DMM Working Group Z. Yan
Internet-Draft CNNIC
Intended status: Standards Track J. Lee
Expires: June 24, 2017 Sangmyung University
December 21, 2016
Mobility Ability Negotiation
draft-yan-dmm-man-00
Abstract
Based on IPv6, multiple mobility management protocols have been
developed and generally they can be classified into two types:
network-based and host-based. Different protocols have different
functional requirements on the network element or the terminal and
then a scheme should be used in order to support the negotiation and
selection of adopted mobility management protocol when a terminal
accesses to a new network. In this draft, this issue is considered
and analyzed.
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 June 24, 2017.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 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
Yan & Lee Expires June 24, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MAN December 2016
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Possible solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction
As the Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6) [RFC6275] protocol standardization suite,
there are multiple extension protocols have been standardized. These
protocols can be classified into two types: protocols for the
function extension and protocols for the performance enhancement.
The protocols for the function extension is proposed to support some
specific scenarios or functions, such as: Dual-stack Mobile IPv6
(DSMIPv6) [RFC5555] for mobility of the dual-stack nodes, Multiple
Care-of-address (MCoA) [RFC5648] for mobile nodes of multi-interface
and Network Mobility (NEMO) [RFC3963] for mobility of sub-network.
The other type is proposed to enhance the performance of the mobility
management, such as Fast Mobile IPv6 (FMIP6) [RFC5268] for fast
handover, Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 (HMIPv6) [RFC5380] for
hierarchical mobility optimization. MIPv6 and these extensions are
called host-based mobility management protocols because the location
update is initiated by the terminal and the tunnel is terminated at
the terminal.
In order to reduce the protocol cost and enhance the handover
performance further, the network-based mobility management schemes
were proposed and Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) [RFC5213] was
standardized as a basis. Based on PMIPv6, a series of its extensions
were proposed, such as Dual-stack Proxy Mobile IPv6 (DS-PMIPv6)
[RFC5844], Distributed Mobility Management Proxy Mobile IPv6 (DMM-
PMIPv6) [RFC7333] and so on. Be different from the host-based
schemes, the location update in PMIPv6 is triggered by the network
entity and the tunnel is established between network entities. And
the terminal needs to do nothing about the signaling exchange during
the movement, particularly, the mobility is transparent to the IP
layer of the terminal.
Yan & Lee Expires June 24, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MAN December 2016
In reality, these protocols will be co-existing and multiple protocol
daemons will be configured on the network entities or terminal. That
means a scheme is needed to support the negotiation and selection of
mobility management protocol when the terminal accesses into a new
network initially or handover happens.
This document tries to analyze this problem with the possible
scenarios should be supported by the further solution.
2. Motivation
As illustrated above, these protocols may co-exist in reality and
simultaneously used in an access network or even the same entity.
Due to their different requirements on the network entity or
terminal, a scheme is needed to support the negotiation and selection
of adopted mobility management protocol when the terminal accesses to
a new network.
Generally, two problems should be solved:
o Which entity (network or terminal) will initiate the protocol
negotiation and selection?
o What principles should be followed for the protocol negotiation
and selection?
This scheme is needed because different entity and terminal will have
different abilities and preferences (may be decided by the ability
and mobility pattern of the mobile node). This scheme can guarantee
that the optimum and most suitable protocol will be used.
3. Scenarios
In order to illustrate the necessity of the mobility ability
negotiation and protocol selection, the following scenarios are taken
as typical examples:
1) Network supports MIPv6, host supports only PMIPv6
In this case, the network supports only host-based scheme, while the
host does not have any mobility management function. Then only the
PMIPv6 can be used to support the mobility management of the host,
but the network does not deploy the PMIPv6 protocols and this will
cause the mobility failure because no available protocol can be used.
2) Network supports both MIPv6 and PMIPv6, host supports only PMIPv6
In this case, the network deploys both host-based and network-based
schemes, while the host supports only PMIPv6. When the host accesses
Yan & Lee Expires June 24, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MAN December 2016
to the network, PMIPv6 will be used. Actually, PMIPv6 should be
adopted as a default mobility management scheme considering its
optimized performance. Once the PMIPv6 can be supported by the
network, it will be adopted as the default scheme.
