Proxy Mobile IPv6 Extensions to Support Flow Mobility
RFC 7864
| Document | Type |
RFC
- Proposed Standard
(May 2016)
Updates RFC 5213
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Carlos J. Bernardos | ||
| Last updated | 2018-12-20 | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | Basavaraj Patil | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show Last changed 2016-02-11 | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 7864 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | Brian Haberman | ||
| Send notices to | (None) | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | IANA OK - Actions Needed | |
| IANA action state | RFC-Ed-Ack |
RFC 7864
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) CJ. Bernardos, Ed.
Request for Comments: 7864 UC3M
Updates: 5213 May 2016
Category: Standards Track
ISSN: 2070-1721
Proxy Mobile IPv6 Extensions to Support Flow Mobility
Abstract
Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) allows a mobile node to connect to the
same PMIPv6 domain through different interfaces. This document
describes extensions to the PMIPv6 protocol that are required to
support network-based flow mobility over multiple physical
interfaces.
This document updates RFC 5213. The extensions described in this
document consist of the operations performed by the local mobility
anchor and the mobile access gateway to manage the prefixes assigned
to the different interfaces of the mobile node, as well as how the
forwarding policies are handled by the network to ensure consistent
flow mobility management.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7864.
Bernardos Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 7864 PMIPv6 Flow Mobility May 2016
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
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. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Overview of the PMIPv6 Flow Mobility Extensions . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Use Case Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Basic Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.1. MN Sharing a Common Set of Prefixes on All MAGs . . . 6
3.2.2. MN with Different Sets of Prefixes on Each MAG . . . 9
3.3. Use of PBU/PBA Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.4. Use of Flow-Level Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4. Message Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1. Home Network Prefix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.2. Flow Mobility Initiate (FMI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.3. Flow Mobility Acknowledgement (FMA) . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5. Conceptual Data Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.1. Multiple Proxy Care-of Address Registration . . . . . . . 14
5.2. Flow Mobility Cache (FMC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. Mobile Node Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Bernardos Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 7864 PMIPv6 Flow Mobility May 2016
1. Introduction
Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6), specified in [RFC5213], provides network-
based mobility management to hosts connecting to a PMIPv6 domain.
PMIPv6 introduces two new functional entities, the Local Mobility
Anchor (LMA) and the Mobile Access Gateway (MAG). The MAG is the
entity detecting the Mobile Node's (MN's) attachment and providing IP
connectivity. The LMA is the entity assigning one or more Home
Network Prefixes (HNPs) to the MN and is the topological anchor for
all traffic belonging to the MN.
PMIPv6 allows an MN to connect to the same PMIPv6 domain through
different interfaces. This document specifies protocol extensions to
Proxy Mobile IPv6 between the LMA and MAGs to enable "flow mobility"
and, hence, distribute specific traffic flows on different physical
interfaces. It is assumed that the MN IP-layer interface can
simultaneously and/or sequentially attach to multiple MAGs, possibly
over multiple media. One form to achieve this multiple attachment is
described in [RFC7847], which allows the MN supporting traffic flows
on different physical interfaces, regardless of the assigned prefixes
on those physical interfaces. Another alternative is to configure
the IP stack of the MN to behave according to the Weak ES Model
(commonly referred to as the weak host model) [RFC1122].
In particular, this document specifies how to enable "flow mobility"
in the PMIPv6 network (i.e., LMAs and MAGs). In order to do so, two
main operations are required: i) proper prefix management by the
PMIPv6 network and ii) consistent flow forwarding policies. This
memo analyzes different potential use case scenarios, involving
different prefix assignment requirements and, therefore, different
PMIPv6 network extensions to enable "flow mobility".
