draft-ietf-dmm-mag-multihoming-04.txt		draft-ietf-dmm-mag-multihoming-05.txt
	DMM WG P. Seite		DMM WG P. Seite
	Internet-Draft Orange		Internet-Draft Orange
	Intended status: Standards Track A. Yegin		Intended status: Standards Track A. Yegin
	Expires: January 1, 2018 Actility		Expires: March 10, 2018 Actility
	S. Gundavelli		S. Gundavelli
	Cisco		Cisco
	June 30, 2017		September 6, 2017
	MAG Multipath Binding Option		MAG Multipath Binding Option
	draft-ietf-dmm-mag-multihoming-04.txt		draft-ietf-dmm-mag-multihoming-05.txt
	Abstract		Abstract
	This specification defines extensions to the Proxy Mobile IPv6		This specification defines extensions to the Proxy Mobile IPv6
	protocol for allowing a mobile access gateway to register more than		protocol for allowing a mobile access gateway to register more than
	one proxy care-of-address with the local mobility anchor and to		one proxy care-of-address with the local mobility anchor and to
	simultaneously establish multiple IP tunnels with the local mobility		simultaneously establish multiple IP tunnels with the local mobility
	anchor. This capability allows the mobile access gateway to utilize		anchor. This capability allows the mobile access gateway to utilize
	all the available access networks for routing mobile node's IP		all the available access networks for routing mobile node's IP
	traffic.		traffic.
	skipping to change at page 1, line 39 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 39 ¶
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on January 1, 2018.		This Internet-Draft will expire on March 10, 2018.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	skipping to change at page 2, line 18 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 18 ¶
	described in the Simplified BSD License.		described in the Simplified BSD License.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2. Conventions and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		2. Conventions and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	2.1. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		2.1. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	2.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		2.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	3.1. Example Call Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		3.1. Example Call Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	3.2. Traffic distribution schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		3.2. Traffic distribution schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	4. Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		4. Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	4.1. MAG Multipath-Binding Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		4.1. MAG Multipath-Binding Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	4.2. MAG Identifier Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		4.2. MAG Identifier Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	4.3. New Status Code for Proxy Binding Acknowledgement . . . . 10		4.3. New Status Code for Proxy Binding Acknowledgement . . . . 11
	5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		4.4. Signaling Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
			Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	Multihoming support on IP hosts can greatly improve the user		Multihoming support on IP hosts can greatly improve the user
	experience. With the simultaneoous use of multiple access networks,		experience. With the simultaneoous use of multiple access networks,
	multihoming brings better network connectivity, reliability and		multihoming brings better network connectivity, reliability and
	improved quality of communication. Following are some of the goals		improved quality of communication. Following are some of the goals
	and benefits of multihoming support:		and benefits of multihoming support:
	o Redundancy/Fault-Recovery		o Redundancy/Fault-Recovery
	skipping to change at page 4, line 27 ¶		skipping to change at page 4, line 27 ¶
	| | +=====+ \ +=====+ _----_		| | +=====+ \ +=====+ _----_
	| '-| | \ | | _( )_		| '-| | \ | | _( )_
	'---| MAG | | LMA |-( Internet )--		'---| MAG | | LMA |-( Internet )--
	.---| | | | (_ _)		.---| | | | (_ _)
	| .-| | / | | '----'		| .-| | / | | '----'
	| | +=====+ / +=====+		| | +=====+ / +=====+
	| | | _----_ /		| | | _----_ /
	| | | CoA-2 _( )_ Tunnel-2 /		| | | CoA-2 _( )_ Tunnel-2 /
	| | .---=======( WLAN )========/ Flow-2		| | .---=======( WLAN )========/ Flow-2
	| | (_ _) Flow-3		| | (_ _) Flow-3
	| | '----' Flow-4		| | '----'
	|Flow-3		|Flow-3
	|		|
	Flow0-4		Flow0-4
	Figure 1: Multihomed MAG using Proxy Mobile IPv6		Figure 1: Multihomed MAG using Proxy Mobile IPv6
	The current version of Proxy Mobile IPv6 does not allow a MAG to		The current version of Proxy Mobile IPv6 does not allow a MAG to
	register more than one proxy Care-of-Adresse to the LMA. In other		register more than one proxy Care-of-Adresse to the LMA. In other
	words, only one MAG/LMA link, i.e. IP-in-IP tunnel, can be used at		words, only one MAG/LMA link, i.e. IP-in-IP tunnel, can be used at
	the same time. This document overcomes this limitation by defining		the same time. This document overcomes this limitation by defining
	skipping to change at page 5, line 35 ¶		skipping to change at page 5, line 35 ¶
	The MAG in this example scenario is equipped with both WLAN and LTE		The MAG in this example scenario is equipped with both WLAN and LTE
	interfaces and is also configured with the multihoming functionality.		interfaces and is also configured with the multihoming functionality.
