draft-ietf-dmm-requirements-17.txt   rfc7333.txt 
Network Working Group H. Chan (Ed.) Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) H. Chan, Ed.
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies Request for Comments: 7333 Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Informational D. Liu Category: Informational D. Liu
Expires: December 7, 2014 China Mobile ISSN: 2070-1721 China Mobile
P. Seite P. Seite
Orange Orange
H. Yokota H. Yokota
KDDI Lab Landis+Gyr
J. Korhonen J. Korhonen
Broadcom Communications Broadcom Communications
June 5, 2014 August 2014
Requirements for Distributed Mobility Management Requirements for Distributed Mobility Management
draft-ietf-dmm-requirements-17
Abstract Abstract
This document defines the requirements for Distributed Mobility This document defines the requirements for Distributed Mobility
Management (DMM) at the network layer. The hierarchical structure in Management (DMM) at the network layer. The hierarchical structure in
traditional wireless networks has led primarily to centrally deployed traditional wireless networks has led primarily to centrally deployed
mobility anchors. As some wireless networks are evolving away from mobility anchors. As some wireless networks are evolving away from
the hierarchical structure, it can be useful to have a distributed the hierarchical structure, it can be useful to have a distributed
model for mobility management in which traffic does not need to model for mobility management in which traffic does not need to
traverse centrally deployed mobility anchors far from the optimal traverse centrally deployed mobility anchors far from the optimal
route. The motivation and the problems addressed by each requirement route. The motivation and the problems addressed by each requirement
are also described. are also described.
Requirements Language Status of This Memo
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].
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. published for informational purposes.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents
approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7333.
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 7, 2014.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2014 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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Conventions Used in This Document ...............................4
2.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.1. Requirements Language ......................................4
3. Centralized versus distributed mobility management . . . . . . 7 2.2. Terminology ................................................4
3.1. Centralized mobility management . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3. Centralized versus Distributed Mobility Management ..............5
3.2. Distributed mobility management . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.1. Centralized Mobility Management ............................6
4. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.2. Distributed Mobility Management ............................7
5. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4. Problem Statement ...............................................8
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5. Requirements ...................................................10
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 6. Security Considerations ........................................16
8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 7. Contributors ...................................................17
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 8. References .....................................................20
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 8.1. Normative References ......................................20
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 8.2. Informative References ....................................21
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
In the past decade a fair number of network-layer mobility protocols In the past decade, a fair number of network-layer mobility protocols
have been standardized [RFC6275] [RFC5944] [RFC5380] [RFC6301] have been standardized [RFC6275] [RFC5944] [RFC5380] [RFC6301]
[RFC5213]. Although these protocols differ in terms of functions and [RFC5213]. Although these protocols differ in terms of functions and
associated message formats, they all employ a mobility anchor to associated message formats, they all employ a mobility anchor to
allow a mobile node to remain reachable after it has moved to a allow a mobile node to remain reachable after it has moved to a
different network. The anchor point, among other tasks, ensures different network. Among other tasks that the anchor point performs,
connectivity by forwarding packets destined to, or sent from, the the anchor point ensures connectivity by forwarding packets destined
mobile node. It is a centrally deployed mobility anchor in the sense to, or sent from, the mobile node. It is a centrally deployed
that the deployed architectures today have a small number of these mobility anchor in the sense that the deployed architectures today
anchors and the traffic of millions of mobile nodes in an operator have a small number of these anchors and the traffic of millions of
network are typically managed by the same anchor. Such a mobility mobile nodes in an operator network is typically managed by the same
anchor may still have to reside in the subscriber's provider network anchor. Such a mobility anchor may still have to reside in the
even when the subscriber is roaming to a visited network, in order subscriber's provider network even when the subscriber is roaming to
that certain functions such as charging and billing can be performed a visited network, in order that certain functions such as charging
more readily by the provider's network. An example provider network and billing can be performed more readily by the provider's network.
is a Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) network. An example provider network is a Third Generation Partnership Project
(3GPP) network.
Distributed mobility management (DMM) is an alternative to the above Distributed mobility management (DMM) is an alternative to the above-
centralized deployment. The background behind the interests to study mentioned centralized deployment. The background behind the interest
DMM are primarily in the following. in studying DMM is primarily as follows.
(1) Mobile users are, more than ever, consuming Internet content (1) More than ever, mobile users are consuming Internet content,
including that of local Content Delivery Networks (CDNs). Such including that of local Content Delivery Networks (CDNs). Such
traffic imposes new requirements on mobile core networks for traffic imposes new requirements on mobile core networks for
data traffic delivery. To prevent exceeding the available core data traffic delivery. To prevent exceeding the available core
network capacity, service providers need to implement new network capacity, service providers need to implement new
strategies such as selective IPv4 traffic offload (e.g., strategies such as selective IPv4 traffic offload (e.g.,
[RFC6909], 3GPP work items Local IP Access (LIPA) and Selected [RFC6909], 3GPP Local IP Access (LIPA) and Selected IP Traffic
IP Traffic Offload (SIPTO) [TS.23.401]) through alternative Offload (SIPTO) work items [TS.23.401]) through alternative
access networks such as Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) access networks such as Wireless Local Area Networks (WLANs)
[Paper-Mobile.Data.Offloading]. In addition, a gateway [MOB-DATA-OFFLOAD]. In addition, a gateway selection mechanism
selection mechanism takes the user proximity into account within takes user proximity into account within the Evolved Packet Core
the Evolved Packet Core (EPC) [TS.29303]. Yet these mechanisms (EPC) [TS.29.303]. However, these mechanisms were not pursued
were not pursued in the past owing to charging and billing in the past, owing to charging and billing considerations that
considerations which require solutions beyond the mobility require solutions beyond the mobility protocol. Consequently,
protocol. Consequently, assigning a gateway anchor node from a assigning a gateway anchor node from a visited network when
visited network when roaming to the visited network has only roaming to the visited network has only recently been done and
recently been done and is limited to voice services. is limited to voice services.
Both traffic offloading and CDN mechanisms could benefit from Both traffic offloading and CDN mechanisms could benefit from
the development of mobile architectures with fewer hierarchical the development of mobile architectures with fewer hierarchical
levels introduced into the data path by the mobility management levels introduced into the data path by the mobility management
system. This trend of "flattening" the mobile networks works system. This trend of "flattening" the mobile networks works
best for direct communications among peers in the same best for direct communications among peers in the same
geographical area. Distributed mobility management in the geographical area. Distributed mobility management in the
flattening mobile networks would anchor the traffic closer to flattening mobile networks would anchor the traffic closer to
the point of attachment of the user. the point of attachment of the user.
(2) Today's mobile networks present service providers with new (2) Today's mobile networks present service providers with new
challenges. Mobility patterns indicate that mobile nodes often challenges. Mobility patterns indicate that mobile nodes often
remain attached to the same point of attachment for considerable remain attached to the same point of attachment for considerable
periods of time [Paper-Locating.User]. Specific IP mobility periods of time [LOCATING-USER]. Specific IP mobility
management support is not required for applications that launch management support is not required for applications that launch
and complete their sessions while the mobile node is connected and complete their sessions while the mobile node is connected
to the same point of attachment. However, currently, IP to the same point of attachment. However, IP mobility support
mobility support is designed for always-on operation, is currently designed for always-on operation, maintaining all
maintaining all parameters of the context for each mobile parameters of the context for each mobile subscriber for as long
subscriber for as long as they are connected to the network. as they are connected to the network. This can result in a
This can result in a waste of resources and unnecessary costs waste of resources and unnecessary costs for the service
for the service provider. Infrequent node mobility coupled with provider. Infrequent node mobility coupled with application
application intelligence suggest that mobility support could be intelligence suggest that mobility support could be provided
provided selectively such as in [I-D.bhandari-dhc-class-based- selectively, e.g., as described in [DHCPv6-CLASS-BASED-PREFIX]
prefix] and [I-D.korhonen-6man-prefix-properties], thus reducing and [IPv6-PREFIX-PROPERTIES], thus reducing the amount of
the amount of context maintained in the network. context maintained in the network.