3) Network supports both MIPv6 and PMIPv6, host supports MIPv6
In this case, the network deploys both host-based and network-based
schemes, and the host also supports MIPv6. Because PMIPv6 has no
requirement on the host, both PMIPv6 and MIPv6 can be used in this
case. Then the host can use PMIPv6 as default, and use MIPv6 for the
global mobility.
4) Network and host support all the extention protocols
In this case, the network has deployed multiple extensions to support
more complex requirements, so does the host. And then the host and
network can negotiate a protocol for the optimized performance or
special requirement, for example, FMIPv6 may be selected in order to
support fast handover, HMIPv6 may be selected in order to reduce the
signaling cost, NEMO may be selected in order to support the subnet
mobility.
4. Possible solutions
Two different schemes may be used for the protocol negotiation and
selection: MN-initiated and Network-initiated. Within the MIP/PMIP
protocols, the priority of the function-extension protocols should be
higher than the performance-enhancement protocols. Generally, the
following principles and general procedure may be followed:
o During initiation, PMIPv6 may be used as a default mobility
management protocol once the network supports it.
o If the host prefers host-based scheme, a negotiation is executed
to handover from PMIPv6 to MIPv6 style.
o After initial attachment, a profile will be generated in the
management store to record the selected protocol of this host.
o When the handover happens, the network will check the selected
protocol during the authentication process. But the network also
needs to notify the host if the selected protocol cannot be
supported herein.
In order to fulfill the above principles, some extensions should be
supported, for example:
1) Extended negotiation messages
Yan & Lee Expires June 24, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MAN December 2016
In order to negotiate the mobility management protocol between host
and network, a new signaling message or an extended message (e.g.,
ICMPv6, Diameter, and RADIUS) should be used. Except these, some
other protocols may also be used in some specified scenarios, such as
extended IEEE 802.21 primitives.
2) Extended management store
When the terminal accesses to the network, an authentication should
be executed before the mobility management service is provided. In
order to support the mobility management protocol selection, a new
information should be recorded by the network after the successful
authentication during the initial attachment. The newly introduced
information shows the selected mobility management protocol and
should be updated when the used protocol changes.
5. Security Considerations
Generally, this function will not incur additional security issues.
The detailed influence should be analyzed in the future.
6. IANA Considerations
A new ICMP option or authentication option or other signaling message
may be used with a new code number.
7. References
[RFC3963] Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., and P.
Thubert, "Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol",
RFC 3963, DOI 10.17487/RFC3963, January 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3963>.
[RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., Ed., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V.,
Chowdhury, K., and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6",
RFC 5213, DOI 10.17487/RFC5213, August 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5213>.
[RFC5268] Koodli, R., Ed., "Mobile IPv6 Fast Handovers", RFC 5268,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5268, June 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5268>.
[RFC5380] Soliman, H., Castelluccia, C., ElMalki, K., and L.
Bellier, "Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 (HMIPv6) Mobility
Management", RFC 5380, DOI 10.17487/RFC5380, October 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5380>.
Yan & Lee Expires June 24, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MAN December 2016
[RFC5555] Soliman, H., Ed., "Mobile IPv6 Support for Dual Stack
Hosts and Routers", RFC 5555, DOI 10.17487/RFC5555, June
2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5555>.
[RFC5648] Wakikawa, R., Ed., Devarapalli, V., Tsirtsis, G., Ernst,
T., and K. Nagami, "Multiple Care-of Addresses
Registration", RFC 5648, DOI 10.17487/RFC5648, October
2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5648>.
[RFC5844] Wakikawa, R. and S. Gundavelli, "IPv4 Support for Proxy
Mobile IPv6", RFC 5844, DOI 10.17487/RFC5844, May 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5844>.
[RFC6275] Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility
Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, DOI 10.17487/RFC6275, July
2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6275>.
[RFC7333] Chan, H., Ed., Liu, D., Seite, P., Yokota, H., and J.
Korhonen, "Requirements for Distributed Mobility
Management", RFC 7333, DOI 10.17487/RFC7333, August 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7333>.
Authors' Addresses
Zhiwei Yan
CNNIC
No.4 South 4th Street, Zhongguancun
Beijing 100190
China
Email: yan@cnnic.cn
Jong-Hyouk Lee
Sangmyung University
31, Sangmyeongdae-gil, Dongnam-gu
Cheonan
Republic of Korea
Email: jonghyouk@smu.ac.kr
Yan & Lee Expires June 24, 2017 [Page 6]