DMM WG                                                        JC. Zuniga
Internet-Draft                                              InterDigital
Intended status: Informational                             CJ. Bernardos
Expires: January 10, 2013                                           UC3M
                                                                T. Melia
                                                          Alcatel-Lucent
                                                            July 9, 2012


                     DMM Practices and Gap Analysis
                    draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis-00

Abstract

   This document describes practices for the deployment of existing
   mobility protocols in a distributed mobility management environment,
   and identifies the limitations in the current practices with respect
   to providing the expected functionality.

   The practices and gap analysis is performed for IP-based mobility
   protocols, dividing them into two main solution families: client- and
   network-based.

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 January 10, 2013.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 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



Zuniga, et al.          Expires January 10, 2013                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft              DMM Gap Analysis                   July 2012


   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.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Practices: deployment of existing solutions in a DMM
       environment  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.1.  Client-based mobility  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
       2.1.1.  Mobile IPv6 / NEMO B.S.  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
       2.1.2.  Mobile IPv6 Route Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       2.1.3.  Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       2.1.4.  Home Agent switch  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       2.1.5.  Flow Mobility  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       2.1.6.  Source Address selection API . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     2.2.  Network-based mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       2.2.1.  Proxy Mobile IPv6  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       2.2.2.  Local Routing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       2.2.3.  LMA runtime assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       2.2.4.  Source routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       2.2.5.  Multihoming in PMIPv6 (as per RFC 5213)  . . . . . . . 12
   3.  Gap Analysis: limitations in current practices . . . . . . . . 12
     3.1.  Client-based mobility  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       3.1.1.  REQ1: Distributed deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       3.1.2.  REQ2: Transparency to Upper Layers when needed . . . . 13
       3.1.3.  REQ3: IPv6 deployment  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       3.1.4.  REQ4: Compatibility  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       3.1.5.  REQ5: Existing mobility protocols  . . . . . . . . . . 13
       3.1.6.  REQ6: Security considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     3.2.  Network-based mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       3.2.1.  REQ1: Distributed deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       3.2.2.  REQ2: Transparency to Upper Layers when needed . . . . 13
       3.2.3.  REQ3: IPv6 deployment  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       3.2.4.  REQ4: Compatibility  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       3.2.5.  REQ5: Existing mobility protocols  . . . . . . . . . . 13
       3.2.6.  REQ6: Security considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   4.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   5.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   6.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     6.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     6.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   Appendix A.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16



Zuniga, et al.          Expires January 10, 2013                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft              DMM Gap Analysis                   July 2012


1.  Introduction

   The Distributed Mobility Management (DMM) approach aims at setting up
   IP networks so that traffic is distributed in an optimal way and does
   not rely on centrally deployed anchors to manage IP mobility
   sessions.

   A first step towards the definition of DMM solutions is the
   definition of the problem of distributed mobility management and the
   identification of the main requirements for a distributed mobility
   management solution [I-D.ietf-dmm-requirements], which are summarized
   below:

   o  REQ1: Distributed deployment.  IP mobility, network access and
      routing solutions provided by DMM must enable a distributed
      deployment of mobility management of IP sessions so that the
      traffic can be routed in an optimal manner without traversing
      centrally deployed mobility anchors.

   o  REQ2: Transparency to Upper Layers when needed.  The DMM solutions
      must provide transparency above the IP layer when needed.  Such
      transparency is needed, when the mobile hosts or entire mobile
      networks change their point of attachment to the Internet, for the
      application flows that cannot cope with a change of IP address.
      Otherwise the support to maintain a stable home IP address or
      prefix during handover may be declined.

   o  REQ3: IPv6 deployment.  The DMM solutions should target IPv6 as
      primary deployment and should not be tailored specifically to
      support IPv4, in particular in situations where private IPv4
      addresses and/or NATs are used.

   o  REQ4: Compatibility.  The DMM solution should be able to work
      between trusted administrative domains when allowed by the
      security measures deployed between these domains.  Furthermore,
      the DMM solution must be able to co-exist with existing network
      deployment and end hosts so that the existing deployment can
      continue to be supported.  For example, depending on the
      environment in which DMM is deployed, the DMM solutions may need
      to be compatible with other existing mobility protocols that are
      deployed in that environment or may need to be interoperable with
      the network or the mobile hosts/routers that do not support the
      DMM enabling protocol.

   o  REQ5: Existing mobility protocols.  A DMM solution should first
      consider reusing and extending the existing mobility protocols
      before specifying new protocols.