DMM may distribute the mobility anchors in the data-plane in DMM may distribute the mobility anchors in the data plane in
flattening the mobility network such that the mobility anchors are flattening the mobility network such that the mobility anchors are
positioned closer to the user; ideally, mobility agents could be positioned closer to the user; ideally, mobility agents could be
collocated with the first-hop router. Facilitated by the collocated with the first-hop router. Facilitated by the
distribution of mobility anchors, it may be possible to selectively distribution of mobility anchors, it may be possible to selectively
use or not use mobility protocol support depending on whether such use or not use mobility protocol support, depending on whether such
support is needed or not. It can thus reduce the amount of state support is needed or not. DMM can thus reduce the amount of state
information that must be maintained in various mobility agents of the information that must be maintained in various mobility agents of the
mobile network. It can then avoid the unnecessary establishment of mobile network and can then avoid the unnecessary establishment of
mechanisms to forward traffic from an old to a new mobility anchor. mechanisms to forward traffic from an old mobility anchor to a new
mobility anchor.
This document compares distributed mobility management with This document compares distributed mobility management with
centralized mobility management in Section 3. The problems that can centralized mobility management in Section 3. The problems that can
be addressed with DMM are summarized in Section 4. The mandatory be addressed with DMM are summarized in Section 4. The mandatory
requirements as well as the optional requirements for network-layer requirements as well as the optional requirements for network-layer
distributed mobility management are given in Section 5. Finally, distributed mobility management are given in Section 5. Security
security considerations are discussed in Section 6. considerations are mentioned in Section 6.
The problem statement and the use cases [I-D.yokota-dmm-scenario] can The problem statement and use cases [DMM-SCENARIO] can be found in
be found in [Paper-Distributed.Mobility.Review]. [DIST-MOB-REVIEW].
2. Conventions used in this document 2. Conventions Used in This Document
2.1. Terminology 2.1. Requirements Language
All the general mobility-related terms and their acronyms used in The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
this document are to be interpreted as defined in the Mobile IPv6 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
base specification [RFC6275], in the Proxy mobile IPv6 specification document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
[RFC5213], and in Mobility Related Terminology [RFC3753]. These 2.2. Terminology
terms include the following: mobile node (MN), correspondent node
(CN), and home agent (HA) as per [RFC6275]; local mobility anchor
(LMA) and mobile access gateway (MAG) as per [RFC5213], and context
as per [RFC3753].
In addition, this draft introduces the following terms. All of the general mobility-related terms, and their acronyms as used
in this document, are to be interpreted as defined in the Mobile IPv6
base specification [RFC6275], the Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6)
specification [RFC5213], and "Mobility Related Terminology"
[RFC3753]. These terms include the following: mobile node (MN),
correspondent node (CN), and home agent (HA) as per [RFC6275]; local
mobility anchor (LMA) and mobile access gateway (MAG) as per
[RFC5213]; and context as per [RFC3753].
In addition, this document introduces the following terms:
Centrally deployed mobility anchors Centrally deployed mobility anchors
refer to the mobility management deployments in which there are refers to the mobility management deployments in which there are
very few mobility anchors and the traffic of millions of mobile very few mobility anchors and the traffic of millions of mobile
nodes in an operator network are managed by the same anchor. nodes in an operator network is managed by the same anchor.
Centralized mobility management Centralized mobility management
makes use of centrally deployed mobility anchors. makes use of centrally deployed mobility anchors.
Distributed mobility management Distributed mobility management
is not centralized so that traffic does not need to traverse is not centralized, so that traffic does not need to traverse
centrally deployed mobility anchors far from the optimal route. centrally deployed mobility anchors far from the optimal route.
Hierarchical mobile network Hierarchical mobile network
has a hierarchy of network elements arranged into multiple has a hierarchy of network elements arranged into multiple
hierarchical levels which are introduced into the data path by the hierarchical levels that are introduced into the data path by the
mobility management system. mobility management system.
Flattening mobile network Flattening mobile network
refers to the hierarchical mobile network which is going through refers to the hierarchical mobile network that is going through
the trend of reducing its number of hierarchical levels. the trend of reducing its number of hierarchical levels.
Flatter mobile network Flatter mobile network
has fewer hierarchical levels compared to a hierarchical mobile has fewer hierarchical levels compared to a hierarchical mobile
network. network.
Mobility context Mobility context
is the collection of information required to provide mobility is the collection of information required to provide mobility
management support for a given mobile node. management support for a given mobile node.
3. Centralized versus distributed mobility management 3. Centralized versus Distributed Mobility Management
Mobility management is needed because the IP address of a mobile node Mobility management is needed because the IP address of a mobile node
may change as the node moves. Mobility management functions may be may change as the node moves. Mobility management functions may be
implemented at different layers of the protocol stack. At the IP implemented at different layers of the protocol stack. At the IP
(network) layer, mobility management can be client-based or network- (network) layer, mobility management can be client-based or
based. network-based.
An IP-layer mobility management protocol is typically based on the An IP-layer mobility management protocol is typically based on the
principle of distinguishing between a session identifier and a principle of distinguishing between a session identifier and a
forwarding address and maintaining a mapping between the two. In forwarding address and maintaining a mapping between the two. In
Mobile IP, the new IP address of the mobile node after the node has Mobile IP, the new IP address of the mobile node after the node has
moved is the forwarding address, whereas the original IP address moved is the forwarding address, whereas the original IP address
before the mobile node moves serves as the session identifier. The before the mobile node moves serves as the session identifier. The
location management (LM) information is kept by associating the location management (LM) information is kept by associating the
forwarding address with the session identifier. Packets addressed to forwarding address with the session identifier. Packets addressed to
the session identifier will first route to the original network which the session identifier will first route to the original network,
re-directs them using the forwarding address to deliver to the which redirects them using the forwarding address to deliver to the
session. Re-directing packets this way can result in long routes. session. Redirecting packets this way can result in long routes. An
An existing optimization routes directly using the forwarding address existing optimization routes directly, using the forwarding address
of the host, and such is a host-based solution. of the host, and as such is a host-based solution.
The next two subsections explain centralized and distributed mobility The next two subsections explain centralized and distributed mobility
management functions in the network. management functions in the network.
3.1. Centralized mobility management 3.1. Centralized Mobility Management
In centralized mobility management, the location information in terms In centralized mobility management, the location information in terms
of a mapping between the session identifier and the forwarding of a mapping between the session identifier and the forwarding
address is kept at a single mobility anchor, and packets destined to address is kept at a single mobility anchor, and packets destined to
the session identifier are forwarded via this anchor. In other the session identifier are forwarded via this anchor. In other
words, such mobility management systems are centralized in both the words, such mobility management systems are centralized in both the
control plane and the data plane (mobile node IP traffic). control plane and the data plane (mobile node IP traffic).
Many existing mobility management deployments make use of centralized Many existing mobility management deployments make use of centralized
mobility anchoring in a hierarchical network architecture, as shown mobility anchoring in a hierarchical network architecture, as shown
in Figure 1. Examples are the home agent (HA) and local mobility in Figure 1. Examples are the home agent (HA) and local mobility
anchor (LMA) serving as the anchors for the mobile node (MN) and anchor (LMA) serving as the anchors for the mobile node (MN) and
Mobile Access Gateway (MAG) in Mobile IPv6 [RFC6275] and in Proxy mobile access gateway (MAG) in Mobile IPv6 [RFC6275] and in Proxy
Mobile IPv6 [RFC5213] respectively. Cellular networks such as the Mobile IPv6 [RFC5213], respectively. Cellular networks, such as 3GPP
3GPP General Packet Radio System (GPRS) networks and 3GPP Evolved General Packet Radio System (GPRS) networks and 3GPP Evolved Packet
Packet System (EPS) networks employ centralized mobility management System (EPS) networks, also employ centralized mobility management.
too. In the 3GPP GPRS network, the Gateway GPRS Support Node (GGSN), In the 3GPP GPRS network, the Gateway GPRS Support Node (GGSN),
Serving GPRS Support Node (SGSN) and Radio Network Controller (RNC) Serving GPRS Support Node (SGSN), and Radio Network Controller (RNC)
constitute a hierarchy of anchors. In the 3GPP EPS network, the constitute a hierarchy of anchors. In the 3GPP EPS network, the
Packet Data Network Gateway (P-GW) and Serving Gateway (S-GW) Packet Data Network Gateway (P-GW) and Serving Gateway (S-GW)
constitute another hierarchy of anchors. constitute another hierarchy of anchors.