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
The following terms used in this document are defined in the Proxy
Mobile IPv6 [RFC5213]:
o Local Mobility Anchor (LMA)
o Mobile Access Gateway (MAG)
o Proxy Mobile IPv6 Domain (PMIPv6-Domain)
Bernardos Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 7864 PMIPv6 Flow Mobility May 2016
o LMA Address (LMAA)
o Proxy Care-of Address (Proxy-CoA)
o Home Network Prefix (HNP)
The following terms used in this document are defined in the Multiple
Care-of Addresses Registration [RFC5648] and Flow Bindings in Mobile
IPv6 and Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support [RFC6089]:
o Binding Identification (BID) Number
o Flow Identifier (FID)
o Traffic Selector (TS)
The following terms are defined and used in this document:
o Flow Mobility Initiate (FMI): Message sent by the LMA to the MAG
conveying the information required to enable flow mobility in a
PMIPv6-Domain.
o Flow Mobility Acknowledgement (FMA): Message sent by the MAG in
reply to an FMI message.
o Flow Mobility Cache (FMC): Conceptual data structure to support
the flow mobility management operations described in this
document.
3. Overview of the PMIPv6 Flow Mobility Extensions
3.1. Use Case Scenarios
In contrast to a typical handover where connectivity to a physical
medium is relinquished and then re-established, flow mobility assumes
that an MN can have simultaneous access to more than one network. In
this specification, it is assumed that the LMA is aware of the MN's
ability to have simultaneous access to both access networks and the
ability to handle the same or a different set of prefixes on each
access. How this is done is outside the scope of this specification.
There are different flow mobility scenarios. In some of them, the MN
might share a common set of prefixes among all its physical
interfaces; in others, the MN might have a different subset of
prefixes configured on each of the physical interfaces. The
different scenarios are the following:
Bernardos Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 7864 PMIPv6 Flow Mobility May 2016
1. At the time of a new network attachment, the MN obtains the same
prefix or the same set of prefixes as already assigned to an
existing session. This is not the default behavior with basic
PMIPv6 [RFC5213], and the LMA needs to be able to provide the
same assignment even for the simultaneous attachment (as opposed
to the handover scenario only).
2. At the time of a new network attachment, the MN obtains a new
prefix or a new set of prefixes for the new session. This is the
default behavior with basic PMIPv6 [RFC5213].
A combination of the two above-mentioned scenarios is also possible.
At the time of a new network attachment, the MN obtains a combination
of prefix(es) in use and new prefix(es). This is a hybrid of the two
scenarios described before. The local policy determines whether the
new prefix is exclusive to the new attachment or can be assigned to
an existing attachment as well.
The operational description of how to enable flow mobility in each of
these scenarios is provided in Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2.
The extensions described in this document support all the
aforementioned scenarios.
3.2. Basic Operation
This section describes how the PMIPv6 extensions described in this
document enable flow mobility support.
Both the MN and the LMA MUST have local policies in place to ensure
that packets are forwarded coherently for unidirectional and
bidirectional communications. The details about how this consistency
is ensured are out of the scope of this document. Either the MN or
the LMA can initiate IP flow mobility. If the MN makes the flow
mobility decision, then the LMA follows that decision and updates its
forwarding state accordingly. The network can also trigger mobility
on the MN side via out-of-band mechanisms (e.g., 3GPP / Access
Network Discovery and Selection Function (ANDSF) sends updated
routing policies to the MN). In a given scenario and MN, the
decision on IP flow mobility MUST be taken either by the MN or the
LMA, but it MUST NOT be taken by both.
Bernardos Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 7864 PMIPv6 Flow Mobility May 2016
3.2.1. MN Sharing a Common Set of Prefixes on All MAGs
This scenario corresponds to the first use case scenario described in
Section 3.1. Extensions to basic PMIPv6 [RFC5213] signaling at the
time of a new attachment are needed to ensure that the same prefix
(or set of prefixes) is assigned to all the interfaces of the same MN
that are simultaneously attached. Subsequently, no further signaling
is necessary between the local mobility anchor and the MAG, and flows
are forwarded according to policy rules on the LMA and the MN.
