Mobile Access Gateway (MAG) Multipath Options
RFC 8278

Document Type RFC - Proposed Standard (January 2018; No errata)
Last updated 2018-01-23
Replaces draft-seite-dmm-rg-multihoming
Stream IETF
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Reviews
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication
Document shepherd Jouni Korhonen
Shepherd write-up Show (last changed 2016-11-30)
IESG IESG state RFC 8278 (Proposed Standard)
Consensus Boilerplate Yes
Telechat date
Responsible AD Suresh Krishnan
Send notices to "Jouni Korhonen" <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
IANA IANA review state Version Changed - Review Needed
IANA action state RFC-Ed-Ack
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                          P. Seite
Request for Comments: 8278                                        Orange
Category: Standards Track                                       A. Yegin
ISSN: 2070-1721                                                 Actility
                                                           S. Gundavelli
                                                                   Cisco
                                                            January 2018

             Mobile Access Gateway (MAG) Multipath Options

Abstract

   This specification defines extensions to the Proxy Mobile IPv6
   (PMIPv6) protocol that allow a mobile access gateway (MAG) to
   register more than one proxy care-of address (pCoA) with the local
   mobility anchor (LMA) and to simultaneously establish multiple IP
   tunnels with the LMA.  This capability allows the MAG to utilize all
   the available access networks to route the mobile node's IP traffic.
   This document defines the following two new mobility header options:
   the MAG Multipath Binding option and the MAG Identifier option.

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 7841.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8278.

Seite, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 1]
RFC 8278              MAG Multipath Binding Options         January 2018

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 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
   (https://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.  Conventions and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  Example Call Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.2.  Traffic Distribution Schemes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.1.  MAG Multipath Binding Option  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.2.  MAG Identifier Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.3.  New Status Code for Proxy Binding Acknowledgement . . . .  11
     4.4.  Signaling Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15

Seite, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 2]
RFC 8278              MAG Multipath Binding Options         January 2018

1.  Introduction

   Multihoming support on IP hosts can greatly improve the user
   experience.  With the simultaneous use of multiple access networks,
   multihoming brings better network connectivity, reliability, and
   improved quality of communication.  The following are some of the
   goals and benefits of multihoming support:

   o  Redundancy/Fault-Recovery

   o  Load balancing

   o  Load sharing

   o  Preference settings

   According to [RFC4908], users of small-scale networks can benefit
   from a mobile and fixed multihomed architecture using mobile IP
   [RFC6275] and Network Mobility (NEMO) [RFC3963].

   The motivation for this work is to extend the PMIPv6 protocol with
   multihoming extensions [RFC4908] for realizing the following
   capabilities:

   o  Using GRE as mobile tunneling, possibly with its key extension
Show full document text