3GPP GPRS 3GPP EPS MIP/PMIP 3GPP GPRS 3GPP EPS MIP/PMIP
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| GGSN | | P-GW | |HA/LMA| | GGSN | | P-GW | |HA/LMA|
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
/\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\
/ \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \
skipping to change at page 8, line 26 skipping to change at page 7, line 26
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| SGSN | | SGSN | | S-GW | | S-GW | |MN/MAG| |MN/MAG| | SGSN | | SGSN | | S-GW | | S-GW | |MN/MAG| |MN/MAG|
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
/\ /\ /\ /\
/ \ / \ / \ / \
/ \ / \ / \ / \
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
|RNC| |RNC| |RNC| |RNC| |RNC| |RNC| |RNC| |RNC|
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
Figure 1. Centralized mobility management. Figure 1: Centralized Mobility Management
3.2. Distributed mobility management 3.2. Distributed Mobility Management
Mobility management functions may also be distributed in the data Mobility management functions may also be distributed in the data
plane to multiple networks as shown in Figure 2, so that a mobile plane to multiple networks as shown in Figure 2, so that a mobile
node in any of these networks may be served by a nearby function with node in any of these networks may be served by a nearby function with
appropriate forwarding management (FM) capability. appropriate forwarding management (FM) capability.
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| FM | | FM | | FM | | FM | | FM | | FM | | FM | | FM |
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| |
+----+ +----+
| MN | | MN |
+----+ +----+
Figure 2. Distributed mobility management. Figure 2: Distributed Mobility Management
DMM is distributed in the data plane, whereas the control plane may DMM is distributed in the data plane, whereas the control plane may
either be centralized or distributed [I-D.yokota-dmm-scenario]. The be either centralized or distributed [DMM-SCENARIO]. The former case
former case implicitly assumes separation of data and control planes implicitly assumes separation of data and control planes as described
as described in [I-D.wakikawa-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation]. While in [PMIP-CP-UP-SPLIT]. While mobility management can be distributed,
mobility management can be distributed, it is not necessary for other it is not necessary for other functions such as subscription
functions such as subscription management, subscription database, and management, subscription databases, and network access authentication
network access authentication to be similarly distributed. to be similarly distributed.
A distributed mobility management scheme for a flattening mobile A distributed mobility management scheme for a flattening mobile
network consisting of access nodes is proposed in [Paper- network consisting of access nodes is proposed in [DIST-DYNAMIC-MOB].
Distributed.Dynamic.Mobility]. Its benefits over centralized Its benefits over centralized mobility management have been shown
mobility management have been shown through simulations [Paper- through simulations [DIST-CENTRAL-MOB]. Moreover, the (re)use and
Distributed.Centralized.Mobility]. Moreover, the (re)use and
extension of existing protocols in the design of both fully extension of existing protocols in the design of both fully
distributed mobility management [Paper-Migrating.Home.Agents] [Paper- distributed mobility management [MIGRATING-HAs] [DIST-MOB-SAE] and
Distributed.Mobility.SAE] and partially distributed mobility partially distributed mobility management [DIST-MOB-PMIP]
management [Paper-Distributed.Mobility.PMIP] [Paper- [DIST-MOB-MIP] have been reported in the literature. Therefore,
Distributed.Mobility.MIP] have been reported in the literature. before designing new mobility management protocols for a future
Therefore, before designing new mobility management protocols for a distributed architecture, it is recommended to first consider whether
future distributed architecture, it is recommended to first consider existing mobility management protocols can be extended.
whether existing mobility management protocols can be extended.
4. Problem Statement 4. Problem Statement
The problems that can be addressed with DMM are summarized in the The problems that can be addressed with DMM are summarized as
following: follows:
PS1: Non-optimal routes PS1: Non-optimal routes
Forwarding via a centralized anchor often results in non- Forwarding via a centralized anchor often results in
optimal routes, thereby increasing the end-to-end delay. The non-optimal routes, thereby increasing the end-to-end delay.
problem is manifested, for example, when accessing a nearby The problem is manifested, for example, when accessing a nearby
server or servers of a Content Delivery Network (CDN), or when server or servers of a Content Delivery Network (CDN), or when
receiving locally available IP multicast or sending IP receiving locally available IP multicast packets or sending IP
multicast packets. (Existing route optimization is only a multicast packets. (Existing route optimization is only a
host-based solution. On the other hand, localized routing with host-based solution. On the other hand, localized routing with
PMIPv6 [RFC6705] addresses only a part of the problem where PMIPv6 [RFC6705] addresses only a part of the problem where
both the MN and the correspondent node (CN) are attached to the both the MN and the correspondent node (CN) are attached to the
same MAG, and it is not applicable when the CN does not behave same MAG, and it is not applicable when the CN does not behave
like an MN.) like an MN.)
PS2: Divergence from other evolutionary trends in network PS2: Divergence from other evolutionary trends in network
architectures such as distribution of content delivery. architectures such as distribution of content delivery
Mobile networks have generally been evolving towards a flatter Mobile networks have generally been evolving towards a flatter
and flatter network. Centralized mobility management, which is and flatter network. Centralized mobility management, which is
non-optimal with a flatter network architecture, does not non-optimal with a flatter network architecture, does not
support this evolution. support this evolution.
PS3: Lack of scalability of centralized tunnel management and PS3: Lack of scalability of centralized tunnel management and
mobility context maintenance mobility context maintenance
Setting up tunnels through a central anchor and maintaining Setting up tunnels through a central anchor and maintaining
skipping to change at page 10, line 4 skipping to change at page 9, line 11
and flatter network. Centralized mobility management, which is and flatter network. Centralized mobility management, which is
non-optimal with a flatter network architecture, does not non-optimal with a flatter network architecture, does not
support this evolution. support this evolution.
PS3: Lack of scalability of centralized tunnel management and PS3: Lack of scalability of centralized tunnel management and
mobility context maintenance mobility context maintenance
Setting up tunnels through a central anchor and maintaining Setting up tunnels through a central anchor and maintaining
mobility context for each MN usually requires more concentrated mobility context for each MN usually requires more concentrated
resources in a centralized design, thus reducing scalability. resources in a centralized design, thus reducing scalability.
Distributing the tunnel maintenance function and the mobility Distributing the tunnel maintenance function and the mobility
context maintenance function among different network entities context maintenance function among different network entities
with proper signaling protocol design can avoid increasing the with proper signaling protocol design can avoid increasing the
concentrated resources with an increasing number of MNs. concentrated resources with an increasing number of MNs.
PS4: Single point of failure and attack PS4: Single point of failure and attack
Centralized anchoring designs may be more vulnerable to single Centralized anchoring designs may be more vulnerable to a
points of failures and attacks than a distributed system. The single point of failure and attacks than a distributed system.
impact of a successful attack on a system with centralized The impact of a successful attack on a system with centralized
mobility management can be far greater as well. mobility management can be far greater as well.
PS5: Unnecessary mobility support to clients that do not need it PS5: Unnecessary mobility support to clients that do not need it
IP mobility support is usually provided to all MNs. Yet it is IP mobility support is usually provided to all MNs. However,
not always required, and not every parameter of mobility it is not always required, and not every parameter of mobility
context is always used. For example, some applications or context is always used. For example, some applications or
nodes do not need a stable IP address during a handover to nodes do not need a stable IP address during a handover to
maintain session continuity. Sometimes, the entire application maintain session continuity. Sometimes, the entire application
session runs while the MN does not change the point of session runs while the MN does not change the point of
attachment. Besides, some sessions, e.g., SIP-based sessions, attachment. Besides, some sessions, e.g., SIP-based sessions,
can handle mobility at the application layer and hence do not can handle mobility at the application layer and hence do not
need IP mobility support; it is then unnecessary to provide IP need IP mobility support; it is then unnecessary to provide IP
mobility support for such sessions. mobility support for such sessions.