If the LMA assigns a common prefix (or set of prefixes) to the
different physical interfaces attached to the domain, then every MAG
already has all the routing knowledge required to forward uplink or
downlink packets after the Proxy Binding Update / Proxy Binding
Acknowledgement (PBU/PBA) registration for each MAG, and the LMA does
not need to send any kind of signaling in order to move flows across
the different physical interfaces (because moving flows is a local
decision of the LMA). Optionally, signaling MAY be exchanged in case
the MAG needs to know about flow-level information (e.g., to link
flows with proper QoS paths and/or inform the MN [RFC7222]).
The LMA needs to know when to assign the same set of prefixes to all
the different physical interfaces of the MN. This can be achieved by
different means, such as policy configuration, default policies, etc.
In this document, a new Handoff Indicator (HI) ("Attachment over a
new interface sharing prefixes" (6) value) is defined that allows the
MAG to indicate to the LMA that the same set of prefixes MUST be
assigned to the MN. The considerations of Section 5.4.1 of [RFC5213]
are updated by this specification as follows:
o If there is at least one Home Network Prefix Option present in the
request with a NON_ZERO prefix value, there exists a Binding Cache
Entry (BCE) (with all HNPs in the BCE matching the prefix values
of all Home Network Prefix Options of the received Proxy Binding
Update message), and the entry matches the MN identifier in the
Mobile Node Identifier Option of the received Proxy Binding Update
message, and the value of the HI of the received Proxy Binding
Update is equal to "Attachment over a new interface sharing
prefixes".
1. If there is a Mobile Node Link-layer Identifier Option present
in the request, and the BCE matches the Access Technology Type
(ATT) and the MN-LL-Identifier, then the request MUST be
considered as a request for updating that BCE.
Bernardos Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 7864 PMIPv6 Flow Mobility May 2016
2. If there is a Mobile Node Link-layer Identifier Option present
in the request, and the BCE does not match the Access
Technology Type (ATT) and the MN-LL-Identifier, then the
request MUST be considered as a request for creating a new
mobility session sharing the same set of HNPs assigned to the
existing BCE found.
3. If there is not a Mobile Node Link-layer Identifier Option
present in the request, then the request MUST be considered as
a request for creating a new mobility session sharing the same
set of HNPs assigned to the existing BCE found.
LMA Binding Cache
+---+ ========================
|LMA| MN1, ATT1, pref1, MAG1
+---+ MN1, ATT2, pref1, MAG2
//\\
+---------//--\\-------------+
( // \\ ) PMIPv6 domain
( // \\ )
+------//--------\\----------+
// \\
// \\
+----+ +----+
|MAG1| |MAG2|
+----+ +----+
| |
| +-------+ |
| | I P | |
| +---+---+ |
|---|if1|if2|----|
+---+---+
MN1
Figure 1: Shared Prefix Across Physical Interfaces Scenario
Next, an example of how flow mobility works in this case is shown.
In Figure 1, a mobile node (MN1) has two different physical
interfaces (if1 of access technology type ATT1, and if2 of access
technology type ATT2). Each physical interface is attached to a
different MAG, both of them controlled by the same LMA. Both
physical interfaces are assigned the same prefix (pref1) upon
attachment to the MAGs. If the IP layer at the MN shows one single
logical interface (e.g., as described in [RFC7847]), then the mobile
node has one single IPv6 address configured at the IP layer:
pref1::mn1. Otherwise, per interface IPv6 addresses (e.g.,
pref1::if1 and pref1::if2) would be configured; each address MUST be
valid on every interface. We assume the first case in the following
Bernardos Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 7864 PMIPv6 Flow Mobility May 2016
example (and in the rest of this document). Initially, flow X goes
through MAG1 and flow Y through MAG2. At a certain point, flow Y can
be moved to also go through MAG1. Figure 2 shows the scenario in
which no flow-level information needs to be exchanged, so there is no
signaling between the LMA and the MAGs.