	The steps of the callflow are as follows:		The steps of the callflow are as follows:
	Steps (1) and (2): the MAG attaches to both WLAN and LTE networks;		Steps (1) and (2): the MAG attaches to both WLAN and LTE networks;
	the MAG obtains respectively two different proxy care-of-addresses		the MAG obtains respectively two different proxy care-of-addresses
	(pCoA).		(pCoA).
	Step (3): The MAG sends, over the WLAN access, a Proxy Binding Update		Step (3): The MAG sends, over the WLAN access, a Proxy Binding Update
	(PBU) message, with the new MAG Multipath Binding (MMB) and MAG		(PBU) message, with the new MAG Multipath Binding (MMB) and MAG
	Identifier (MAG-NAI) options to the LMA. A logical-NAI (MAG-NAI)		Identifier (MAG-NAI) options to the LMA. The request can be for a
	with ALWAYS-ON configuration is enabled on the MAG. The mobility		physical mobile node attached to the MAG, or for a logical mobile
			node configured on the mobile node. A logical mobile node is ALWAYS-
			ATTACHED mobile node configuration enabled on the MAG. The mobility
	session that is created (i.e. create a Binding Cache Entry) on the		session that is created (i.e. create a Binding Cache Entry) on the
	LMA is for the logical-NAI. The LMA and allocates a Home Network		LMA will be marked with multipath support.
	Prefix (HNP), that shall be delegated to mobile nodes, to the MAG.
	Step (4): the LMA sends back a Proxy Binding Acknowledgement (PBA)		Step (4): the LMA sends back a Proxy Binding Acknowledgement (PBA)
	including the HNP allocated to the MAG.		including the HNP and other session parameters allocated for that
			mobility session.
	Step (5): IP tunnel (IP-in-IP, GRE ...) is created over the WLAN		Step (5): IP tunnel (IP-in-IP, GRE ...) is created over the WLAN
	access.		access.
	Steps (6) to (8): The MAG repeats steps (3) to (5) on the LTE access.		Steps (6) to (8): The MAG repeats steps (3) to (5) on the LTE access.
	The MAG includes the HNP, received on step (4) in the PBU. The LMA		The MAG includes the HNP, received on step (4) in the PBU. The LMA
	update its binding cache by creating a new mobility session for this		update its binding cache by creating a new mobility session for this
	MAG.		MAG.
	Steps (9) and (10): The IP hosts MN_1 and MN_2 are assigned IP		Steps (9) and (10): The IP hosts MN_1 and MN_2 are assigned IP
	skipping to change at page 6, line 17 ¶		skipping to change at page 6, line 19 ¶
	+=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+		+=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+
	| MN_1| | MN_2| | MAG | | WLAN| | LTE | | LMA |		| MN_1| | MN_2| | MAG | | WLAN| | LTE | | LMA |
	+=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+		+=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+
	| | | | | |		| | | | | |
	| | | | | |		| | | | | |
	| | | (1) ATTACH | | |		| | | (1) ATTACH | | |
	| | | <--------> | | |		| | | <--------> | | |
	| | | (2) ATTACH | |		| | | (2) ATTACH | |
	| | | <---------------------->| |		| | | <---------------------->| |
	| | | (3) PBU (MAG-NAI, MMB) |		| | | (3) PBU (MAG-NAI, MMB, ...) |
	| | | ------------------------*-------------->|		| | | ------------------------*-------------->|
	| | | |		| | | |
	| | | Accept PBU		| | | Accept PBU
	| | | (allocate HNP,		| | | (allocate HNP,
	| | | create BCE)		| | | create BCE)
	| | | (4) PBA (MAG-NAI, HNP) |		| | | (4) PBA (MAG-NAI, MMB, ...) |
	| | | <-----------------------*---------------|		| | | <-----------------------*---------------|
	| | | (5) TUNNEL INTERFACE CREATION over WLAN |		| | | (5) TUNNEL INTERFACE CREATION over WLAN |
	| | |-============== TUNNEL ==*==============-|		| | |-============== TUNNEL ==*==============-|
	| | | |		| | | |
	| | | (6) PBU (MAG-NAI, HNP, MMB) |		| | | (6) PBU (MAG-NAI, MMB, ...) |
	| | | -----------*--------------------------->|		| | | -----------*--------------------------->|