PS6: Mobility signaling overhead with peer-to-peer communication PS6: Mobility signaling overhead with peer-to-peer communication
Wasting resources when mobility signaling (e.g., maintenance of Resources may be wasted when mobility signaling (e.g.,
the tunnel, keep alive signaling, etc.) is not turned off for maintenance of the tunnel, keep-alive signaling, etc.) is not
peer-to-peer communication. turned off for peer-to-peer communication.
PS7: Deployment with multiple mobility solutions PS7: Deployment with multiple mobility solutions
There are already many variants and extensions of MIP as well There are already many variants and extensions of MIP as well
mobility solutions at other layers. Deployment of new mobility as mobility solutions at other layers. Deployment of new
management solutions can be challenging, and debugging mobility management solutions can be challenging, and debugging
difficult, when they co-exist with solutions already deployed difficult, when they coexist with solutions already deployed in
in the field. the field.
PS8: Duplicate multicast traffic PS8: Duplicate multicast traffic
IP multicast distribution over architectures using IP mobility IP multicast distribution over architectures using IP mobility
solutions (e.g., [RFC6224]) may lead to convergence of solutions (e.g., [RFC6224]) may lead to convergence of
duplicated multicast subscriptions towards the downstream duplicated multicast subscriptions towards the downstream
tunnel entity (e.g., MAG in PMIPv6). Concretely, when tunnel entity (e.g., MAG in PMIPv6). Concretely, when
multicast subscription for individual mobile nodes is coupled multicast subscription for individual mobile nodes is coupled
with mobility tunnels (e.g., PMIPv6 tunnel), duplicate with mobility tunnels (e.g., a PMIPv6 tunnel), duplicate
multicast subscription(s) is prone to be received through multicast subscription(s) is prone to be received through
different upstream paths. This problem may also exist or be different upstream paths. This problem may also exist or be
more severe in a distributed mobility environment. more severe in a distributed mobility environment.
5. Requirements 5. Requirements
After comparing distributed mobility management against centralized Now that distributed mobility management has been compared with
deployment in Section 3 and describing the problems in Section 4, centralized deployment (Section 3) and the problems have been
this section identifies the following requirements: described (Section 4), this section identifies the following
requirements:
REQ1: Distributed mobility management REQ1: Distributed mobility management
IP mobility, network access and forwarding solutions provided IP mobility, network access solutions, and forwarding
by DMM MUST enable traffic to avoid traversing single mobility solutions provided by DMM MUST enable traffic to avoid
anchor far from the optimal route. traversing a single mobility anchor far from the optimal
route.
This requirement on distribution is in the data plane only. This requirement on distribution applies to the data plane
It does not impose constraints on whether the control plane only. It does not impose constraints on whether the control
should be distributed or centralized. However, if the control plane should be distributed or centralized. However, if the
plane is centralized while the data plane is distributed, it control plane is centralized while the data plane is
is implicit that the control plane and data plane need to distributed, it is implied that the control plane and data
separate (Section 3.2). plane need to separate (Section 3.2).
Motivation: This requirement is motivated by current trends in Motivation: This requirement is motivated by current trends in
network evolution: (a) it is cost- and resource-effective to network evolution: (a) it is cost- and resource-effective to
cache contents, and the caching (e.g., CDN) servers are cache contents, and the caching (e.g., CDN) servers are
distributed so that each user in any location can be close to distributed so that each user in any location can be close to
one of the servers; (b) the significantly larger number of one of the servers; (b) the significantly larger number of
mobile nodes and flows call for improved scalability; (c) mobile nodes and flows call for improved scalability; (c)
single points of failure are avoided in a distributed system; single points of failure are avoided in a distributed system;
(d) threats against centrally deployed anchors, e.g., home and (d) threats against centrally deployed anchors, e.g., a
agent and local mobility anchor, are mitigated in a home agent and a local mobility anchor, are mitigated in a
distributed system. distributed system.
This requirement addresses the problems PS1, PS2, PS3, and PS4 This requirement addresses the problems PS1, PS2, PS3, and PS4
described in Section 4. described in Section 4.
REQ2: Bypassable network-layer mobility support for each application REQ2: Bypassable network-layer mobility support for each application
session session
DMM solutions MUST enable network-layer mobility but it MUST DMM solutions MUST enable network-layer mobility, but it MUST
be possible for any individual active application session be possible for any individual active application session
(flow) to not use it. Mobility support is needed, for (flow) to not use it. Mobility support is needed, for
example, when a mobile host moves and an application cannot example, when a mobile host moves and an application cannot
cope with a change in the IP address. Mobility support is cope with a change in the IP address. Mobility support is
also needed when a mobile router changes its IP address as it also needed when a mobile router changes its IP address as it
moves together with a host and, in the presence of ingress moves together with a host and, in the presence of ingress
filtering, an application in the host is interrupted. However filtering, an application in the host is interrupted.
mobility support at the network-layer is not always needed; a However, mobility support at the network layer is not always
mobile node can often be stationary, and mobility support can needed; a mobile node can often be stationary, and mobility
also be provided at other layers. It is then not always support can also be provided at other layers. It is then not
necessary to maintain a stable IP address or prefix for an always necessary to maintain a stable IP address or prefix for
active application session. an active application session.
Different active sessions can also differ in whether network- Different active sessions can also differ in whether network-
layer mobility support is needed. IP mobility, network access layer mobility support is needed. IP mobility, network access
and forwarding solutions provided by DMM MUST then enable the solutions, and forwarding solutions provided by DMM MUST then
possibility of independent handling for each application provide the possibility of independent handling for each
session of a user or mobile device. application session of a user or mobile device.
The handling of mobility management to the granularity of an The handling of mobility management to the granularity of an
individual session of a user/device SHOULD need proper session individual session of a user/device SHOULD need proper session
identification in addition to user/device identification. identification in addition to user/device identification.
Motivation: The motivation of this requirement is to enable Motivation: The motivation of this requirement is to enable
more efficient forwarding and more efficient use of network more efficient forwarding and more efficient use of network
resources by selecting an IP address or prefix according to resources by selecting an IP address or prefix according to
whether mobility support is needed and by not maintaining whether mobility support is needed and by not maintaining
context at the mobility anchor when there is no such need. context at the mobility anchor when there is no such need.
This requirement addresses the problems PS5 and PS6 described This requirement addresses the problems PS5 and PS6 described
in Section 4. in Section 4.
REQ3: IPv6 deployment REQ3: IPv6 deployment
DMM solutions SHOULD target IPv6 as the primary deployment DMM solutions SHOULD target IPv6 as the primary deployment
environment and SHOULD NOT be tailored specifically to support environment and SHOULD NOT be tailored specifically to support
IPv4, in particular in situations where private IPv4 addresses IPv4, particularly in situations where private IPv4 addresses
and/or NATs are used. and/or NATs are used.
Motivation: This requirement conforms to the general Motivation: This requirement conforms to the general
orientation of IETF work. DMM deployment is foreseen in mid- orientation of IETF work. DMM deployment is foreseen as "on
to long-term horizon, when IPv6 is expected to be far more the mid- to long-term horizon", when IPv6 is expected to be
common than today. far more common than today.
This requirement avoids the unnecessarily complexity in This requirement avoids the unnecessarily complex solution of
solving the problems in Section 4 for IPv4, which will not be trying to provide the same level of functionality to both IPv4
able to use some of the IPv6-specific features. and IPv6. Some of the IPv6-specific features are not
available for IPv4.
REQ4: Existing mobility protocols REQ4: Existing mobility protocols
A DMM solution MUST first consider reusing and extending IETF- A DMM solution MUST first consider reusing and extending IETF
standardized protocols before specifying new protocols. standard protocols before specifying new protocols.
