draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-07.txt   draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-08.txt 
DMM Working Group A. Yegin DMM Working Group A. Yegin
Internet-Draft Actility Internet-Draft Actility
Intended status: Informational D. Moses Intended status: Informational D. Moses
Expires: January 7, 2017 Intel Expires: June 1, 2017 Intel
K. Kweon K. Kweon
J. Lee J. Lee
J. Park J. Park
Samsung Samsung
July 6, 2016 S. Jeon
Sungkyunkwan University
November 28, 2016
On Demand Mobility Management On Demand Mobility Management
draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-07 draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-08
Abstract Abstract
Applications differ with respect to whether they need IP session Applications differ with respect to whether they need IP session
continuity and/or IP address reachability. The network providing the continuity and/or IP address reachability. The network providing the
same type of service to any mobile host and any application running same type of service to any mobile host and any application running
on the host yields inefficiencies. This document describes a on the host yields inefficiencies. This document describes a
solution for taking the application needs into account in selectively solution for taking the application needs into account in selectively
providing IP session continuity and IP address reachability on a per- providing IP session continuity and IP address reachability on a per-
socket basis. socket basis.
skipping to change at page 1, line 41 skipping to change at page 1, line 43
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 7, 2017. This Internet-Draft will expire on June 1, 2017.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2016 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 21 skipping to change at page 2, line 24
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Types of IP Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. Types of IP Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Granularity of Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2. Granularity of Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. On Demand Nature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.3. On Demand Nature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.4. Conveying the Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.4. Conveying the Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Backwards Compatibility Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4. Backwards Compatibility Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.1. Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2. IP Stack in the Mobile Host . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.2. IP Stack in the Mobile Host . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3. Network Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.3. Network Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Summary of New Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5. Summary of New Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
In the context of Mobile IP [RFC5563][RFC6275][RFC5213][RFC5944], In the context of Mobile IP [RFC5563][RFC6275][RFC5213][RFC5944],
following two attributes are defined for the IP service provided to following two attributes are defined for the IP service provided to
the mobile hosts: the mobile hosts:
IP session continuity: The ability to maintain an ongoing IP session IP session continuity: The ability to maintain an ongoing IP session
by keeping the same local end-point IP address throughout the session by keeping the same local end-point IP address throughout the session
despite the mobile host chaging its point of attachment within the IP despite the mobile host changing its point of attachment within the
network topology. The IP address of the host may change between two IP network topology. The IP address of the host may change between
independent IP sessions, but that does not jeopardize the IP session two independent IP sessions, but that does not jeopardize the IP
continuity. IP session continuity is essential for mobile hosts to session continuity. IP session continuity is essential for mobile
maintain ongoing flows without any interruption. hosts to maintain ongoing flows without any interruption.
IP address reachability: The ability to maintain the same IP address IP address reachability: The ability to maintain the same IP address
for an extended period of time. The IP address stays the same across for an extended period of time. The IP address stays the same across
independent IP sessions, and even in the absence of any IP session. independent IP sessions, and even in the absence of any IP session.
The IP address may be published in a long-term registry (e.g., DNS), The IP address may be published in a long-term registry (e.g., DNS),
and it is made available for serving incoming (e.g., TCP) and it is made available for serving incoming (e.g., TCP)
connections. IP address reachability is essential for mobile hosts connections. IP address reachability is essential for mobile hosts
to use specific/published IP addresses. to use specific/published IP addresses.
Mobile IP is designed to provide both IP session continuity and IP Mobile IP is designed to provide both IP session continuity and IP
skipping to change at page 3, line 31 skipping to change at page 3, line 36
continuity is not required for all types of applications either. continuity is not required for all types of applications either.
Applications performing brief communication (e.g., DNS client) can Applications performing brief communication (e.g., DNS client) can
survive without having IP session continuity support. survive without having IP session continuity support.
Achieving IP session continuity and IP address reachability by using Achieving IP session continuity and IP address reachability by using
Mobile IP incurs some cost. Mobile IP protocol forces the mobile Mobile IP incurs some cost. Mobile IP protocol forces the mobile
host's IP traffic to traverse a centrally-located router (Home Agent, host's IP traffic to traverse a centrally-located router (Home Agent,
HA), which incurs additional transmission latency and use of HA), which incurs additional transmission latency and use of
additional network resources, adds to the network CAPEX and OPEX, and additional network resources, adds to the network CAPEX and OPEX, and
decreases the reliability of the network due to the introduction of a decreases the reliability of the network due to the introduction of a
single point of failure [I-D.ietf-dmm-requirements]. Therefore, IP single point of failure [RFC7333]. Therefore, IP session continuity
session continuity and IP address reachability should be be provided and IP address reachability should be be provided only when needed.
only when needed.
