix that are valid.  The value ranges from 0
                to 128.

     Option-Code
                1    Dedicated Prefix

     Lifetime   32-bit unsigned integer.  The length of time in seconds
                (relative to the time the packet is sent).  A value of
                all one bits (0xffffffff) represents infinity.

     Prefix     An IP address or a prefix of an IP address. A MN uses it
                to formulate NCoA.



6.  Security Considerations

   Prefix management for FMIPv6 operation on point-to-point links
   introduces two messages (HI/Hack) for prefix request and response.
   These messages are secured using FMIPv6 security mechanisms and hence
   do not introduce any new security threats and the security provided



Xia & Sarikaya          Expires September 5, 2009               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft    Prefix Mgmt for FMIPv6 over P2P Links       March 2009


   by FMIPv6 applies completely.


7.  IANA consideration

   This document extends existing HI/HAck messages, new Code values need
   to be assigned by IANA.

   The document defines one new Mobility Option which needs type
   assignment from the Mobility Options Type registry at
   http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters:

   1.  Dedicated Prefix Option described in Section 5.3.


8.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Heejin Jang, Daniel Park, Vijay
   Devarapalli, Rajeev Koodli, and Spencer Dawkins for valuable
   comments.


9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

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

   [I-D.ietf-mipshop-rfc5268bis]
              Koodli, R., "Mobile IPv6 Fast Handovers",
              draft-ietf-mipshop-rfc5268bis-00 (work in progress),
              February 2009.

   [RFC5121]  Patil, B., Xia, F., Sarikaya, B., Choi, JH., and S.
              Madanapalli, "Transmission of IPv6 via the IPv6
              Convergence Sublayer over IEEE 802.16 Networks", RFC 5121,
              February 2008.

9.2.  Informative references

   [802.16e]  Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineer,
              "Amendment for Physical and Medium Access Control Layers
              for Combined Fixed and Mobile Operation in Licensed
              Bands",  IEEE 802.16e/D12.

   [RFC3314]  Wasserman, M., "Recommendations for IPv6 in Third
              Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Standards",



Xia & Sarikaya          Expires September 5, 2009              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft    Prefix Mgmt for FMIPv6 over P2P Links       March 2009


              RFC 3314, September 2002.

   [RFC4968]  Madanapalli, S., "Analysis of IPv6 Link Models for 802.16
              Based Networks", RFC 4968, August 2007.















































Xia & Sarikaya          Expires September 5, 2009              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft    Prefix Mgmt for FMIPv6 over P2P Links       March 2009


Appendix A.  Change Log

   o  v03 Dedicated Prefix Option made compatible with
      [I-D.ietf-mipshop-rfc5268bis].















































Xia & Sarikaya          Expires September 5, 2009              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft    Prefix Mgmt for FMIPv6 over P2P Links       March 2009


Authors' Addresses

   Frank Xia
   Huawei USA
   1700 Alma Dr. Suite 500
   Plano, TX  75075

   Phone: +1 972-509-5599
   Email: xiayangsong@huawei.com


   Behcet Sarikaya
   Huawei USA
   1700 Alma Dr. Suite 500
   Plano, TX  75075

   Phone: +1 972-509-5599
   Email: sarikaya@ieee.org

































Xia & Sarikaya          Expires September 5, 2009              [Page 13]