Note that if different IPv6 addresses are configured at the IP layer,
IP-session continuity is still possible (for each of the configured
IP addresses). This is achieved by the network delivering packets
destined to a particular IP address of the MN to the right of MN's
physical interface where the flow is selected to be moved, and the MN
also selecting the same interface when sending traffic back uplink.
+-----+ +------+ +------+ +-----+
Internet | LMA | | MAG1 | | MAG2 | | MN1 |
+-----+ +------+ +------+ +-----+
| | | | |
| flow X to | flow X to | flow X to |
| pref1::mn1 | pref1::mn1 | pref1::mn1 |
|<----------->|<------------->|<-------------------------->if1
| flow Y to | flow Y to | flow Y to |
| pref1::mn1 | pref1::mn1 | pref1::mn1 |
|<----------->|<----------------------------->|<---------->if2
| | | | |
| ============ | | ============
| || flow || | | || flow ||
| || policy || | | || policy ||
| || update || | | || update ||
| ============ | | ============
| | | | |
| flow Y to | flow Y to | flow Y to |
| pref1::mn1 | pref1::mn1 | pref1::mn1 |
|<----------->|<------------->|<-------------------------->if1
| | | | |
Figure 2: Flow Mobility Message Sequence with a Common Set of
Prefixes
Figure 3 shows the state of the different network entities after
moving flow Y in the previous example. This document reuses some of
the terminology and mechanisms of the flow bindings and multiple
care-of address registration specifications. Note that, in this case
the BIDs shown in the figure are assigned locally by the LMA, since
there is no signaling required in this scenario. In any case,
alternative implementations of flow routing at the LMA MAY be used,
as it does not impact the operation of the solution in this case.
Bernardos Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 7864 PMIPv6 Flow Mobility May 2016
LMA Binding Cache LMA flowmob state
(BID, MN-ID, ATT, HNP, PCoA) (BID, TS)
+---+ =========================== ===================
|LMA| 1, MN1, ATT1, pref1, MAG1 1, flow X
+---+ 2, MN1, ATT2, pref1, MAG2 1, flow Y
//\\
+---------//--\\-------------+
( // \\ ) PMIPv6 domain
( // \\ )
+------//--------\\----------+
// \\
// \\ MAG1 routing state
+----+ +----+ ================================
|MAG1| |MAG2| (dest) (next hop)
+----+ +----+ pref1::/64 p2p-iface-with-MN1
| | ::/0 LMA
| |
| | MAG2 routing state
| +-------+ | ================================
| | I P | | (dest) (next hop)
| +---+---+ | pref1::/64 p2p-iface-with-MN1
|---|if1|if2|----| ::/0 LMA
+---+---+
MN1
Figure 3: Data Structures with a Common Set of Prefixes
3.2.2. MN with Different Sets of Prefixes on Each MAG
A different flow mobility scenario happens when the LMA assigns
different sets of prefixes to physical interfaces of the same mobile
node. This covers the second case, or a combination of scenarios,
described in Section 3.1. In this case, additional signaling is
required between the LMA and the MAG to enable relocating flows
between the different attachments, so the MAGs are aware of the
prefixes for which the MN is going to receive traffic, and local
routing entries are configured accordingly.
In this case, signaling is required when a flow is to be moved from
its original interface to a new one. Since the LMA cannot send a PBA
message that has not been triggered in response to a received PBU
message, the solution defined in this specification makes use of two
mobility messages: FMI and FMA, which actually use the format of the
Update Notifications for PMIPv6 defined in [RFC7077]. The trigger
for the flow movement can be on the MN (e.g., by using layer-2
signaling with the MAG), or on the network (e.g., based on congestion
and measurements), which then notifies the MN for the final IP flow
mobility decision (as stated in Section 3.1). Policy management
Bernardos Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 7864 PMIPv6 Flow Mobility May 2016
functions (e.g., 3GPP/ANDSF) can be used for that purpose; however,
how the network notifies the MN is out of the scope of this document.