Motivation: Reuse of existing IETF work is more efficient and Motivation: Reuse of existing IETF work is more efficient and
less error-prone. less error-prone.
This requirement attempts to avoid the need of new protocols This requirement attempts to avoid the need for development of
development and therefore their potential problems of being new protocols and therefore their potential for being time-
time-consuming and error-prone. consuming and error-prone.
REQ5: Coexistence with deployed networks/hosts and operability REQ5: Coexistence with deployed networks/hosts and operability
across different networks across different networks
A DMM solution may require loose, tight or no integration into A DMM solution may require loose, tight, or no integration
existing mobility protocols and host IP stack. Regardless of into existing mobility protocols and host IP stacks.
the integration level, DMM implementations MUST be able to Regardless of the integration level, DMM implementations MUST
coexist with existing network deployments, end hosts and be able to coexist with existing network deployments, end
routers that may or may not implement existing mobility hosts, and routers that may or may not implement existing
protocols. Furthermore, a DMM solution SHOULD work across mobility protocols. Furthermore, a DMM solution SHOULD work
different networks, possibly operated as separate across different networks, possibly operated as separate
administrative domains, when the needed mobility management administrative domains, when the needed mobility management
signaling, forwarding, and network access are allowed by the signaling, forwarding, and network access are allowed by the
trust relationship between them. trust relationship between them.
Motivation: (a) to preserve backwards compatibility so that Motivation: to (a) preserve backwards compatibility so that
existing networks and hosts are not affected and continue to existing networks and hosts are not affected and continue to
function as usual, and (b) enable inter-domain operation if function as usual, and (b) enable inter-domain operation if
desired. desired.
This requirement addresses the problem PS7 described in This requirement addresses the problem PS7 described in
Section 4. Section 4.
REQ6: Operation and Management considerations. REQ6: Operation and management considerations
A DMM solution needs to consider configuring a device, A DMM solution needs to consider configuring a device,
monitoring the current operational state of a device, monitoring the current operational state of a device, and
responding to events that impact the device, possibly by responding to events that impact the device, possibly by
modifying the configuration and storing the data in a format modifying the configuration and storing the data in a format
that can be analyzed later. Different management protocols that can be analyzed later. Different management protocols
are available. For example: are available. For example:
(a) SNMP [RFC1157] with definition of standardized management (a) the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) [RFC1157],
information base MIB objects for DMM, that allows with definitions of standardized management information
monitoring traffic steering in a consistent manner across base (MIB) objects for DMM that allow the monitoring of
different devices, traffic steering in a consistent manner across different
devices
(b) NETCONF [RFC6241] with definition of standardized YANG (b) the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) [RFC6241],
[RFC6020] modules for DMM to achieve a standardized with definitions of standardized YANG [RFC6020] modules
configuration, for DMM to achieve a standardized configuration
(c) syslog [RFC3164] which is a one-way protocol allowing a (c) syslog [RFC5424], which is a one-way protocol allowing a
device to report significant events to a log analyzer in device to report significant events to a log analyzer in
a network management system. a network management system
(d) IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Protocol, which serves (d) the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Protocol, which
as a means for transmitting traffic flow information over serves as a means for transmitting traffic flow
the network [RFC7011], with a formal description of IPFIX information over the network [RFC7011], with a formal
Information Elements [RFC7012]. description of IPFIX Information Elements [RFC7012]
It is not the goal of the requirements document to impose It is not the goal of this requirements document to impose
which management protocol(s) should be used. An inventory of which management protocol(s) should be used. An inventory of
the management protocols and data models is covered in RFC the management protocols and data models is covered in
6632. [RFC6632].
The following lists the operation and management The following paragraphs list the operation and management
considerations required for a DMM solution; the list may not considerations required for a DMM solution; this list of
be exhaustive and may be expanded according to the needs of considerations may not be exhaustive and may be expanded
the solutions: according to the needs of the solutions:
A DMM solution MUST describe in what environment and how it A DMM solution MUST describe how, and in what types of
can be scalably deployed and managed. environments, it can be scalably deployed and managed.
A DMM solution MUST support mechanisms to test if the DMM A DMM solution MUST support mechanisms to test whether the DMM
solution is working properly. For example, when a DMM solution is working properly. For example, when a DMM
solution employs traffic indirection to support a mobility solution employs traffic indirection to support a mobility
session, implementations MUST support mechanisms to test that session, implementations MUST support mechanisms to test that
the appropriate traffic indirection operations are in place, the appropriate traffic indirection operations are in place,
including the setup of traffic indirection and the subsequent including the setup of traffic indirection and the subsequent
teardown of the indirection to release the associated network teardown of the indirection to release the associated network
resources when the mobility session has closed. resources when the mobility session has closed.
A DMM solution SHOULD expose the operational state of DMM to A DMM solution SHOULD expose the operational state of DMM to
the administrators of the DMM entities. For example, when a the administrators of the DMM entities. For example, when a
DMM solution employs separation between session identifier and DMM solution employs separation between a session identifier
forwarding address, it should expose the association between and forwarding address, it should expose the association
them. between them.
When flow mobility is supported by a DMM solution, the When flow mobility is supported by a DMM solution, the
solution SHOULD support means to correlate the flow routing solution SHOULD support means to correlate the flow routing
policies and the observed forwarding actions. policies and the observed forwarding actions.
A DMM solution SHOULD support mechanisms to check the liveness A DMM solution SHOULD support mechanisms to check the liveness
of forwarding path. If the DMM solution sends periodic update of a forwarding path. If the DMM solution sends periodic
refresh messages to configure the forwarding path, the refresh update refresh messages to configure the forwarding path, the
period SHOULD be configurable and a reasonable default refresh period SHOULD be configurable and a reasonable default
configuration value proposed. Information collected can be configuration value proposed. Information collected can be
logged or made available with protocols such as SNMP logged or made available with protocols such as SNMP
[RFC1157], NETCONF [RFC6241], IPFIX [RFC7011], or syslog [RFC1157], NETCONF [RFC6241], IPFIX [RFC7011], or syslog
[RFC3164]. [RFC5424].
A DMM solution MUST provide fault management and monitoring A DMM solution MUST provide fault management and monitoring
mechanisms to manage situations where update of the mobility mechanisms to manage situations where an update of the
session or the data path fails. The system must also be able mobility session or the data path fails. The system must also
to handle situations where a mobility anchor with ongoing be able to handle situations where a mobility anchor with
mobility sessions fails. ongoing mobility sessions fails.
A DMM solution SHOULD be able to monitor usage of DMM A DMM solution SHOULD be able to monitor usage of the DMM
protocol. When a DMM solution uses an existing protocol, the protocol. When a DMM solution uses an existing protocol, the
techniques already defined for that protocol SHOULD be used to techniques already defined for that protocol SHOULD be used to
monitor the DMM operation. When these techniques are monitor the DMM operation. When these techniques are
inadequate, new techniques MUST be developed. inadequate, new techniques MUST be developed.
In particular, the DMM solution SHOULD In particular, the DMM solution SHOULD
(a) be able to monitor the number of mobility sessions per (a) be able to monitor the number of mobility sessions per
user as well as their average duration. user, as well as their average duration
(b) provide indication on DMM performance such as (b) provide an indication of DMM performance, such as
1 the handover delay which includes the time necessary (1) handover delay, which includes the time necessary to
to re-establish the forwarding path when the point of reestablish the forwarding path when the point of
attachment changes, attachment changes
2 the protocol reactivity which is the time between (2) protocol reactivity, which is the time between
handover events such as the attachment to a new access handover events such as the attachment to a new
point and the completion of the mobility session access point and the completion of the mobility
update. session update
(c) provide means to measure the signaling cost of the DMM (c) provide means to measure the signaling cost of the DMM
protocol. protocol
(d) if tunneling is used for traffic redirection, monitor (d) if tunneling is used for traffic redirection, monitor
1 the number of tunnels, (1) the number of tunnels
2 their transmission and reception information, (2) their transmission and reception information
3 the used encapsulation method and overhead (3) the encapsulation method used, and its overhead
4 the security used at a node level. (4) the security used at the node level
DMM solutions SHOULD support standardized configuration with DMM solutions SHOULD support standardized configuration with
NETCONF [RFC6241], using YANG [RFC6020] modules, which SHOULD NETCONF [RFC6241], using YANG [RFC6020] modules, which SHOULD
be created for DMM when needed for such configuration. be created for DMM when needed for such configuration.
