draft-ietf-netlmm-nohost-ps-03.txt   draft-ietf-netlmm-nohost-ps-04.txt 
Internet Draft J. Kempf, Editor Internet Draft J. Kempf, Editor
Document: draft-ietf-netlmm-nohost-ps-03.txt Document: draft-ietf-netlmm-nohost-ps-04.txt
Expires: December, 2006 June, 2006 Expires: December, 2006 June, 2006
Problem Statement for Network-based IP Local Mobility Problem Statement for Network-based Localized Mobility Management
(draft-ietf-netlmm-nohost-ps-03.txt) (draft-ietf-netlmm-nohost-ps-04.txt)
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of 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
skipping to change at page 2, line 4 skipping to change at page 2, line 4
Marco Liebsch all contributed major effort to this document. Their Marco Liebsch all contributed major effort to this document. Their
names are not included in the authors' section due to the RFC names are not included in the authors' section due to the RFC
Editor's limit of 5 names. Editor's limit of 5 names.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction.............................................2 1.0 Introduction.............................................2
2.0 The Local Mobility Problem...............................4 2.0 The Local Mobility Problem...............................4
3.0 Scenarios for Localized Mobility Management..............6 3.0 Scenarios for Localized Mobility Management..............6
4.0 Problems with Existing Solutions.........................7 4.0 Problems with Existing Solutions.........................7
5.0 IANA Considerations......................................8 5.0 IANA Considerations..............................................8
6.0 Security Considerations..................................8 6.0 Security Considerations..........................................8
7.0 References...............................................9 7.0 References.......................................................9
8.0 Acknowledgements.........................................9 8.0 Acknowledgements.................................................9
9.0 Author's Addresses.......................................9 9.0 Author's Addresses...............................................9
10.0 IPR Statements..........................................10 10.0 IPR Statements..................................................10
11.0 Disclaimer of Validity..................................11 11.0 Disclaimer of Validity..........................................11
12.0 Copyright Notice........................................11 12.0 Copyright Notice................................................11
1.0 Introduction 1.0 Introduction
Localized mobility management has been the topic of much work in Localized mobility management has been the topic of much work in
the IETF. The experimental protocols developed from previous work, the IETF. The experimental protocols developed from previous work,
namely FMIPv6 [1] and HMIPv6 [2], involve host-based solutions that namely FMIPv6 [1] and HMIPv6 [2], involve host-based solutions that
require host involvement at the IP layer similar to or in addition require host involvement at the IP layer similar to or in addition
to that required by Mobile IPv6 [3] for global mobility management. to that required by Mobile IPv6 [3] for global mobility management.
However, recent developments in the IETF and the WLAN However, recent developments in the IETF and the WLAN
infrastructure market suggest that it may be time to take a fresh infrastructure market suggest that it may be time to take a fresh
look at localized mobility management. look at localized mobility management.
Firstly, new IETF work on global mobility management protocols that Firstly, new IETF work on global mobility management protocols that
are not Mobile IPv6, such as HIP [4] and Mobike [5], suggests that are not Mobile IPv6, such as HIP [4] and MOBIKE [5], suggests that
future wireless IP nodes may support a more diverse set of global future wireless IP nodes may support a more diverse set of global
mobility protocols. While it is possible that existing localized mobility protocols. While it is possible that existing localized
mobility management protocols could be used with HIP and Mobike, mobility management protocols could be used with HIP and MOBIKE,
some would require additional effort to implement and deploy in a some would require additional effort to implement, deploy, or in
non-Mobile IPv6 mobile environment. some cases even to specify in a non-Mobile IPv6 mobile environment.
Secondly, the success in the WLAN infrastructure market of WLAN Secondly, the success in the WLAN infrastructure market of WLAN
switches, which perform localized management without any host stack switches, which perform localized management without any host stack
involvement, suggests a possible paradigm that could be used to involvement, suggests a possible paradigm that could be used to
accommodate other global mobility options on the mobile node while accommodate other global mobility options on the mobile node while
reducing host stack software complexity expanding the range of reducing host stack software complexity expanding the range of
mobile nodes that could be accommodated. mobile nodes that could be accommodated.
This document briefly describes the general local mobility problem This document briefly describes the general local mobility problem
and scenarios where localized mobility management would be and scenarios where localized mobility management would be
desirable. Then problems with existing or proposed IETF localized desirable. Then problems with existing or proposed IETF localized
mobility management protocols are briefly discussed. The network- mobility management protocols are briefly discussed. The network-
based mobility management architecture and a short description of based mobility management architecture and a short description of
how it solves these problems is presented. A more detailed how it solves these problems is presented. A more detailed
discussion of goals for a network-based, localized mobility discussion of goals for a network-based, localized mobility
management protocol and gap analysis for existing protocols can be management protocol and gap analysis for existing protocols can be
found in [6]. Note that IPv6 and wireless links are considered to found in [6]. Note that IPv6 and wireless links are considered to
be the primary focal points for a network-based localized mobility be the initial scope for a network-based localized mobility
management, so the language in this document reflects that focus. management, so the language in this document reflects that scope.