Zuniga, et al.          Expires January 10, 2013                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft              DMM Gap Analysis                   July 2012


   o  REQ6: Security considerations.  The protocol solutions for DMM
      must consider security, for example authentication and
      authorization mechanisms that allow a legitimate mobile host/
      router to access to the DMM service, protection of signaling
      messages of the protocol solutions in terms of authentication,
      data integrity, and data confidentiality, opti-in or opt-out data
      confidentiality to signaling messages depending on network
      environments or user requirements.

   We next first analyze existing practices of deployment of IP mobility
   solutions in a DMM environment [I-D.perkins-dmm-matrix],
   [I-D.patil-dmm-issues-and-approaches2dmm].  After that, a gap
   analysis is conducted, identifying what can be achieved with existing
   solutions and what is missing in order to meet the DMM requirements
   identified in [I-D.ietf-dmm-requirements].


2.  Practices: deployment of existing solutions in a DMM environment

   This section documents practices for the deployment of existing
   mobility protocols in a distributed mobility management (DMM)
   environment.  This analysis is limited in scope to existing IPv6-
   based mobility protocols, such as Mobile IPv6 [RFC6275], NEMO Basic
   Support Protocol [RFC3963], Proxy Mobile IPv6 [RFC5213], and their
   extensions, such as Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 [RFC5380], Mobile IPv6
   Fast Handovers [RFC5568] or Localized Routing for Proxy Mobile IPv6
   [I-D.ietf-netext-pmip-lr], among others.

   The section is divided in two parts: client-based and network-based
   mobility.

2.1.  Client-based mobility

   Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6) [RFC6275] and its extension to support mobile
   networks, the NEMO Basic Support protocol (NEMO B.S.) [RFC3963] are
   the main client-based IP mobility protocols.  They heavily rely on
   the figure of the Home Agent (HA), a centralized anchor, to provide
   mobile nodes (hosts and routers) with mobility support.  We next
   describe how Mobile IPv6/NEMO and several additional protocol
   extensions can be deployed to meet some of the DMM requirements
   [I-D.ietf-dmm-requirements].










Zuniga, et al.          Expires January 10, 2013                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft              DMM Gap Analysis                   July 2012


2.1.1.  Mobile IPv6 / NEMO B.S.

                    +-----+          +-----+
                    | CN1 |          | CN2 |
                    +-----+          +-----+
                       |                |
      +------------------------------------------------+
     (                                                  )
    (       -------                        -------       )
   (        | HA1 |     MN1 operator's     | HA2 |        )
    (       -------          core          -------       )
     (                                                  )
      +------------------------------------------------+
           /           |             |           \
          /            |             |            \
         /             |             |             \
        /              |             |              \
      -+-----       ---+---       - -+---       -----+-
      | AR1 |       | AR2 |       | AR3 |       | AR4 |
      ---+---       ---+---       ---+---       ---+---
         |             |             |             |
        (o)           (o)           (o)           (o)
                      x                           x
                     x                           x
                    x                           x
                  (o)                         (o)
                   |                           |
                +--+--+                     +--+--+
   ( anchored ) | MN1 |        ( anchored ) | MN2 |
   (  at HA1  ) +-----+        (  at HA2  ) +-----+

        Figure 1: Distributed operation of Mobile IPv6 / NEMO B.S.

   Due to the heavy dependance on the home agent role, Mobile IPv6 and
   NEMO B.S. plain vanilla protocols (i.e., without additional
   extensions) cannot be easily deployed in a distributed fashion.  One
   approach would be to deploy several HAs (like in Figure 1, and assign
   to each MN the one closest to its topological location [RFC4640],
   [RFC5026], [RFC6611].  In the example shown in Figure 1, MN1 is
   assigned HA1 (and a home address anchored by HA1), while MN2 is
   assigned HA2.  Note that current Mobile IPv6 / NEMO B.S.
   specifications do not allow the use of multiple home agents by a
   mobile node simultaneously, and therefore the benefits of this
   deployment model shown here are limited.  For example, if MN1 moves
   and attaches to AR4, the path followed by data packets would be
   suboptimal, as they have to traverse HA1, which is no longer close to
   the topological attachment point of MN1.