However, if a DMM solution creates extensions to MIPv6 or However, if a DMM solution creates extensions to MIPv6 or
PMIPv6, the allowed addition of the definition of management PMIPv6, the allowed addition of definitions of management
information base (MIB) objects to MIPv6 MIB [RFC4295] or information base (MIB) objects to the MIPv6 MIB [RFC4295] or
PMIPv6 MIB [RFC6475] needed for the control and monitoring of the PMIPv6 MIB [RFC6475] that are needed for the control and
the protocol extensions SHOULD be limited to read-only monitoring of the protocol extensions SHOULD be limited to
objects. read-only objects.
Motivation: A DMM solution that is designed from the beginning Motivation: A DMM solution that is designed from the beginning
for operability and manageability can avoid difficulty or for operability and manageability can implement efficient
incompatibility to implement efficient operations and operations and management solutions.
management solutions.
These requirements avoid DMM designs that make operations and These requirements avoid DMM designs that make operations and
management difficult or costly. management difficult or costly.
REQ7: Security considerations REQ7: Security considerations
A DMM solution MUST support any security protocols and A DMM solution MUST support any security protocols and
mechanisms needed to secure the network and to make continuous mechanisms needed to secure the network and to make continuous
security improvements. In addition, with security taken into security improvements. In addition, with security taken into
consideration early in the design, a DMM solution MUST NOT consideration early in the design, a DMM solution MUST NOT
introduce new security risks, or amplify existing security introduce new security risks or amplify existing security
risks, that cannot be mitigated by existing security protocols risks that cannot be mitigated by existing security protocols
and mechanisms. and mechanisms.
Motivation: Various attacks such as impersonation, denial of Motivation: Various attacks such as impersonation, denial of
service, man-in-the-middle attacks, and so on, may be launched service, man-in-the-middle attacks, and so on may be launched
in a DMM deployment. For instance, an illegitimate node may in a DMM deployment. For instance, an illegitimate node may
attempt to access a network providing DMM. Another example is attempt to access a network providing DMM. Another example is
that a malicious node can forge a number of signaling messages that a malicious node can forge a number of signaling
thus redirecting traffic from its legitimate path. messages, thus redirecting traffic from its legitimate path.
Consequently, the specific node or nodes to which the traffic Consequently, the specific node or nodes to which the traffic
is redirected may be under a denial of service attack, whereas is redirected may be under a denial-of-service attack and
other nodes do not receive their traffic. Accordingly, other nodes do not receive their traffic. Accordingly,
security mechanisms/protocols providing access control, security mechanisms/protocols providing access control,
integrity, authentication, authorization, confidentiality, integrity, authentication, authorization, confidentiality,
etc. should be used to protect the DMM entities as they are etc. should be used to protect the DMM entities as they are
already used to protect against existing networks and existing already used to protect existing networks and existing
mobility protocols defined in IETF. Yet if a candidate DMM mobility protocols defined in the IETF. However, if a
solution is such that even the proper use of these existing candidate DMM solution is such that these existing security
security mechanisms/protocols are unable to provide sufficient mechanisms/protocols are unable to provide sufficient security
security protection, that candidate DMM solution is causing protection even when properly used, then that candidate DMM
uncontrollable security problems. solution is causing uncontrollable security problems.
This requirement prevents a DMM solution from introducing This requirement prevents a DMM solution from introducing
uncontrollable problems of potentially insecure mobility uncontrollable problems of potentially insecure mobility
management protocols which make deployment infeasible because management protocols that make deployment infeasible, because
platforms conforming to the protocols are at risk for data platforms conforming to such protocols are at risk for data
loss and numerous other dangers, including financial harm to loss and numerous other dangers, including financial harm to
the users. the users.
REQ8: Multicast considerations REQ8: Multicast considerations
DMM SHOULD enable multicast solutions to be developed to avoid DMM SHOULD enable multicast solutions to be developed to avoid
network inefficiency in multicast traffic delivery. network inefficiency in multicast traffic delivery.
Motivation: Existing multicast deployment have been introduced Motivation: Existing multicast deployments have been
after completing the design of the reference mobility introduced after completing the design of the reference
protocol, often leading to network inefficiency and non- mobility protocol, often leading to network inefficiency and
optimal forwarding for the multicast traffic. Instead DMM non-optimal forwarding for the multicast traffic. DMM should
should consider multicast early so that the multicast instead consider multicast early in the process, so that the
solutions can better consider efficiency nature in the multicast solutions can better consider the efficient nature
multicast traffic delivery (such as duplicate multicast of multicast traffic delivery (such as duplicate multicast
subscriptions towards the downstream tunnel entities). The subscriptions towards the downstream tunnel entities). The
multicast solutions should then avoid restricting the multicast solutions should then avoid restricting the
management of all IP multicast traffic to a single host management of all IP multicast traffic to a single host
through a dedicated (tunnel) interface on multicast-capable through a dedicated (tunnel) interface on multicast-capable
access routers. access routers.
This requirement addresses the problems PS1 and PS8 described This requirement addresses the problems PS1 and PS8 described
in Section 4. in Section 4.
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
Please refer to the discussion under Security requirement in Section Please refer to REQ7 in Section 5.
5.
7. IANA Considerations
None
8. Contributors 7. Contributors
This requirements document is a joint effort among numerous This requirements document is a joint effort among numerous
participants working in a team. Valuable comments and suggestions in participants working as a team. Valuable comments and suggestions in
various reviews from the following area directors and IESG members various reviews from the following area directors and IESG members
have also contributed to much improvements: Russ Housley, Catherine have also contributed to many improvements: Russ Housley, Catherine
Meadows, Adrian Farrel, Barry Leiba, Alissa Cooper, Ted Lemon, Brian Meadows, Adrian Farrel, Barry Leiba, Alissa Cooper, Ted Lemon, Brian
Haberman, Stephen Farrell, Joel Jaeggli, Alia Atlas, and Benoit Haberman, Stephen Farrell, Joel Jaeggli, Alia Atlas, and Benoit
Claise. In addition to the authors, each of the following has made Claise.