Furthermore, when an application needs session continuity, it may be Furthermore, when an application needs session continuity, it may be
able to satisfy that need by using a solution above the IP layer, able to satisfy that need by using a solution above the IP layer,
such as MPTCP [RFC6824], SIP mobility [RFC3261], or an application- such as MPTCP [RFC6824], SIP mobility [RFC3261], or an application-
layer mobility solution. Those higher-layer solutions are not layer mobility solution. Those higher-layer solutions are not
subject to the same issues that arise with the use of Mobile IP since subject to the same issues that arise with the use of Mobile IP since
they can utilize the most direct data path between the end-points. they can utilize the most direct data path between the end-points.
But, if Mobile IP is being applied to the mobile host, those higher- But, if Mobile IP is being applied to the mobile host, those higher-
layer protocols are rendered useless because their operation is layer protocols are rendered useless because their operation is
inhibited by the Mobile IP. Since Mobile IP ensures the IP address inhibited by the Mobile IP. Since Mobile IP ensures the IP address
skipping to change at page 8, line 16 skipping to change at page 8, line 22
getaddrinfo(), and inet6_is_srcaddr() functions [RFC5014]. Similar getaddrinfo(), and inet6_is_srcaddr() functions [RFC5014]. Similar
with the setsockopt()/getsockopt() calls, getaddrinfo() call shall with the setsockopt()/getsockopt() calls, getaddrinfo() call shall
also trigger configuration of the required type IP address, if one is also trigger configuration of the required type IP address, if one is
not already available. When the new flags are used with not already available. When the new flags are used with
getaddrinfo() and the triggered configuration fails, the getaddrinfo() and the triggered configuration fails, the
getaddrinfo() call shall ignore that failure (i.e., not return an getaddrinfo() call shall ignore that failure (i.e., not return an
error code to indicate that failure). Only the setsockopt() shall error code to indicate that failure). Only the setsockopt() shall
return an error when configuration of the requested type IP address return an error when configuration of the requested type IP address
fails. fails.
When the IP stack is required to assign a source IP address of a
specified type, it can perform one of the following: It can assigned
a preconfigured address (if one exists) or request a new one from the
network. Using an existing address is instantaneous but might yield
a less optimal route (if a hand-off event occurred since its
configuration), on the other hand, acquiring a new IP address from
the network may take some time (due to signaling exchange with the
network).
An additional new flag - ON_NET flag - enables the application to
direct the IP stack whether to use a preconfigured source IP address
(if exists) or to request a new one from the current serving network:
IPV6_REQUIRE_SRC_ON_NET /* Set IP stack address allocation behavior
*/
If set, the IP stack will request a new IP address of the desired
type from the current serving network. If reset, the IP stack will
use a preconfigured one if exists. If there is no preconfigured IP
address of the desired type, the IP stack will request a new one from
the current serving network (regardless of whether this flag is set
or reset).
The ON_NET flag must be used together with one of the 3 flags defined
above. If ON_NET flag is used without any of these flags, it must be
ignored. If the ON_NET flag is not used, the IP stack is free to
either use an existing IP address (if preconfigured) or access the
network to configure a new one (the decision is left to
implementation).
The following new error codes are also defined in the document and The following new error codes are also defined in the document and
will be used in the Socket API in compliance with [RFC5014]. will be used in the Socket API in compliance with [RFC5014].
EAI_REQUIREDIPNOTSUPPORTED /* The network does not support the EAI_REQUIREDIPNOTSUPPORTED /* The network does not support the
ability to request that specific IP address type */ ability to request that specific IP address type */
EAI_REQUIREDIPFAILED /* The network could not assign that specific IP EAI_REQUIREDIPFAILED /* The network could not assign that specific IP
address type */ address type */
4. Backwards Compatibility Considerations 4. Backwards Compatibility Considerations
skipping to change at page 9, line 36 skipping to change at page 10, line 20
scope of this API specification. scope of this API specification.
5. Summary of New Definitions 5. Summary of New Definitions
The following list summarizes the new constants definitions discussed The following list summarizes the new constants definitions discussed
in this memo: in this memo:
<netdb.h> IPV6_REQUIRE_FIXED_IP <netdb.h> IPV6_REQUIRE_FIXED_IP
<netdb.h> IPV6_REQUIRE_SESSION_LASTING_IP <netdb.h> IPV6_REQUIRE_SESSION_LASTING_IP
<netdb.h> IPV6_REQUIRE_NON_PERSISTENT_IP <netdb.h> IPV6_REQUIRE_NON_PERSISTENT_IP
<netdb.h> IPV6_REQUIRE_SRC_ON_NET
<netdb.h> EAI_REQUIREDIPNOTSUPPORTED <netdb.h> EAI_REQUIREDIPNOTSUPPORTED
<netdb.h> EAI_REQUIREDIPFAILED <netdb.h> EAI_REQUIREDIPFAILED
<netinet/in.h> IPV6_REQUIRE_FIXED_IP <netinet/in.h> IPV6_REQUIRE_FIXED_IP
<netinet/in.h> IPV6_REQUIRE_SESSION_LASTING_IP <netinet/in.h> IPV6_REQUIRE_SESSION_LASTING_IP
<netinet/in.h> IPV6_REQUIRE_NON_PERSISTENT_IP <netinet/in.h> IPV6_REQUIRE_NON_PERSISTENT_IP
<netinet/in.h> IPV6_REQUIRE_SRC_ON_NET
<netinet/in.h> EAI_REQUIREDIPNOTSUPPORTED <netinet/in.h> EAI_REQUIREDIPNOTSUPPORTED
<netinet/in.h> EAI_REQUIREDIPFAILED <netinet/in.h> EAI_REQUIREDIPFAILED
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
The setting of certain IP address type on a given socket may be The setting of certain IP address type on a given socket may be
restricted to privileged applications. For example, a Fixed IP restricted to privileged applications. For example, a Fixed IP
Address may be provided as a premium service and only certain Address may be provided as a premium service and only certain
applications may be allowed to use them. Setting and enforcement of applications may be allowed to use them. Setting and enforcement of
such privileges are outside the scope of this document. such privileges are outside the scope of this document.