If the flow is being moved from its default path (which is determined
by the destination prefix) to a different one, the LMA constructs a
FMI message. This message includes a Home Network Prefix Option for
each of the prefixes that are requested to be provided with flow
mobility support on the new MAG (note that these prefixes are not
anchored by the target MAG, and therefore the MAG MUST NOT advertise
them on the MAG-MN link), with the off-link bit (L) set to one. This
message MUST be sent to the new target MAG, i.e., the one selected to
be used in the forwarding of the flow. The MAG replies with an FMA.
The message sequence is shown in Figure 4.
+-----+ +------+ +------+ +-----+
Internet | LMA | | MAG1 | | MAG2 | | MN1 |
+-----+ +------+ +------+ +-----+
| | | | |
| flow X to | flow X to | flow X to |
| pref1::mn1 | pref1::mn1 | pref1::mn1 |
|<----------->|<------------->|<-------------------------->if1
| flow Y to | flow Y to | flow Y to |
| pref2::mn1 | pref2::mn1 | pref2::mn1 |
|<----------->|<----------------------------->|<---------->if2
| | | | |
| ============ | | ============
| || flow || | | || flow ||
| || policy || | | || policy ||
| || update || | | || update ||
| ============ | | ============
| | | | |
| | FMI[MN1-ID, HNPs] | |
| |-------------->| | |
| | FMA | | |
| |<--------------| | |
| flow Y to | flow Y to | flow Y to |
| pref2::mn1 | pref2::mn1 | pref2::mn1 |
|<----------->|<------------->|<-------------------------->if1
| | | | |
Figure 4: Flow Mobility Message Sequence When the LMA Assigns
Different Sets of Prefixes per Physical Interface
Bernardos Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 7864 PMIPv6 Flow Mobility May 2016
The state in the network after moving a flow, in the case where the
LMA assigns a different set of prefixes is shown in Figure 5.
LMA Binding Cache LMA flowmob state
(BID, MN-ID, ATT, HNP, PCoA) (BID, TS)
+---+ ============================ ===================
|LMA| 1, MN1, ATT1, pref1, 1, flow X
+---+ pref2, MAG1 1, flow Y
//\\ 2, MN1, ATT2, pref2, MAG2
+---------//--\\-------------+
( // \\ ) PMIPv6 domain
( // \\ )
+------//--------\\----------+
// \\
// \\ MAG1 routing state
+----+ +----+ ================================
|MAG1| |MAG2| (dest) (next hop)
+----+ +----+ pref1::/64 p2p-iface-with-MN1
| | pref2::/64 p2p-iface-with-MN1
| | ::/0 LMA
| |
| +-------+ | MAG2 routing state
| | I P | | ================================
| +---+---+ | (dest) (next hop)
|---|if1|if2|----| pref2::/64 p2p-iface-with-MN1
+---+---+ ::/0 LMA
MN1
Figure 5: Data Structures When the LMA Assigns a Different Set of
Prefixes
3.3. Use of PBU/PBA Signaling
This specification introduces the FMI/FMA signaling, which allows the
LMA to exchange required information with the MAG to enable flow
mobility without waiting to receive a PBU. However, there are
scenarios in which the trigger for flow mobility might be related to
a new MN's interface attachment. In this case, the PBA sent in
response to the PBU received from the new MAG can convey the same
signaling that the FMI does. In this case, the LMA MUST include a
Home Network Prefix Option in the PBA for each of the prefixes that
are requested to be provided with flow mobility support on the new
MAG with the off-link bit (L) set to one.
Bernardos Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 7864 PMIPv6 Flow Mobility May 2016
3.4. Use of Flow-Level Information
This specification does not mandate flow-level information to be
exchanged between the LMA and the MAG to provide flow mobility
support. It only requires that the LMA keeps a flow-level state
(Section 5.2). However, there are scenarios in which the MAG might
need to know which flow(s) is/are coming within a prefix that has
been moved, to link it/them to the proper QoS path(s) and optionally,
inform the MN about it. This section describes the extensions used
to include flow-level information in the signaling defined between
the LMA and the MAG.