Zuniga, et al.          Expires January 10, 2013                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft              DMM Gap Analysis                   July 2012


2.1.2.  Mobile IPv6 Route Optimization

                    +-----+          +-----+
                    | CN1 |          | CN2 |
                    +-----+          +-----+
                       |                |
      +------------------------------------------------+
     (                                                  )
    (       -------                                      )
   (        | HA1 |     MN1 operator's                    )
    (       -------          core                        )
     (                                                  )
      +------------------------------------------------+
           /           |
          /            |
         /             |
        /              |
      -+-----       ---+---
      | AR1 |       | AR2 |
      ---+---       ---+---
         |             |
        (o)           (o)
                      x
                     x    MN1      AR2      HA1      CN1      CN2
                    x      |        |        |        |        |
                  (o)      |<-------+---------------->|        | RO mode
                   |       |        |        |        |        |
                +--+--+    |<=======+=======>|<--------------->| BT mode
                | MN1 |    |        |        |        |        |
                +-----+

                 Figure 2: Mobile IPv6 Route Optimization

   One of the main goals of DMM is to avoid the suboptimal routing
   caused by centralized anchoring.  By default, Mobile IPv6 (and NEMO
   B.S.) uses the so-called Bidirectional Tunnel (BT) mode, in which
   data traffic is always encapsulated between the MN and its HA.
   Mobile IPv6 also specifies the Route Optimization (RO) mode, which
   allows the MN to update its current location on the CNs, and then use
   the direct path between them An example is shown in Figure 2, in
   which MN1 is using BT mode with CN2 and RO mode with CN1.  Note that
   this RO mode has several drawbacks:

   o  The RO mode is only supported by Mobile IPv6.  There is no route
      optimization support standardized for the NEMO B. S. protocol,
      although there are many different solution proposed, mainly as
      academic exercises.




Zuniga, et al.          Expires January 10, 2013                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft              DMM Gap Analysis                   July 2012


   o  The RO mode requires additional signaling, which adds some
      protocol overhead.

   o  The signaling required to enable RO involves the home agent, and
      it is repeated periodically because of security reasons [RFC4225].
      This basically means that the HA remains as single point of
      failure, because the Mobile IPv6 RO mode does not mean HA-less
      operation.

   o  The RO mode requires additional support on the correspondent node
      (CN).








































Zuniga, et al.          Expires January 10, 2013                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft              DMM Gap Analysis                   July 2012


2.1.3.  Hierarchical Mobile IPv6

                    +-----+          +-----+
                    | CN1 |          | CN2 |
                    +-----+          +-----+
                       |                |
      +------------------------------------------------+
     (                                                  )
    (       -------                                      )
   (        | HA1 |     MN1 operator's                    )
    (       -------          core                        )
     (                                                  )
      +------------------------------------------------+
            /                |              \
           /                 |               \
          /                  |                \
         /                   |                 \
      --+-----            ---+----           +--+----
      | MAP1 |            | MAP2 |           | MAP3 |
      ---+----            ---+----           ---+----
        / \                 / \                / \
       /   \               /   \              /   \
      /     \             /     \            /     \
   --+--   --+--       --+--   --+--      --+--   --+--
   |AR1|   |AR2|       |AR3|   |AR4|      |AR5|   |AR6|
   -----   -----       -----   -----      -----   -----
             |
            (o)
              x
               x        MN1    AR2    MAP1    HA1    CN1    CN2
                x        |      |      |       |      |      |
                (o)      |<=====+======+======>+----->|      |
                 |       |      |      |       |      |      |
              +--+--+    |<=====+=====>+<------------------->|
              | MN1 |    |      |      |       |      |      |
              +-----+

                 Figure 3: Mobile IPv6 Route Optimization

   Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 (HMIPv6) [RFC5380] allows reducing the
   amount of mobility signaling as well as the overall handover
   performance of Mobile IPv6, by introducing a new hierarchy level to
   handle local mobility.  The Mobility Anchor Point (MAP) entity is
   introduced as a local mobility handling node deployed closer to the
   mobile node.

   When HMIPv6 is used, the MN two different temporal addresses: the
   Regional Care-of Address (RCoA) and the Local Care-of Address (LCoA).



Zuniga, et al.          Expires January 10, 2013                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft              DMM Gap Analysis                   July 2012


   The RCoA is anchored at one MAP, that plays the role of local home
   agent, while the LCoA is anchored at the access router level.  The
   mobile node used the RCoA as the CoA signaled to its home agent.
   Therefore, while roaming within a local domain handled by the same
   MAP, the mobile node does not need to update its home agent (i.e.,
   the mobile node does not change RCoA).