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA considerations. This document has no IANA considerations.
8. Acknowledgements 8. Contributors
We would like to thank Alexandru Petrescu, John Kaippallimalil, Jouni This document was merged with [I-D.sijeon-dmm-use-cases-api-source].
Korhonen, Seil Jeon, and Sri Gundavelli for their valuable comments We would like to acknowledge the contribution of the following people
and suggestions on this work. to that document as well:
9. References Sergio Figueiredo
Altran Research, France
Email: sergio.figueiredo@altran.com
9.1. Normative References Younghan Kim
Soongsil University, Korea
Email: younghak@ssu.ac.kr
John Kaippallimalil
Huawei, USA
Email: john.kaippallimalil@huawei.com
9. Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Alexandru Petrescu, Jouni Korhonen, and Sri
Gundavelli for their valuable comments and suggestions on this work.
10. References
10.1. 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, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5014] Nordmark, E., Chakrabarti, S., and J. Laganier, "IPv6 [RFC5014] Nordmark, E., Chakrabarti, S., and J. Laganier, "IPv6
Socket API for Source Address Selection", RFC 5014, Socket API for Source Address Selection", RFC 5014,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5014, September 2007, DOI 10.17487/RFC5014, September 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5014>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5014>.
[RFC6724] Thaler, D., Ed., Draves, R., Matsumoto, A., and T. Chown, [RFC6724] Thaler, D., Ed., Draves, R., Matsumoto, A., and T. Chown,
"Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol Version 6 "Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol Version 6
(IPv6)", RFC 6724, DOI 10.17487/RFC6724, September 2012, (IPv6)", RFC 6724, DOI 10.17487/RFC6724, September 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6724>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6724>.
9.2. Informative References 10.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-dmm-requirements] [I-D.sijeon-dmm-use-cases-api-source]
Chan, A., Liu, D., Seite, P., Yokota, H., and J. Korhonen, Jeon, S., Figueiredo, S., Kim, Y., and J. Kaippallimalil,
"Requirements for Distributed Mobility Management", draft- "Use Cases and API Extension for Source IP Address
ietf-dmm-requirements-17 (work in progress), June 2014. Selection", draft-sijeon-dmm-use-cases-api-source-05 (work
in progress), October 2016.
[RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, [RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3261, June 2002, DOI 10.17487/RFC3261, June 2002,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3261>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3261>.
[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,
skipping to change at page 11, line 28 skipping to change at page 12, line 34
[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, July Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, DOI 10.17487/RFC6275, July
2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6275>. 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6275>.
[RFC6824] Ford, A., Raiciu, C., Handley, M., and O. Bonaventure, [RFC6824] Ford, A., Raiciu, C., Handley, M., and O. Bonaventure,
"TCP Extensions for Multipath Operation with Multiple "TCP Extensions for Multipath Operation with Multiple
Addresses", RFC 6824, DOI 10.17487/RFC6824, January 2013, Addresses", RFC 6824, DOI 10.17487/RFC6824, January 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6824>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6824>.
[RFC7333] Chan, H., Ed., Liu, D., Seite, P., Yokota, H., and J.
Korhonen, "Requirements for Distributed Mobility
Management", RFC 7333, DOI 10.17487/RFC7333, August 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7333>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Alper Yegin Alper Yegin
Actility Actility
Istanbul Istanbul
Turkey Turkey
Email: alper.yegin@actility.com Email: alper.yegin@actility.com
Danny Moses Danny Moses
Intel Corporation Intel Corporation
Petah Tikva Petah Tikva
Israel Israel
Email: danny.moses@intel.com Email: danny.moses@intel.com
Kisuk Kweon Kisuk Kweon
Samsung Samsung
Suwon Suwon
skipping to change at line 530 skipping to change at page 13, line 31
South Korea South Korea
Email: js81.lee@samsung.com Email: js81.lee@samsung.com
Jungshin Park Jungshin Park
Samsung Samsung
Suwon Suwon
South Korea South Korea
Email: shin02.park@samsung.com Email: shin02.park@samsung.com
Seil Jeon
Sungkyunkwan University
Suwon
South Korea
Email: seiljeon@skku.edu
 End of changes. 21 change blocks. 
34 lines changed or deleted 90 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/