This specification reuses some of the mobility extensions and message
formats defined in [RFC5648] and [RFC6089], namely the Flow
Identification Mobility Option and the Flow Mobility Sub-Options.
If the LMA wants to convey flow-level information to the MAG, it MUST
include in the FMI (or the PBA) a Flow Identification Mobility Option
for all the flows that the MAG needs to be aware of with flow
granularity. Each Flow Identification Mobility Option MUST include a
Traffic Selector Sub-Option including such flow-level information.
To remove a flow-binding state at the MAG, the LMA simply sends an
FMI (or a PBA, if it is in response to a PBU) message that includes
flow identification options for all the flows that need to be
refreshed, modified, or added, and simply omits those that need to be
removed.
Note that even if a common set of prefixes is used, providing the MAG
with flow-level information requires signaling to be exchanged, in
this case between the LMA and the MAG. This is done by sending an
FMI message (or a PBA, if it is sent in response to a PBU).
4. Message Formats
This section defines modifications to the PMIPv6 [RFC5213] protocol
messages.
This specification requires implementation of Update Notification
(UPN) [RFC7077] and Update Notification Ack (UPA) [RFC7077] messages
with the specific Notification Reason and Status Code values as
defined by this document. This document does not require
implementation of any other aspects of [RFC7077].
Bernardos Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 7864 PMIPv6 Flow Mobility May 2016
4.1. Home Network Prefix
A new flag (L) is included in the Home Network Prefix Option to
indicate to the MAG whether the conveyed prefix has to be hosted on-
link or not on the point-to-point interface with the MN. A prefix is
hosted off-link for the flow mobility purposes defined in this
document. The rest of the Home Network Prefix Option format remains
the same as defined in [RFC5213].
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 |L| Reserved | Prefix Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ Home Network Prefix +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Off-link Home Network Prefix Flag (L):
The Off-link Home Network Prefix Flag is set to indicate to the
MAG that the HNP conveyed in the option is not to be hosted on-
link, but has to be considered for flow mobility purposes, and
therefore added to the MAG routing table. If the flag is set to
0, the MAG assumes that the HNP has to be hosted on-link.
4.2. Flow Mobility Initiate (FMI)
The FMI message used in this specification is the UPN message
specified in [RFC7077]. The message format, transport, and security
considerations are as specified in [RFC7077]. The format of the
message is specified in Section 4.1 of [RFC7077]. This specification
does not modify the UPN message; however, it defines the following
new notification reason value for use in this specification:
Notification Reason:
FLOW-MOBILITY (8). Request to add/refresh the prefix(es) conveyed
in the Home Network Prefix Options included in the message to the
set of prefixes for which flow mobility is provided.
Bernardos Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 7864 PMIPv6 Flow Mobility May 2016
The Mobility Options field of an FMI MUST contain the MN-ID, followed
by one or more Home Network Prefix Options. Prefixes for which flow
mobility was provided that are not present in the message MUST be
removed from the set of flow mobility-enabled prefixes.
4.3. Flow Mobility Acknowledgement (FMA)
The FMA message used in this specification is the UPA message
specified in Section 4.2 of [RFC7077]. The message format,
transport, and security considerations are as specified in [RFC7077].
The format of the message is specified in Section 4.2 of [RFC7077].
This specification does not modify the UPA message, however, it
defines the following new status code values for use in this
specification:
Status Code:
0: Success
131: Reason unspecified
132: MN not attached
When the Status code is 0, the Mobility Options field of an FMA MUST
contain the MN-ID, followed by one or more Home Network Prefix
Options.
5. Conceptual Data Structures
This section summarizes the extensions to PMIPv6 that are necessary
to manage flow mobility.
