draft-ietf-netlmm-mip-interactions-03.txt   draft-ietf-netlmm-mip-interactions-04.txt 
NETLMM Working Group G. Giaretta, Ed. NETLMM Working Group G. Giaretta, Ed.
Internet-Draft Qualcomm Internet-Draft Qualcomm
Intended status: Informational May 1, 2009 Intended status: Informational June 1, 2009
Expires: November 2, 2009 Expires: December 3, 2009
Interactions between PMIPv6 and MIPv6: scenarios and related issues Interactions between PMIPv6 and MIPv6: scenarios and related issues
draft-ietf-netlmm-mip-interactions-03 draft-ietf-netlmm-mip-interactions-04
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts. Drafts.
skipping to change at page 1, line 32 skipping to change at page 1, line 32
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 19, 2009. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 3, 2009.
Abstract Abstract
The scenarios where Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) and Mobile IPv6 The scenarios where Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) and Mobile IPv6
(MIPv6) protocols are both deployed in a network require some (MIPv6) protocols are both deployed in a network require some
analysis and considerations. This document describes all identified analysis and considerations. This document describes all identified
possible scenarios, which require an interaction between PMIPv6 and possible scenarios, which require an interaction between PMIPv6 and
MIPv6 and discusses all issues related to these scenarios. Solutions MIPv6 and discusses all issues related to these scenarios. Solutions
and recommendations to enable these scenarios are also described. and recommendations to enable these scenarios are also described.
skipping to change at page 2, line 22 skipping to change at page 2, line 22
3.3. Issues related to scenario C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.3. Issues related to scenario C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. Analysis of possible solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4. Analysis of possible solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1. Solutions related to scenario A . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.1. Solutions related to scenario A . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2. Solutions related to scenario B . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.2. Solutions related to scenario B . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.3. Solutions related to scenario C . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.3. Solutions related to scenario C . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.3.1. Mobility from a PMIPv6 domain to a non-PMIPv6 4.3.1. Mobility from a PMIPv6 domain to a non-PMIPv6
domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.3.2. Mobility from a non-PMIPv6 domain to a PMIPv6 4.3.2. Mobility from a non-PMIPv6 domain to a PMIPv6
domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6. Additional Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 6. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 7. Additional Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 20 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 20
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Proxy Mobile IPv6 [RFC5213] is a network based IP mobility protocol Proxy Mobile IPv6 [RFC5213] is a network based IP mobility protocol
standardized by IETF. In some deployment scenarios this protocol standardized by IETF. In some deployment scenarios this protocol
will be deployed together with MIPv6 [RFC3775], for example with will be deployed together with MIPv6 [RFC3775], for example with
PMIPv6 as local mobility protocol and MIPv6 as global mobility PMIPv6 as local mobility protocol and MIPv6 as global mobility
protocol. While the usage of a local mobility protocol should not protocol. While the usage of a local mobility protocol should not
have implications of how global mobility is managed, since PMIPv6 is have implications of how global mobility is managed, since PMIPv6 is
skipping to change at page 9, line 11 skipping to change at page 9, line 11
scenario B can be combined with scenario A or scenario C. scenario B can be combined with scenario A or scenario C.
The following sections describe some possible issues for each The following sections describe some possible issues for each
scenario. Respective recommendations are described in Section 4.3. scenario. Respective recommendations are described in Section 4.3.
The specifications considered as a baseline for the analysis are the The specifications considered as a baseline for the analysis are the
following: [RFC3775], [RFC4877] and [RFC5213]. following: [RFC3775], [RFC4877] and [RFC5213].
3.1. Issues related to scenario A 3.1. Issues related to scenario A
This scenario is very similar to other hierarchical mobility schemes, This scenario is very similar to other hierarchical mobility schemes,
including a HMIPv6-MIPv6 scheme. This is the scenario referenced in including a HMIPv6-MIPv6 scheme. No issues have been identified in
[RFC4830]. No issues have been identified in this scenario. Note this scenario. Note that a race condition where the MN registers the
that a race condition where the MN registers the CoA at the HA before CoA at the HA before the CoA is actually bound to the MAG at the LMA
the CoA is actually bound to the MAG at the LMA is not possible. The is not possible. The reason is that per PMIPv6 specification the MAG
reason is that per PMIPv6 specification the MAG does not forward any does not forward any packets sent by the MN until the PMIPv6 tunnel
packets sent by the MN until the PMIPv6 tunnel is up, regardless the is up, regardless the mechanism used for address allocation.
mechanism used for address allocation.
Section 4.1 describes one message flow in case PMIPv6 is used as a Section 4.1 describes one message flow in case PMIPv6 is used as a
local mobility protocol and MIPv6 is used as a global mobility local mobility protocol and MIPv6 is used as a global mobility
protocol. protocol.