	| | | |		| | | |
	| | | Accept PBU		| | | Accept PBU
	| | | (update BCE)		| | | (update BCE)
	| | | (7) PBA (MAG-NAI, HNP) |		| | | (7) PBA (MAG-NAI, MMB, ...) |
	| | | <----------*--------------------------- |		| | | <----------*--------------------------- |
	| | | (8) TUNNEL INTERFACE CREATION over LTE |		| | | (8) TUNNEL INTERFACE CREATION over LTE |
	| | |-===========*== TUNNEL =================-|		| | |-===========*== TUNNEL =================-|
	| (9) ATTACH | |		| (9) ATTACH | |
	| <---------------> | |		| <---------------> | |
	| |(10) ATTACH| |		| |(10) ATTACH| |
	| |<--------> | |		| |<--------> | |
	Figure 2: Functional Separation of the Control and User Plane		Figure 2: Functional Separation of the Control and User Plane
	3.2. Traffic distribution schemes		3.2. Traffic distribution schemes
	When receiving packets from the MN, the MAG distributes packets over		When the MAG has registered multipath binding with the LMA, there
	tunnels that have been established. Traffic distribution can be		will be multiple established overlay tunnels between them. The MAG
	managed either on a per-flow or on a per-packet basis:		and the LMA can use any one, or more of the available tunnels paths
			for routing the mobile node's IP traffic. This specification does
			not recommend, or define any specific traffic distribution scheme,
			however it identifies two well-known approaches that implementations
			can potentially use. These approaches are, Per-flow and Per-packet
			Traffic distribution schemes.
	o Per-flow traffic management: each IP flow (both upstream and		Per-Flow Traffic Distribution:
	downstream) is mapped to a given tunnel, corresponding to a given
	WAN interface. Flow binding extension [RFC6089] is used to
	exchange, and synchronize, IP flow management policies (i.e. rules
	associating traffic selectors [RFC6088] to a tunnel).
	o Per-packet management: the LMA and the MAG distribute packets,		o In this approach the MAG and the LMA associate each of the IP
	belonging to a same IP flow, over more than one bindings (i.e.		flows (upstream and downstream) to a specific tunnel path. The
	more than one WAN interface). Packet distribution can be done		packets in a given IP flow are always routed on the same overlay
	either at the transport level, e.g. using MPTCP or at When		tunnel path; they are never split and routed concurrently on more
	operating at the IP packet level, different packets distribution		than one tunnel path. It is possible a given flow may be moved
	algorithms are possible. For example, the algorithm may give		from one tunnel path to another, but the flow is never split. The
	precedence to one given access: the MAG overflows traffic from the		decision to bind a given IP flow to a specific tunnel path is
	primary access, e.g. WLAN, to the second one, only when load on		based on traffic distribution policy. This traffic distribution
	primary access reaches a given threshold. The distribution		policy is either statically configured on both the MAG and the
	algorithm is left to implementer but whatever the algorithm is,		LMA, or dynamically negotiated over Proxy Mobile IPv6 signaling.
	packets distribution likely introduces packet latency and out-of-		The Flow Binding extension [RFC6089] and Traffic Selectors for
	order delivery. LMA and MAG shall thus be able to make reordering		Flow Bindings [RFC6088] defines the mechanism and the semantics
	before packets delivery. Sequence number can be can be used for		for exchanging the traffic policy between two tunnel peers and the
	that purpose, for example using GRE with sequence number option		same mechanism and the mobility options are used here.
	[RFC5845]. However, more detailed considerations on reordering
	and IP packet distribution scheme (e.g. definition of packets
	distribution algorithm) are out the scope of this document.