5.1. Multiple Proxy Care-of Address Registration
The binding cache structure of the LMA is extended to allow multiple
proxy care-of address (Proxy-CoA) registrations, and support the
mobile node using the same address (prefix) beyond a single interface
and MAG. The LMA maintains multiple BCEs for an MN. The number of
BCEs for an MN is equal to the number of the MN's interfaces attached
to any MAGs.
This specification reuses the extensions defined in [RFC5648] to
manage multiple registrations, but in the context of PMIPv6. The
binding cache is therefore extended to include more than one proxy
care-of address and to associate each of them with a BID. Note that
the BID is a local identifier, assigned and used by the local
mobility anchor to identify which entry of the FMC is used to decide
how to route a given flow.
Bernardos Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 7864 PMIPv6 Flow Mobility May 2016
+---------+-----+-------+------+-----------+------------+
| BID-PRI | BID | MN-ID | ATT | HNP(s) | Proxy-CoA |
+---------+-----+-------+------+-----------+------------+
| 20 | 1 | MN1 | WiFi | HNP1,HNP2 | IP1 (MAG1) |
| 30 | 2 | MN1 | 3GPP | HNP1,HNP3 | IP2 (MAG2) |
+---------+-----+-------+------+-----------+------------+
Figure 6: Extended Binding Cache
Figure 6 shows an example of an extended binding cache, containing
two BCEs of a mobile node MN1 attached to the network using two
different access technologies. Both of the attachments share the
same prefix (HNP1), but they are bound to two different Proxy-CoAs
(two MAGs).
5.2. Flow Mobility Cache (FMC)
Each LMA MUST maintain an FMC as shown in Figure 7. The FMC is a
conceptual list of entries that is separate from the binding cache.
This conceptual list contains an entry for each of the registered
flows. This specification reuses the format of the flow-binding list
defined in [RFC6089]. Each entry includes the following fields:
o Flow Identifier Priority (FID-PRI)
o Flow Identifier (FID)
o Traffic Selector (TS)
o Binding Identification (BID)
o Action
o Active/Inactive
+---------+-----+-----+------+---------+----------+
| FID-PRI | FID | TS | BIDs | Action | A/I |
+---------+-----+-----+------+---------+----------+
| 10 | 2 | TCP | 1 | Forward | Active |
| 20 | 4 | UDP | 1,2 | Forward | Inactive |
+---------+-----+-----+------+---------+----------+
Figure 7: Flow Mobility Cache
The BID field contains the identifier of the BCE to which the packets
matching the flow information described in the TS field will be
forwarded. When it is decided that a flow is to be moved, the
affected BID(s) of the table are updated.
Bernardos Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 7864 PMIPv6 Flow Mobility May 2016
Similar to the flow binding described in [RFC6089], each entry of the
FMC points to a specific BID. When a flow is moved, the LMA simply
updates the pointer of the flow-binding entry with the BID of the
interface to which the flow will be moved. The TS in the flow-
binding table is defined in [RFC6088]. TS is used to classify the
packets of flows based on specific parameters such as service type,
source, and destination address, etc. The packets matching with the
same TS will be applied the same forwarding policy. FID-PRI is the
order of precedence to take action on the traffic. The action may be
to forward or drop. If a binding entry becomes "Inactive", it does
not affect data traffic. An entry becomes "Inactive" only if all of
the BIDs are de-registered.
The MAG MAY also maintain a similar data structure. In case no full
flow mobility state is required at the MAG, the Binding Update List
(BUL) data structure is enough: no extra conceptual data entries are
needed. If full per-flow state is required at the MAG, it SHOULD
also maintain an FMC structure.
6. Mobile Node Considerations
This specification assumes that the mobile node IP-layer interface
can simultaneously and/or sequentially attach to multiple MAGs,
possibly over multiple media. The MN MUST be able to enforce uplink
policies to select the right outgoing interface. One alternative to
achieve this multiple attachment is described in [RFC7847], which
allows the MN supporting traffic flows on different physical
interfaces, regardless of the assigned prefixes on those physical
interfaces. Another alternative is configuring the IP stack of the
MN to behave according to the weak host model [RFC1122].