very significant and important contributions to the working group
draft in this work:
Charles E. Perkins In addition to the authors, each of the following has made very
Huawei Technologies significant and important contributions to this work:
Email: charliep@computer.org
Melia Telemaco
Alcatel-Lucent Bell Labs
Email: telemaco.melia@googlemail.com
Elena Demaria Charles E. Perkins
Telecom Italia Huawei Technologies
via G. Reiss Romoli, 274, TORINO, 10148, Italy EMail: charliep@computer.org
Email: elena.demaria@telecomitalia.it
Jong-Hyouk Lee Melia Telemaco
Sangmyung University, Korea Alcatel-Lucent Bell Labs
Email: jonghyouk@smu.ac.kr EMail: telemaco.melia@googlemail.com
Kostas Pentikousis Elena Demaria
EICT GmbH Telecom Italia
Email: k.pentikousis@eict.de via G. Reiss Romoli, 274, Torino, 10148, Italy
EMail: elena.demaria@telecomitalia.it
Tricci So Jong-Hyouk Lee
ZTE Sangmyung University, Korea
Email: tso@zteusa.com EMail: jonghyouk@smu.ac.kr
Carlos J. Bernardos Kostas Pentikousis
Universidad Carlos III de Madrid EICT GmbH
Av. Universidad, 30, Leganes, Madrid 28911, Spain EMail: k.pentikousis@eict.de
Email: cjbc@it.uc3m.es
Peter McCann Tricci So
Huawei Technologies ZTE
Email: Peter.McCann@huawei.com EMail: tso@zteusa.com
Seok Joo Koh Carlos J. Bernardos
Kyungpook National University, Korea Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Email: sjkoh@knu.ac.kr Av. Universidad, 30, Leganes, Madrid 28911, Spain
EMail: cjbc@it.uc3m.es
Wen Luo Peter McCann
ZTE Huawei Technologies
No.68, Zijinhua RD,Yuhuatai District, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012, China EMail: Peter.McCann@huawei.com
Email: luo.wen@zte.com.cn Seok Joo Koh
Kyungpook National University, Korea
EMail: sjkoh@knu.ac.kr
Sri Gundavelli Wen Luo
Cisco ZTE
sgundave@cisco.com No. 68, Zijinhua Rd, Yuhuatai District, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012, China
EMail: luo.wen@zte.com.cn
Hui Deng Sri Gundavelli
China Mobile Cisco
Email: denghui@chinamobile.com sgundave@cisco.com
Marco Liebsch Hui Deng
NEC Laboratories Europe China Mobile
Email: liebsch@neclab.eu EMail: denghui@chinamobile.com
Carl Williams Marco Liebsch
MCSR Labs NEC Laboratories Europe
Email: carlw@mcsr-labs.org EMail: liebsch@neclab.eu
Seil Jeon Carl Williams
Instituto de Telecomunicacoes, Aveiro MCSR Labs
Email: seiljeon@av.it.pt EMail: carlw@mcsr-labs.org
Sergio Figueiredo Seil Jeon
Universidade de Aveiro Instituto de Telecomunicacoes, Aveiro
Email: sfigueiredo@av.it.pt EMail: seiljeon@av.it.pt
Stig Venaas Sergio Figueiredo
Email: stig@venaas.com Universidade de Aveiro
EMail: sfigueiredo@av.it.pt
Luis Miguel Contreras Murillo Stig Venaas
Telefonica I+D EMail: stig@venaas.com
Email: lmcm@tid.es
Juan Carlos Zuniga Luis Miguel Contreras Murillo
InterDigital Telefonica I+D
Email: JuanCarlos.Zuniga@InterDigital.com EMail: lmcm@tid.es
Alexandru Petrescu Juan Carlos Zuniga
Email: alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com InterDigital
EMail: JuanCarlos.Zuniga@InterDigital.com
Georgios Karagiannis Alexandru Petrescu
University of Twente EMail: alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com
Email: g.karagiannis@utwente.nl Georgios Karagiannis
University of Twente
EMail: g.karagiannis@utwente.nl
Julien Laganier Julien Laganier
Juniper Juniper
Email: julien.ietf@gmail.com EMail: julien.ietf@gmail.com
Wassim Michel Haddad Wassim Michel Haddad
Ericsson Ericsson
Email: Wassim.Haddad@ericsson.com EMail: Wassim.Haddad@ericsson.com
Dirk von Hugo Dirk von Hugo
Deutsche Telekom Laboratories Deutsche Telekom Laboratories
Email: Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de EMail: Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de
Ahmad Muhanna Ahmad Muhanna
Award Solutions Award Solutions
Email: asmuhanna@yahoo.com EMail: asmuhanna@yahoo.com
Byoung-Jo Kim
ATT Labs
Email: macsbug@research.att.com
Hassan Ali-Ahmad Byoung-Jo Kim
Orange ATT Labs
Email: hassan.aliahmad@orange.com EMail: macsbug@research.att.com
Alper Yegin Hassan Ali-Ahmad
Samsung Orange
Email: alper.yegin@partner.samsung.com EMail: hassan.aliahmad@orange.com
David Harrington Alper Yegin
Effective Software Samsung
Email: ietfdbh@comcast.net EMail: alper.yegin@partner.samsung.com
9. References David Harrington
Effective Software
EMail: ietfdbh@comcast.net
9.1. Normative References 8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC1157] Case, J., Fedor, M., Schoffstall, M., and J. Davin, [RFC1157] Case, J., Fedor, M., Schoffstall, M., and J. Davin,
"Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", STD 15, "Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", STD 15,
RFC 1157, May 1990. RFC 1157, May 1990.
[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, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3164] Lonvick, C., "The BSD Syslog Protocol", RFC 3164,
August 2001.
[RFC3753] Manner, J. and M. Kojo, "Mobility Related Terminology", [RFC3753] Manner, J. and M. Kojo, "Mobility Related Terminology",
RFC 3753, June 2004. RFC 3753, June 2004.
[RFC4295] Keeni, G., Koide, K., Nagami, K., and S. Gundavelli, [RFC4295] Keeni, G., Koide, K., Nagami, K., and S. Gundavelli,
"Mobile IPv6 Management Information Base", RFC 4295, "Mobile IPv6 Management Information Base", RFC 4295,
April 2006. April 2006.
[RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V., Chowdhury, K., [RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V., Chowdhury, K.,
and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 5213, August 2008. and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 5213, August 2008.
[RFC5424] Gerhards, R., "The Syslog Protocol", RFC 5424, March 2009.
[RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for the [RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for the
Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020, Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
October 2010. October 2010.
[RFC6241] Enns, R., Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., and A. [RFC6241] Enns, R., Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., and A.
Bierman, "Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", Bierman, "Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)",
RFC 6241, June 2011. RFC 6241, June 2011.
[RFC6275] Perkins, C., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support [RFC6275] Perkins, C., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support
in IPv6", RFC 6275, July 2011. in IPv6", RFC 6275, July 2011.
skipping to change at page 21, line 23 skipping to change at page 21, line 5
Management Standards", RFC 6632, June 2012. Management Standards", RFC 6632, June 2012.
[RFC7011] Claise, B., Trammell, B., and P. Aitken, "Specification of [RFC7011] Claise, B., Trammell, B., and P. Aitken, "Specification of
the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Protocol for the the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Protocol for the
Exchange of Flow Information", STD 77, RFC 7011, Exchange of Flow Information", STD 77, RFC 7011,
September 2013. September 2013.
[RFC7012] Claise, B. and B. Trammell, "Information Model for IP Flow [RFC7012] Claise, B. and B. Trammell, "Information Model for IP Flow
Information Export (IPFIX)", RFC 7012, September 2013. Information Export (IPFIX)", RFC 7012, September 2013.
9.2. Informative References 8.2. Informative References
[I-D.bhandari-dhc-class-based-prefix] [DHCPv6-CLASS-BASED-PREFIX]
Bhandari, S., Halwasia, G., Gundavelli, S., Deng, H., Bhandari, S., Halwasia, G., Gundavelli, S., Deng, H.,
Thiebaut, L., Korhonen, J., and I. Farrer, "DHCPv6 class Thiebaut, L., Korhonen, J., and I. Farrer, "DHCPv6 class
based prefix", draft-bhandari-dhc-class-based-prefix-05 based prefix", Work in Progress, July 2013.
(work in progress), July 2013.
[I-D.korhonen-6man-prefix-properties]
Korhonen, J., Patil, B., Gundavelli, S., Seite, P., and D.
Liu, "IPv6 Prefix Properties",
draft-korhonen-6man-prefix-properties-02 (work in
progress), July 2013.
[I-D.wakikawa-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation]
Wakikawa, R., Pazhyannur, R., Gundavelli, S., and C.
Perkins, "Separation of Control and User Plane for Proxy
Mobile IPv6",
draft-wakikawa-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation-03 (work in
progress), April 2014.
[I-D.yokota-dmm-scenario]
Yokota, H., Seite, P., Demaria, E., and Z. Cao, "Use case
scenarios for Distributed Mobility Management",
draft-yokota-dmm-scenario-00 (work in progress),
October 2010.
[Paper-Distributed.Centralized.Mobility] [DIST-CENTRAL-MOB]
Bertin, P., Bonjour, S., and J-M. Bonnin, "A Distributed Bertin, P., Bonjour, S., and J-M. Bonnin, "Distributed or
or Centralized Mobility", Proceedings of Global Centralized Mobility?", Proceedings of the 28th IEEE
Communications Conference (GlobeCom), December 2009. Conference on Global Telecommunications (GlobeCom),
December 2009.