   The use of HMIPv6 allows some certain route optimization, as a mobile
   node may decide to directly use the RCoA as source address for a
   communication with a given correspondent node, if the MN does not
   expect to move outside the local domain during the lifetime of the
   communication.  This can be seen as a potential DMM mode of
   operation.  In the example shown in Figure 3, MN1 is using its global
   HoA to communicate with CN1, while it is using its RCoA to
   communicate with CN2.

   Additionally, a local domain might have several MAPs deployed,
   enabling different kind of HMIPv6 deployments (e.g., flat and
   distributed).  HMIPv6 specification supports a flexible selection of
   the MAP (e.g., based on the distance between the MN and the MAP,
   taking into consideration the expected mobility pattern of the MN,
   etc.).

2.1.4.  Home Agent switch

   The Home Agent switch specification [RFC5142] defines a new mobility
   header for signaling a mobile node that it should acquire a new home
   agent.  Although the purposes of this specification do not include
   the case of changing the mobile node's home address, as that might
   imply loss of connectivity for ongoing connections, it could be used
   to force the change of home agent in those situations where there are
   no active sessions running that cannot cope themselves with a change
   of home addresss.

2.1.5.  Flow Mobility

   There exist different protocols meant to support flow mobility with
   Mobile IPv6, namely the multiple care-of address registration
   [RFC5648], the flow bindings in Mobile IPv6 and NEMO B.S. [RFC6089]
   and the traffic selectors for flow bindings [RFC6088].  The use of
   these extensions allows a mobile node to associate different flows
   with different care-of addresses that the mobile owns at a given
   time.  This could also be used, combined with the route optimization
   support, to improve the paths followed by data packets.







Zuniga, et al.          Expires January 10, 2013                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft              DMM Gap Analysis                   July 2012


2.1.6.  Source Address selection API

   The IPv6 socekt API for source address selection [RFC5014], [RFC3484]
   can be used by an application running on a mobile node to express its
   preference of using a home address or a care-of address in a given
   connection.  This allows, for example, that an application which can
   survive an IP address change to always prefer the use of a care-of
   address.  Similarly, and as mentioned in [RFC6275], a mobile node can
   also prefer the use of a care-of address for sessions that are going
   to finish before the mobile node hands off to a different attachment
   point (e.g., short-lived connections like DNS dialogs).

2.2.  Network-based mobility

   Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) [RFC5213] and GPRS Tunneling Protocol
   (GTP) [3GPP.29.060] are the main network-based IP mobility protocols.
   PMIPv6 relies on the figure of the Local Mobility Anchor (LMA) to
   provide mobile nodes with mobility support, without requiring the
   involvement of the mobile nodes, and supplying the required
   functionality by the Mobile Access Gateway (MAG).  We next describe
   how PMIPv6 and several additional protocol extensions can be deployed
   to meet some of the DMM requirements [I-D.ietf-dmm-requirements].





























Zuniga, et al.          Expires January 10, 2013               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft              DMM Gap Analysis                   July 2012


2.2.1.  Proxy Mobile IPv6

                    +-----+          +-----+
                    | CN1 |          | CN2 |
                    +-----+          +-----+
                       |                |
      +------------------------------------------------+
     (                                                  )
    (      --------                        --------      )
   (       | LMA1 |     MN1 operator's     | LMA2 |       )
    (      --------         core           --------      )
     (                                                  )
      +------------------------------------------------+
           /           |             |           \
          /            |             |            \
         /             |             |             \
        /              |             |              \
     --+-----      ----+---       ---+----      -----+--
     | MAG1 |      | MAG2 |       | MAG3 |      | MAG4 |
     ---+----      ----+---       ---+----      ---+----
        |              |             |             |
       (o)            (o)           (o)           (o)
                      x                           x
                     x                           x
                    x                           x
                  (o)                         (o)
                   |                           |
                +--+--+                     +--+--+
   ( anchored ) | MN1 |        ( anchored ) | MN2 |
   (  at LMA1 ) +-----+        (  at LMA2 ) +-----+

           Figure 4: Distributed operation of Proxy Mobile IPv6

   As with Mobile IPv6, plain Proxy Mobile IPv6 operation cannot be
   easily decentralized.  One simple, but still suboptimal, approach
   would be to deploy several local mobility anchors and use a
   topological position based assignment to attaching mobile nodes (an
   example is shown in Figure 4.  This assignment can be static or
   dynamic (as described in Section 2.2.3.  The main advantage of this
   simple approach is that the IP address anchor (i.e., the LMA) is
   placed close to the mobile node, and therefore resulting paths are
   close-to-optimal.  On the other hand, as soon as the mobile node
   moves, the resulting path starts to deviate from the optimal one,
   unless an inter-LMA mobility protocol is in place (which is missing
   today).