	Because latency introduced by per-packet can cause injury to some		Per-Packet Traffic Distribution:
	application, per-flow and per-packet distribution schemes could be
	used in conjunction. For example, high throughput services (e.g.		o In this approach, packets belonging a given IP flow will be split
	video streaming) may benefit from per-packet distribution scheme,		and routed across more than one tunnel paths. The exact approach
	while latency sensitive applications (e.g. VoIP) are not be spread		for traffic distribution, or the distribution weights is outside
	over different WAN paths. IP flow mobility extensions, [RFC6089] and		the scope of this specification. In a very simplistic approach,
	[RFC6088], can be used to provision the MAG with such flow policies.		assuming the established tunnel paths have symmetric
			characteristics, the packets can be equally distributed on all the
			available tunnel paths. In a different scenario when the links
			have different speeds, the chosen approach can be based on
			weighted distribution (Ex: n:m ratio). However, in any of these
			chosen approaches, implementations have to be sensitive to issues
			related to asymmetric link characteristics and the resulting
			issues such as re-ordering, buffering and the impact to the
			application performance. Care must be taken to ensure there is no
			negative impact to the application performance due to the use of
			this approach.
	4. Protocol Extensions		4. Protocol Extensions
	4.1. MAG Multipath-Binding Option		4.1. MAG Multipath-Binding Option
	The MAG Multipath-Binding option is a new mobility header option		The MAG Multipath-Binding option is a new mobility header option
	defined for use with Proxy Binding Update and Proxy Binding		defined for use with Proxy Binding Update and Proxy Binding
	Acknowledgement messages exchanged between the local mobility anchor		Acknowledgement messages exchanged between the local mobility anchor
	and the mobile access gateway.		and the mobile access gateway.
	skipping to change at page 8, line 36 ¶		skipping to change at page 9, line 4 ¶
	octets, excluding the type and length fields.		octets, excluding the type and length fields.
	Interface Access-Technology Type (If-ATT)		Interface Access-Technology Type (If-ATT)
	This 8-bit field identifies the Access-Technology type of the		This 8-bit field identifies the Access-Technology type of the
	interface through which the mobile node is connected. The		interface through which the mobile node is connected. The
	permitted values for this are from the Access Technology Type		permitted values for this are from the Access Technology Type
	registry defined in [RFC5213].		registry defined in [RFC5213].
	Interface Label (If-Label)		Interface Label (If-Label)
			This 8-bit unsigned integer represents the interface label.
	This 8-bit field represents the interface label represented as an		The interface label is an identifier configured on the WAN
	unsigned integer. The MAG identifies the label for each of the		interface of the MAG. All the WAN interfaces of the MAG that are
	interfaces through which it registers a pCoA with the LMA. When		used for sending PBU messages are configured with a label. The
	using static traffic flow policies on the mobile node and the LMA,		labels merely identify the type of WAN interface and are primarily
	the label can be used for generating forwarding rules. For		used in Application routing policies. For example, a Wi-Fi
	example, the operator may have policy which binds traffic for		interfaces can be configured with a label RED and a LTE interface
	Application "X" to an interface with Label "Y". When a		with a label BLUE. Furthermore, the same label may be configured
	registration through an interface matching Label "Y" gets		on two WAN interfaces of similar characteristics (Ex: Two Ethernet
	activated, the LMA and the mobile node can dynamically generate a		interfaces with the same label).
	forwarding policy for forwarding traffic for Application "X"
	through the tunnel matching Label "Y". Both the LMA and the		Interfaces labels are signaled from the MAG to LMA in the PBU
	mobile node can route the Application-X traffic through that		messages and both the LMA and MAG will be able to mark each of the
	interface. The permitted values for If-Label are 1 through 255.		dynamically created Binding/Tunnel with the associated label.
			These labels are used in generating consistent application routing
			rules on the both the LMA and the MAG. For example, there can be
			a policy requiring HTTP packets to be routed over interface that
			has Label RED, and if any of the RED interfaces are not available,
			the traffic needs to be routed over the BLUE interface. The MAG
			and the LMA will be able to apply this Routing Rule with the
			exchange of Labels in PBU messages and by associating the
			application flows to tunnels with the matching labels.
	Binding-Identifier (BID)		Binding-Identifier (BID)
	This 8-bit field is used for carrying the binding identifier. It
	uniquely identifies a specific binding of the mobile node, to		This 8-bit unsigned integer is used for identifying the binding.
	which this request can be associated. Each binding identifier is		The permitted values are 1 through 254. The values, 0 and 255 are
	represented as an unsigned integer. The permitted values are 1		reserved.
	through 254. The BID value of 0 and 255 are reserved. The mobile
	access gateway assigns a unique value for each of its interfaces		The MAG identifies each of the mobile node's binding with a unique
	and includes them in the message.		identifier. The MAG includes the identifier in the PBU message
			and when the PBU request is accepted by the LMA, the resulting
			Binding is associated with this binding identifier.