3.2. Issues related to scenario B 3.2. Issues related to scenario B
In this scenario there are two types of nodes in the access network: In this scenario there are two types of nodes in the access network:
some nodes support Mobile IPv6 while some others do not. The some nodes support Mobile IPv6 while some others do not. The
rationale behind such a scenario is that the nodes implementing rationale behind such a scenario is that the nodes implementing
skipping to change at page 17, line 25 skipping to change at page 17, line 25
Scenarios A and B described in Section 3 do not introduce any Scenarios A and B described in Section 3 do not introduce any
security considerations in addition to those described in [pmipv6- security considerations in addition to those described in [pmipv6-
draft] or [RFC3775]. draft] or [RFC3775].
This document requires that the a home agent that also implements the This document requires that the a home agent that also implements the
PMIPv6 LMA functionality should allow both the mobile node and the PMIPv6 LMA functionality should allow both the mobile node and the
authorized MAGs to modify the binding cache entries for the mobile authorized MAGs to modify the binding cache entries for the mobile
node. Note that the compromised MAG threat described in [RFC4832] node. Note that the compromised MAG threat described in [RFC4832]
applies also here. applies also here.
6. Additional Authors 6. IANA considerations
This document has no IANA actions.
7. Additional Authors
Chowdhury, Kuntal - kchowdhury@starentnetworks.com Chowdhury, Kuntal - kchowdhury@starentnetworks.com
Hesham Soliman - Hesham@elevatemobile.com Hesham Soliman - Hesham@elevatemobile.com
Vijay Devarapalli - vijay.devarapalli@azairenet.com Vijay Devarapalli - vijay.devarapalli@azairenet.com
Sri Gundavelli - sgundave@cisco.com Sri Gundavelli - sgundave@cisco.com
Kilian Weniger - Kilian.Weniger@googlemail.com Kilian Weniger - Kilian.Weniger@googlemail.com
Genadi Velev - Genadi.Velev@eu.panasonic.com Genadi Velev - Genadi.Velev@eu.panasonic.com
Ahmad Muhanna - amuhanna@nortel.com Ahmad Muhanna - amuhanna@nortel.com
George Tsirtsis - tsirtsis@googlemail.com George Tsirtsis - tsirtsis@googlemail.com
Suresh Krishnan - suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com Suresh Krishnan - suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com
7. Acknowledgements 8. Acknowledgements
This document is a merge of four different Internet Drafts: This document is a merge of four different Internet Drafts:
draft-weniger-netlmm-pmipv6-mipv6-issues-00, draft-weniger-netlmm-pmipv6-mipv6-issues-00,
draft-devarapalli-netlmm-pmipv6-mipv6-01, draft-devarapalli-netlmm-pmipv6-mipv6-01,
draft-tsirtsis-logically-separate-lmaha-01and
draft-giaretta-netlmm-mip-interactions-00. Thanks to the authors and draft-giaretta-netlmm-mip-interactions-00. Thanks to the authors and
editors of those drafts. editors of those drafts.
The authors would also like to thank Jonne Soininen and Vidya The authors would also like to thank Jonne Soininen and Vidya
Narayanan, NETLMM WG chairs, for their support. Narayanan, NETLMM WG chairs, for their support.
8. References 9. References
8.1. Normative References 9.1. 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, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3775] Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support [RFC3775] Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support
in IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004. in IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004.
[RFC4832] Vogt, C. and J. Kempf, "Security Threats to Network-Based [RFC4832] Vogt, C. and J. Kempf, "Security Threats to Network-Based
Localized Mobility Management (NETLMM)", April 2007. Localized Mobility Management (NETLMM)", April 2007.
skipping to change at page 18, line 35 skipping to change at page 18, line 42
[RFC5026] Giaretta, G., Kempf, J., and V. Devarapalli, "Mobile IPv6 [RFC5026] Giaretta, G., Kempf, J., and V. Devarapalli, "Mobile IPv6
Bootstrapping in Split Scenario", RFC 5026, October 2007. Bootstrapping in Split Scenario", RFC 5026, October 2007.
[RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., "Proxy Mobile IPv6", August 2008. [RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., "Proxy Mobile IPv6", August 2008.
[boot-integrated] [boot-integrated]
Chowdhury, K., Ed., "MIP6-bootstrapping for the Integrated Chowdhury, K., Ed., "MIP6-bootstrapping for the Integrated
Scenario", 2007. Scenario", 2007.
8.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[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.
[RFC4283] Patel, A., Leung, K., Khalil, M., Akhtar, H., and K. [RFC4283] Patel, A., Leung, K., Khalil, M., Akhtar, H., and K.
Chowdhury, "Mobile Node Identifier Option for Mobile IPv6 Chowdhury, "Mobile Node Identifier Option for Mobile IPv6
(MIPv6)", RFC 4283, November 2005. (MIPv6)", RFC 4283, November 2005.
[RFC4831] Kempf, J., "Goals for Network-Based Localized Mobility
Management (NETLMM)", RFC 4831, April 2007.
Author's Address Author's Address
Gerardo Giaretta (editor) Gerardo Giaretta (editor)
Qualcomm Qualcomm
Email: gerardog@qualcomm.com Email: gerardog@qualcomm.com
Full Copyright Statement Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
 End of changes. 12 change blocks. 
25 lines changed or deleted 27 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.35. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/