Zuniga, et al.          Expires January 10, 2013               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft              DMM Gap Analysis                   July 2012


2.2.2.  Local Routing

   [I-D.ietf-netext-pmip-lr] enables optimal routing in Proxy Mobile
   IPv6 in three cases: two MNs attached to the same MAG and LMA, two
   MNs attached to different MAGs but same LMA and two MNs attached to
   the same MAG with different LMAs.  In these three cases, data traffic
   between two mobile nodes does not traverse the LMA(s), thus providing
   some form of distribution, since the traffic is locally router at the
   edge.

   The main disadvantade of this approach is that it only tackles the
   MN-to-MN communication scenario, and only under certain
   circumstances.

2.2.3.  LMA runtime assignment

   [RFC6463] specifies a runtime local mobility anchor assignment
   functionality and corresponding mobility options for Proxy Mobile
   IPv6.  This runtime local mobility anchor assignment takes place
   during a Proxy Binding Update and a Proxy Binding Acknowledgment
   message exchange between a mobile access gateway and a local mobility
   anchor.  While this mechanism mainly aims for load-balancing
   purposes, it can also be used to select an optimal LMA from a point
   of view of routing.  If properly complemented by an inter-LMA
   mobility protocol, it could also be used as part of a global DMM
   solution.  Even without that solution, a runtime LMA assignment can
   be used to change the assigned LMA of an MN, for example when no
   session is alive (or when those running can survive an IP address
   change).

2.2.4.  Source routing

   TBD.

2.2.5.  Multihoming in PMIPv6 (as per RFC 5213)

   TBD.


3.  Gap Analysis: limitations in current practices

   This section identifies the limitations in the current practices
   (documented in Section 2) with respect to the requirements listed in
   [I-D.ietf-dmm-requirements].

   The section is also divided in two parts: client-based and network-
   based mobility.  Each section analyzes how well the requirements
   listed in [I-D.ietf-dmm-requirements] are covered/met by the current



Zuniga, et al.          Expires January 10, 2013               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft              DMM Gap Analysis                   July 2012


   practices, highlighting existing limitations and gaps.

   The remaining of this section will be provided in a future version of
   this document.

3.1.  Client-based mobility

3.1.1.  REQ1: Distributed deployment

3.1.2.  REQ2: Transparency to Upper Layers when needed

3.1.3.  REQ3: IPv6 deployment

3.1.4.  REQ4: Compatibility

3.1.5.  REQ5: Existing mobility protocols

3.1.6.  REQ6: Security considerations

3.2.  Network-based mobility

3.2.1.  REQ1: Distributed deployment

3.2.2.  REQ2: Transparency to Upper Layers when needed

3.2.3.  REQ3: IPv6 deployment

3.2.4.  REQ4: Compatibility

3.2.5.  REQ5: Existing mobility protocols

3.2.6.  REQ6: Security considerations


4.  IANA Considerations

   No IANA considerations.


5.  Security Considerations

   TBD.


6.  References






Zuniga, et al.          Expires January 10, 2013               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft              DMM Gap Analysis                   July 2012


6.1.  Normative References

   [RFC3484]  Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet
              Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484, February 2003.

   [RFC3963]  Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., and P.
              Thubert, "Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol",
              RFC 3963, January 2005.

   [RFC5026]  Giaretta, G., Kempf, J., and V. Devarapalli, "Mobile IPv6
              Bootstrapping in Split Scenario", RFC 5026, October 2007.

   [RFC5142]  Haley, B., Devarapalli, V., Deng, H., and J. Kempf,
              "Mobility Header Home Agent Switch Message", RFC 5142,
              January 2008.

   [RFC5213]  Gundavelli, S., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V., Chowdhury, K.,
              and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 5213, August 2008.

   [RFC5380]  Soliman, H., Castelluccia, C., ElMalki, K., and L.
              Bellier, "Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 (HMIPv6) Mobility
              Management", RFC 5380, October 2008.