	Bulk Re-registration Flag (B)		Bulk Re-registration Flag (B)
	This flag, if set to a value of (1), is to notify the local		This flag, if set to a value of (1), is to notify the local
	mobility anchor to consider this request as a request to update		mobility anchor to consider this request as a request to update
	the binding lifetime of all the mobile node's bindings, upon		the binding lifetime of all the mobile node's bindings, upon
	accepting this specific request. This flag MUST NOT be set to a		accepting this specific request. This flag MUST NOT be set to a
	value of (1), if the value of the Registration Overwrite Flag (O)		value of (1), if the value of the Registration Overwrite Flag (O)
	is set to a value of (1).		is set to a value of (1).
	skipping to change at page 11, line 4 ¶		skipping to change at page 11, line 24 ¶
	This document defines the following new Status Code value for use in		This document defines the following new Status Code value for use in
	Proxy Binding Acknowledgement message.		Proxy Binding Acknowledgement message.
	The LMA SHOULD use this error code when rejecting a Proxy Binding		The LMA SHOULD use this error code when rejecting a Proxy Binding
	Update message from a MAG requesting a multipath binding. Following		Update message from a MAG requesting a multipath binding. Following
	is the potential reason for rejecting the request:		is the potential reason for rejecting the request:
	o The LMA does not support multipath binding.		o The LMA does not support multipath binding.
	CANNOT_SUPPORT_MULTIPATH_BINDING (Cannot Support Multipath Binding):		CANNOT_SUPPORT_MULTIPATH_BINDING (Cannot Support Multipath Binding):
	<IANA-4>		<IANA-4>
			4.4. Signaling Considerations
			o The MAG when requesting multipath support MUST include the MAG
			Multipath Binding Option (Section 4.1) in each of the PBU messages
			that it sends through the different WAN interfaces. The inclusion
			of this option serves as a hint that the MAG is requesting
			Multipath support. Furthermore, the MAG Identifier option MUST
			also be present in the PBU message.
			o If the LMA is a legacy LMA that does not support this
			specification, the LMA will skip the MAG Multipath Binding option
			(and MAG NAI option) and process the rest of the message as
			specified in the base Proxy Mobile IPv6 specification ([RFC5213]).
			Furthermore, the LMA will not include the MAG Multipath Binding
			option (or the MAG NAI Option)in the PBA message. The MAG on
			receiving the PBA message without the MAG Multipath Binding option
			SHOULD disable Multipath support for the mobile node.
			o If the mobile node is not authorized for Multipath support, then
			the LMA will reject the request by sending a PBA message with the
			Status field value set to CANNOT_SUPPORT_MULTIPATH_BINDING
			(Section 4.3). The LMA will echo the MAG Multipath Binding option
			and the MAG NAI option in the PBA message. The MAG on receiving
			this message SHOULD disable Multipath support for the mobile node.
			o If the request for multipath support is accepted, then the LMA
			SHOULD enable multipath support for the mobile node and SHOULD
			also echo the MAG Multipath Binding option and the MAG NAI option
			in the corresponding PBA message.
	5. IANA Considerations		5. IANA Considerations
	This document requires the following IANA actions.		This document requires the following IANA actions.
	o Action-1: This specification defines a new mobility option, the		o Action-1: This specification defines a new mobility option, the
	MAG Multipath-Binding option. The format of this option is		MAG Multipath-Binding option. The format of this option is
	described in Section 4.1. The type value <IANA-1> for this		described in Section 4.1. The type value <IANA-1> for this
	mobility option needs to be allocated from the Mobility Options		mobility option needs to be allocated from the Mobility Options
	registry at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters>.		registry at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters>.
	RFC Editor: Please replace <IANA-1> in Section 4.1 with the		RFC Editor: Please replace <IANA-1> in Section 4.1 with the
	skipping to change at page 11, line 33 ¶		skipping to change at page 12, line 36 ¶
	<http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters>. RFC		<http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters>. RFC
	Editor: Please replace <IANA-2> in Section 4.2 with the assigned		Editor: Please replace <IANA-2> in Section 4.2 with the assigned
	value and update this section accordingly.		value and update this section accordingly.
	o Action-3: This document defines a new status value,		o Action-3: This document defines a new status value,
	CANNOT_SUPPORT_MULTIPATH_BINDING (<IANA-3>) for use in Proxy		CANNOT_SUPPORT_MULTIPATH_BINDING (<IANA-3>) for use in Proxy
	Binding Acknowledgement message, as described in Section 4.3.		Binding Acknowledgement message, as described in Section 4.3.