[Paper-Distributed.Dynamic.Mobility] [DIST-DYNAMIC-MOB]
Bertin, P., Bonjour, S., and J-M. Bonnin, "A Distributed Bertin, P., Bonjour, S., and J-M. Bonnin, "A Distributed
Dynamic Mobility Management Scheme Designed for Flat IP Dynamic Mobility Management Scheme Designed for Flat IP
Architectures", Proceedings of 3rd International Architectures", Proceedings of 3rd International
Conference on New Technologies, Mobility and Security Conference on New Technologies, Mobility and Security
(NTMS), 2008. (NTMS), 2008.
[Paper-Distributed.Mobility.MIP] [DIST-MOB-MIP]
Chan, H., "Distributed Mobility Management with Mobile Chan, H., "Distributed Mobility Management with Mobile
IP", Proceedings of IEEE International Communication IP", Proceedings of IEEE International Communication
Conference (ICC) Workshop on Telecommunications: from Conference (ICC) Workshop on Telecommunications: from
Research to Standards, June 2012. Research to Standards, June 2012.
[Paper-Distributed.Mobility.PMIP] [DIST-MOB-PMIP]
Chan, H., "Proxy Mobile IP with Distributed Mobility Chan, H., "Proxy Mobile IP with Distributed Mobility
Anchors", Proceedings of GlobeCom Workshop on Seamless Anchors", Proceedings of GlobeCom Workshop on Seamless
Wireless Mobility, December 2010. Wireless Mobility, December 2010.
[Paper-Distributed.Mobility.Review] [DIST-MOB-REVIEW]
Chan, H., Yokota, H., Xie, J., Seite, P., and D. Liu, Chan, H., Yokota, H., Xie, J., Seite, P., and D. Liu,
"Distributed and Dynamic Mobility Management in Mobile "Distributed and Dynamic Mobility Management in Mobile
Internet: Current Approaches and Issues", Journal of Internet: Current Approaches and Issues", Journal of
Communications, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 4-15, February 2011. Communications, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 4-15, February 2011.
[Paper-Distributed.Mobility.SAE] [DIST-MOB-SAE]
Fisher, M., Anderson, F., Kopsel, A., Schafer, G., and M. Fischer, M., Andersen, F., Kopsel, A., Schafer, G., and M.
Schlager, "A Distributed IP Mobility Approach for 3G SAE", Schlager, "A Distributed IP Mobility Approach for 3G SAE",
Proceedings of the 19th International Symposium on Proceedings of the 19th International Symposium on
Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC), Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC),
2008. 2008.
[Paper-Locating.User] [DMM-SCENARIO]
Kirby, G., "Locating the User", Communication Yokota, H., Seite, P., Demaria, E., and Z. Cao, "Use case
scenarios for Distributed Mobility Management", Work in
Progress, October 2010.
[IPv6-PREFIX-PROPERTIES]
Korhonen, J., Patil, B., Gundavelli, S., Seite, P., and
D. Liu, "IPv6 Prefix Properties", Work in Progress,
July 2013.
[LOCATING-USER]
Kirby, G., "Locating the User", Communications
International, 1995. International, 1995.
[Paper-Migrating.Home.Agents] [MIGRATING-HAs]
Wakikawa, R., Valadon, G., and J. Murai, "Migrating Home Wakikawa, R., Valadon, G., and J. Murai, "Migrating Home
Agents Towards Internet-scale Mobility Deployments", Agents Towards Internet-scale Mobility Deployments",
Proceedings of the ACM 2nd CoNEXT Conference on Future Proceedings of the ACM 2nd CoNEXT Conference on Future
Networking Technologies, December 2006. Networking Technologies, December 2006.
[Paper-Mobile.Data.Offloading] [MOB-DATA-OFFLOAD]
Lee, K., Lee, J., Yi, Y., Rhee, I., and S. Chong, "Mobile Lee, K., Lee, J., Yi, Y., Rhee, I., and S. Chong, "Mobile
Data Offloading: How Much Can WiFi Deliver?", SIGCOMM Data Offloading: How Much Can WiFi Deliver?", Proceedings
2010, 2010. of the ACM SIGCOMM 2010 Conference, 2010.
[PMIP-CP-UP-SPLIT]
Wakikawa, R., Pazhyannur, R., and S. Gundavelli,
"Separation of Control and User Plane for Proxy Mobile
IPv6", Work in Progress, July 2013.
[RFC5380] Soliman, H., Castelluccia, C., ElMalki, K., and L. [RFC5380] Soliman, H., Castelluccia, C., ElMalki, K., and L.
Bellier, "Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 (HMIPv6) Mobility Bellier, "Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 (HMIPv6) Mobility
Management", RFC 5380, October 2008. Management", RFC 5380, October 2008.
[RFC5944] Perkins, C., "IP Mobility Support for IPv4, Revised", [RFC5944] Perkins, C., "IP Mobility Support for IPv4, Revised",
RFC 5944, November 2010. RFC 5944, November 2010.
[RFC6224] Schmidt, T., Waehlisch, M., and S. Krishnan, "Base [RFC6224] Schmidt, T., Waehlisch, M., and S. Krishnan, "Base
Deployment for Multicast Listener Support in Proxy Mobile Deployment for Multicast Listener Support in Proxy Mobile
skipping to change at page 23, line 30 skipping to change at page 23, line 8
Dutta, "Localized Routing for Proxy Mobile IPv6", Dutta, "Localized Routing for Proxy Mobile IPv6",
RFC 6705, September 2012. RFC 6705, September 2012.
[RFC6909] Gundavelli, S., Zhou, X., Korhonen, J., Feige, G., and R. [RFC6909] Gundavelli, S., Zhou, X., Korhonen, J., Feige, G., and R.
Koodli, "IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector Option for Proxy Koodli, "IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector Option for Proxy
Mobile IPv6", RFC 6909, April 2013. Mobile IPv6", RFC 6909, April 2013.
[TS.23.401] [TS.23.401]
3GPP, "General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) enhancements 3GPP, "General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) enhancements
for Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network for Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network
(E-UTRAN) access", 3GPP TR 23.401 10.10.0, March 2013. (E-UTRAN) access", 3GPP TS 23.401 12.5.0, June 2014,
<http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html-info/23401.htm>.
[TS.29303] [TS.29.303]
3GPP, "Domain Name System Procedures; Stage 3", 3GPP 3GPP, "Domain Name System Procedures; Stage 3", 3GPP
TR 23.303 11.2.0, September 2012. TS 29.303 12.3.0, June 2014, <http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/
Specs/html-info/29303.htm>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
H Anthony Chan (editor) H. Anthony Chan (editor)
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
5340 Legacy Dr. Building 3, Plano, TX 75024, USA 5340 Legacy Dr. Building 3
Email: h.a.chan@ieee.org Plano, TX 75024
USA
EMail: h.a.chan@ieee.org
Dapeng Liu Dapeng Liu
China Mobile China Mobile
Unit2, 28 Xuanwumenxi Ave, Xuanwu District, Beijing 100053, China Unit 2, 28 Xuanwumenxi Ave, Xuanwu District
Email: liudapeng@chinamobile.com Beijing 100053
China
EMail: liudapeng@chinamobile.com
Pierrick Seite Pierrick Seite
Orange Orange
4, rue du Clos Courtel, BP 91226, Cesson-Sevigne 35512, France 4, rue du Clos Courtel, BP 91226
Email: pierrick.seite@orange.com Cesson-Sevigne 35512
France
EMail: pierrick.seite@orange.com
Hidetoshi Yokota Hidetoshi Yokota
KDDI Lab Landis+Gyr
2-1-15 Ohara, Fujimino, Saitama, 356-8502 Japan
Email: yokota@kddilabs.jp EMail: hidetoshi.yokota@landisgyr.com
Jouni Korhonen Jouni Korhonen
Broadcom Communications Broadcom Communications
Porkkalankatu 24, FIN-00180 Helsinki, Finland Porkkalankatu 24
Email: jouni.nospam@gmail.com Helsinki FIN-00180
Finland
EMail: jouni.nospam@gmail.com
 End of changes. 166 change blocks. 
453 lines changed or deleted 455 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/