7. IANA Considerations
This specification establishes new assignments to the IANA mobility
parameters registry:
o Handoff Indicator Option type: "Attachment over a new interface
sharing prefixes" has been assigned the value 6 from the "Handoff
Indicator Option type values" registry defined in
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters>.
o Update Notification Reason: "FLOW-MOBILITY" has been assigned the
value 8 from the "Update Notification Reasons Registry" defined in
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters>.
Bernardos Standards Track [Page 16]
RFC 7864 PMIPv6 Flow Mobility May 2016
o Update Notification Acknowledgement Status: "Reason unspecified"
has been assigned the value 131 and "MN not attached" has been
assigned the value 132 from the "Update Notification
Acknowledgement Status Registry".
8. Security Considerations
The protocol-signaling extensions defined in this document share the
same security concerns of Proxy Mobile IPv6 [RFC5213] and do not pose
any additional security threats to those already identified in
[RFC5213] and [RFC7077].
The MAG and the LMA MUST use the IPsec security mechanism mandated by
Proxy Mobile IPv6 [RFC5213] to secure the signaling described in this
document.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC6088] Tsirtsis, G., Giarreta, G., Soliman, H., and N. Montavont,
"Traffic Selectors for Flow Bindings", RFC 6088,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6088, January 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6088>.
[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,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6089, January 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6089>.
Bernardos Standards Track [Page 17]
RFC 7864 PMIPv6 Flow Mobility May 2016
[RFC7077] Krishnan, S., Gundavelli, S., Liebsch, M., Yokota, H., and
J. Korhonen, "Update Notifications for Proxy Mobile IPv6",
RFC 7077, DOI 10.17487/RFC7077, November 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7077>.
9.2. Informative References
[RFC1122] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1122, October 1989,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1122>.
[RFC7222] Liebsch, M., Seite, P., Yokota, H., Korhonen, J., and S.
Gundavelli, "Quality-of-Service Option for Proxy Mobile
IPv6", RFC 7222, DOI 10.17487/RFC7222, May 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7222>.
[RFC7847] Melia, T., Ed. and S. Gundavelli, Ed., "Logical-Interface
Support for IP Hosts with Multi-Access Support", RFC 7847,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7847, May 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7847>.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Vijay Devarapalli, Mohana
Dahamayanthi Jeyatharan, Kent Leung, Bruno Mongazon-Cazavet, Chan-Wah
Ng, Behcet Sarikaya, and Tran Minh Trung for their valuable
contributions, which helped generate this document.
The authors would also like to thank Juan-Carlos Zuniga, Pierrick
Seite, and Julien Laganier for all the useful discussions on this
topic.
Finally, the authors would like to thank Marco Liebsch, Juan-Carlos
Zuniga, Dirk von Hugo, Fabio Giust, and Daniel Corujo for their
reviews of this document.
The work of Carlos J. Bernardos has been partially performed in the
framework of the H2020-ICT-2014-2 project 5G NORMA.
Bernardos Standards Track [Page 18]
RFC 7864 PMIPv6 Flow Mobility May 2016
Contributors
This document reflects contributions from the following authors (in
alphabetical order).
Kuntal Chowdhury
Email: kc@altiostar.com
Sri Gundavelli
Email: sgundave@cisco.com
Youn-Hee Han
Email: yhhan@kut.ac.kr
Yong-Geun Hong
Email: yonggeun.hong@gmail.com
Rajeev Koodli
Email: rajeevkoodli@google.com
Telemaco Melia
Email: telemaco.melia@googlemail.com
Frank Xia
Email: xiayangsong@huawei.com
Author's Address
Carlos J. Bernardos (editor)
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/
Bernardos Standards Track [Page 19]