	This value is to be assigned from the "Status Codes" registry at		This value is to be assigned from the "Status Codes" registry at
	<http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters>. The		<http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters>. The
	allocated value has to be greater than 127. RFC Editor: Please		allocated value has to be greater than 127. RFC Editor: Please
	replace <IANA-4> in Section 4.3 with the assigned value and update		replace <IANA-3> in Section 4.3 with the assigned value and update
	this section accordingly.		this section accordingly.
	6. Security Considerations		6. Security Considerations
	This specification allows a mobile access gateway to establish		This specification allows a mobile access gateway to establish
	multiple Proxy Mobile IPv6 tunnels with a local mobility anchor, by		multiple Proxy Mobile IPv6 tunnels with a local mobility anchor, by
	registering a care-of address for each of its connected access		registering a care-of address for each of its connected access
	networks. This essentially allows the mobile node's IP traffic to be		networks. This essentially allows the mobile node's IP traffic to be
	routed through any of the tunnel paths based on the negotiated flow		routed through any of the tunnel paths based on the negotiated flow
	policy. This new capability has no impact on the protocol security.		policy. This new capability has no impact on the protocol security.
	skipping to change at page 12, line 10 ¶		skipping to change at page 13, line 13 ¶
	specified in [RFC5213]. Therefore, it inherits security guidelines		specified in [RFC5213]. Therefore, it inherits security guidelines
	from [RFC5213]. Thus, this specification does not weaken the		from [RFC5213]. Thus, this specification does not weaken the
	security of Proxy Mobile IPv6 Protocol, and does not introduce any		security of Proxy Mobile IPv6 Protocol, and does not introduce any
	new security vulnerabilities.		new security vulnerabilities.
	7. Acknowledgements		7. Acknowledgements
	The authors of this draft would like to acknowledge the discussions		The authors of this draft would like to acknowledge the discussions
	and feedback on this topic from the members of the DMM working group.		and feedback on this topic from the members of the DMM working group.
	The authors would also like to thank Jouni Korhonen, Jong Hyouk Lee,		The authors would also like to thank Jouni Korhonen, Jong Hyouk Lee,
	Dirk Von-Hugo, Seil Jeon, Carlos Bernardos and Robert Sparks for		Dirk Von-Hugo, Seil Jeon, Carlos Bernardos, Robert Sparks, Adam
	their review feedback.		Roach, Kathleen Moriarty, Hilarie Orman, Ben Campbell, Warren Kumari,
			Mirja Kuehlewind, for their review feedback.
	8. References		8. References
	8.1. Normative References		8.1. Normative References
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate		[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/		Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/
	RFC2119, March 1997,		RFC2119, March 1997,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
	[RFC3963] Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., and P.		[RFC3963] Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., and P.
	Thubert, "Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol",		Thubert, "Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol",
	RFC 3963, DOI 10.17487/RFC3963, January 2005,		RFC 3963, DOI 10.17487/RFC3963, January 2005,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3963>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3963>.
	[RFC5094] Devarapalli, V., Patel, A., and K. Leung, "Mobile IPv6		[RFC5094] Devarapalli, V., Patel, A., and K. Leung, "Mobile IPv6
	Vendor Specific Option", RFC 5094, DOI 10.17487/RFC5094,		Vendor Specific Option", RFC 5094, DOI 10.17487/RFC5094,
	December 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5094>.		December 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5094>.
	[RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., Ed., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V.,		[RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., Ed., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V.,
	Chowdhury, K., and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6",		Chowdhury, K., and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6",
	RFC 5213, DOI 10.17487/RFC5213, August 2008,		RFC 5213, DOI 10.17487/RFC5213, August 2008,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5213>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5213>.
	[RFC5648] Wakikawa, R., Ed., Devarapalli, V., Tsirtsis, G., Ernst,		[RFC5648] Wakikawa, R., Ed., Devarapalli, V., Tsirtsis, G., Ernst,
	T., and K. Nagami, "Multiple Care-of Addresses		T., and K. Nagami, "Multiple Care-of Addresses
	Registration", RFC 5648, DOI 10.17487/RFC5648,		Registration", RFC 5648, DOI 10.17487/RFC5648,
	October 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5648>.		October 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5648>.