   [RFC5568]  Koodli, R., "Mobile IPv6 Fast Handovers", RFC 5568,
              July 2009.

   [RFC5648]  Wakikawa, R., Devarapalli, V., Tsirtsis, G., Ernst, T.,
              and K. Nagami, "Multiple Care-of Addresses Registration",
              RFC 5648, October 2009.

   [RFC6088]  Tsirtsis, G., Giarreta, G., Soliman, H., and N. Montavont,
              "Traffic Selectors for Flow Bindings", RFC 6088,
              January 2011.

   [RFC6089]  Tsirtsis, G., Soliman, H., Montavont, N., Giaretta, G.,
              and K. Kuladinithi, "Flow Bindings in Mobile IPv6 and
              Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support", RFC 6089,
              January 2011.

   [RFC6275]  Perkins, C., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support
              in IPv6", RFC 6275, July 2011.

   [RFC6463]  Korhonen, J., Gundavelli, S., Yokota, H., and X. Cui,
              "Runtime Local Mobility Anchor (LMA) Assignment Support
              for Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 6463, February 2012.

   [RFC6611]  Chowdhury, K. and A. Yegin, "Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6)
              Bootstrapping for the Integrated Scenario", RFC 6611,



Zuniga, et al.          Expires January 10, 2013               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft              DMM Gap Analysis                   July 2012


              May 2012.

6.2.  Informative References

   [3GPP.29.060]
              3GPP, "General Packet Radio Service (GPRS); GPRS
              Tunnelling Protocol (GTP) across the Gn and Gp interface",
              3GPP TS 29.060 3.19.0, March 2004.

   [I-D.ietf-dmm-requirements]
              Chan, A., "Requirements of distributed mobility
              management", draft-ietf-dmm-requirements-00 (work in
              progress), July 2012.

   [I-D.ietf-netext-pmip-lr]
              Krishnan, S., Koodli, R., Loureiro, P., Wu, W., and A.
              Dutta, "Localized Routing for Proxy Mobile IPv6",
              draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr-10 (work in progress), May 2012.

   [I-D.patil-dmm-issues-and-approaches2dmm]
              Patil, B., Williams, C., and J. Korhonen, "Approaches to
              Distributed mobility management using Mobile IPv6 and its
              extensions", draft-patil-dmm-issues-and-approaches2dmm-00
              (work in progress), March 2012.

   [I-D.perkins-dmm-matrix]
              Perkins, C., Liu, D., and W. Luo, "DMM Comparison Matrix",
              draft-perkins-dmm-matrix-03 (work in progress),
              March 2012.

   [RFC4225]  Nikander, P., Arkko, J., Aura, T., Montenegro, G., and E.
              Nordmark, "Mobile IP Version 6 Route Optimization Security
              Design Background", RFC 4225, December 2005.

   [RFC4640]  Patel, A. and G. Giaretta, "Problem Statement for
              bootstrapping Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6)", RFC 4640,
              September 2006.

   [RFC5014]  Nordmark, E., Chakrabarti, S., and J. Laganier, "IPv6
              Socket API for Source Address Selection", RFC 5014,
              September 2007.


Appendix A.  Acknowledgments

   The work of Carlos J. Bernardos and Telemaco Melia has been partially
   supported by the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme
   (FP7-ICT-2009-5) under grant agreement n. 258053 (MEDIEVAL project).



Zuniga, et al.          Expires January 10, 2013               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft              DMM Gap Analysis                   July 2012


   The work of Carlos J. Bernardos has also been partially supported by
   the Ministry of Science and Innovation of Spain under the QUARTET
   project (TIN2009-13992-C02-01).


Authors' Addresses

   Juan Carlos Zuniga
   InterDigital Communications, LLC
   1000 Sherbrooke Street West, 10th floor
   Montreal, Quebec  H3A 3G4
   Canada

   Email: JuanCarlos.Zuniga@InterDigital.com
   URI:   http://www.InterDigital.com/


   Carlos J. Bernardos
   Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
   Av. Universidad, 30
   Leganes, Madrid  28911
   Spain

   Phone: +34 91624 6236
   Email: cjbc@it.uc3m.es
   URI:   http://www.it.uc3m.es/cjbc/


   Telemaco Melia
   Alcatel-Lucent Bell Labs
   Route de Villejust
   Nozay, Ile de France  91620
   France

   Email: telemaco.melia@alcatel-lucent.com
















Zuniga, et al.          Expires January 10, 2013               [Page 16]