	[RFC5844] Wakikawa, R. and S. Gundavelli, "IPv4 Support for Proxy		[RFC5844] Wakikawa, R. and S. Gundavelli, "IPv4 Support for Proxy
	Mobile IPv6", RFC 5844, DOI 10.17487/RFC5844, May 2010,		Mobile IPv6", RFC 5844, DOI 10.17487/RFC5844, May 2010,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5844>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5844>.
	[RFC5845] Muhanna, A., Khalil, M., Gundavelli, S., and K. Leung,		[RFC5845] Muhanna, A., Khalil, M., Gundavelli, S., and K. Leung,
	"Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) Key Option for Proxy		"Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) Key Option for Proxy
	Mobile IPv6", RFC 5845, DOI 10.17487/RFC5845, June 2010,		Mobile IPv6", RFC 5845, DOI 10.17487/RFC5845, June 2010,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5845>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5845>.
	[RFC6088] Tsirtsis, G., Giarreta, G., Soliman, H., and N. Montavont,		[RFC6088] Tsirtsis, G., Giarreta, G., Soliman, H., and N. Montavont,
	"Traffic Selectors for Flow Bindings", RFC 6088,		"Traffic Selectors for Flow Bindings", RFC 6088,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC6088, January 2011,		DOI 10.17487/RFC6088, January 2011,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6088>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6088>.
	[RFC6089] Tsirtsis, G., Soliman, H., Montavont, N., Giaretta, G.,		[RFC6089] Tsirtsis, G., Soliman, H., Montavont, N., Giaretta, G.,
	and K. Kuladinithi, "Flow Bindings in Mobile IPv6 and		and K. Kuladinithi, "Flow Bindings in Mobile IPv6 and
	Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support", RFC 6089,		Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support", RFC 6089,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC6089, January 2011,		DOI 10.17487/RFC6089, January 2011,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6089>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6089>.
	[RFC6275] Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility		[RFC6275] Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility
	Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, DOI 10.17487/RFC6275,		Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, DOI 10.17487/RFC6275,
	July 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6275>.		July 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6275>.
	[RFC7148] Zhou, X., Korhonen, J., Williams, C., Gundavelli, S., and		[RFC7148] Zhou, X., Korhonen, J., Williams, C., Gundavelli, S., and
	CJ. Bernardos, "Prefix Delegation Support for Proxy Mobile		CJ. Bernardos, "Prefix Delegation Support for Proxy Mobile
	IPv6", RFC 7148, DOI 10.17487/RFC7148, March 2014,		IPv6", RFC 7148, DOI 10.17487/RFC7148, March 2014,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7148>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7148>.
	8.2. Informative References		8.2. Informative References
	[RFC2473] Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Generic Packet Tunneling in		[RFC2473] Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Generic Packet Tunneling in
	IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, DOI 10.17487/RFC2473,		IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, DOI 10.17487/RFC2473,
	December 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2473>.		December 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2473>.
	[RFC4213] Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms		[RFC4213] Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms
	for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213, DOI 10.17487/		for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213, DOI 10.17487/
	RFC4213, October 2005,		RFC4213, October 2005,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4213>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4213>.
	[RFC4908] Nagami, K., Uda, S., Ogashiwa, N., Esaki, H., Wakikawa,		[RFC4908] Nagami, K., Uda, S., Ogashiwa, N., Esaki, H., Wakikawa,
	R., and H. Ohnishi, "Multi-homing for small scale fixed		R., and H. Ohnishi, "Multi-homing for small scale fixed
	network Using Mobile IP and NEMO", RFC 4908, DOI 10.17487/		network Using Mobile IP and NEMO", RFC 4908, DOI 10.17487/
	RFC4908, June 2007,		RFC4908, June 2007,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4908>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4908>.
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Pierrick Seite		Pierrick Seite
	Orange		Orange
	4, rue du Clos Courtel, BP 91226		4, rue du Clos Courtel, BP 91226
	Cesson-Sevigne 35512		Cesson-Sevigne 35512
	France		France
	Email: pierrick.seite@orange.com		Email: pierrick.seite@orange.com
End of changes. 38 change blocks.
	96 lines changed or deleted		148 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/