However, the conclusions of this document apply equally to IPv4 and However, the conclusions of this document apply equally to IPv4 and
wired links where nodes are disconnecting and reconnecting. wired links where nodes are disconnecting and reconnecting.
1.1 Terminology 1.1 Terminology
Mobility terminology in this draft follows that in RFC 3753 Mobility terminology in this draft follows that in RFC 3753
[7], with the addition of some new and revised terminology [7], with the addition of some new and revised terminology
given here: given here:
Local Mobility (revised) Local Mobility (revised)
Local Mobility is mobility over an access network. Note Local Mobility is mobility over an access network. Note
that, although the area of network topology over which the that, although the area of network topology over which the
mobile node moves may be restricted, the actual geographic mobile node moves may be restricted, the actual geographic
area could be quite large, depending on the mapping between area could be quite large, depending on the mapping between
the network topology and the wireless coverage area. the network topology and the wireless coverage area.
Localized Mobility Management Localized Mobility Management
Localized Mobility Management is a generic term for any IP Localized Mobility Management is a generic term for any
protocol that maintains the IP connectivity and reachability protocol that maintains the IP connectivity and reachability
of a mobile node for purposes of maintaining session of a mobile node for purposes of maintaining session
continuitity when the mobile node moves, and whose signaling continuitity when the mobile node moves, and whose signaling
is confined to an access network. is confined to an access network.
Localized Mobility Management Protocol Localized Mobility Management Protocol
A protocol that supports localized mobility management. A protocol that supports localized mobility management.
Global Mobility Management Protocol Global Mobility Management Protocol
A Global Mobility Management Protocol is a mobility protocol A Global Mobility Management Protocol is a mobility protocol
used by the mobile node to change the global, end-to-end used by the mobile node to change the global, end-to-end
routing of packets for purposes of maintaining session routing of packets for purposes of maintaining session
continuity when movement causes a topology change and thus continuity when movement causes a topology change and thus
invalidates a global unicast address of the mobile node. invalidates a global unicast address of the mobile node.
This protocol could be Mobile IP [1][13] but it could also This protocol could be Mobile IP [1][13] but it could also
be HIP [4] or Mobike [5]. be HIP [4] or MOBIKE [5].
Global Mobility Anchor Point Global Mobility Anchor Point
A node in the network where the mobile node maintains a A node in the network where the mobile node maintains a
permanent address and a mapping between the permanent permanent address and a mapping between the permanent
address and the local temporary address where the mobile address and the local temporary address where the mobile
node happens to be currently located. The Global Mobility node happens to be currently located. The Global Mobility
Anchor Point may be used for purposes of rendezvous and Anchor Point may be used for purposes of rendezvous and
possibly traffic forwarding. possibly traffic forwarding.
skipping to change at page 7, line 50 skipping to change at page 7, line 50
mobility management. For Solution 1, the following are specific mobility management. For Solution 1, the following are specific
problems: problems:
1) The host stack software requirement limits broad usage even if 1) The host stack software requirement limits broad usage even if
the modifications are small. The success of WLAN switches the modifications are small. The success of WLAN switches
indicates that network operators and users prefer no host stack indicates that network operators and users prefer no host stack
software modifications. This preference is independent of the software modifications. This preference is independent of the
lack of widespread Mobile IPv4 deployment, since it is much lack of widespread Mobile IPv4 deployment, since it is much
easier to deploy and use the network. easier to deploy and use the network.
2) Future mobile nodes may choose other global mobility management 2) Future mobile nodes may choose other global mobility management
protocols, such as HIP or Mobike. The existing localized protocols, such as HIP or MOBIKE. The existing localized
mobility management solutions all depend on Mobile IP or mobility management solutions all depend on Mobile IP or
derivatives. derivatives.
3) Existing localized mobility management solutions do not support 3) Existing localized mobility management solutions do not support
both IPv4 and IPv6. both IPv4 and IPv6.
4) Existing host-based localized mobility management solutions 4) Existing host-based localized mobility management solutions
require setting up additional security associations with network require setting up additional security associations with network
elements in the access domain. elements in the access domain.
Market acceptance of WLAN switches has been very large, so Solution Market acceptance of WLAN switches has been very large, so Solution
2 is widely deployed and continuing to grow. Solution 2 has the 2 is widely deployed and continuing to grow. Solution 2 has the
skipping to change at page 9, line 17 skipping to change at page 9, line 17
network access, but no more. A more complete discussion of the network access, but no more. A more complete discussion of the
security goals for network-based localized mobility management can security goals for network-based localized mobility management can
be found in [6]. be found in [6].
7.0 References 7.0 References
7.1 Informative References 7.1 Informative References
[1] Koodli, R., editor, "Fast Handovers for Mobile IPv6," RFC [1] Koodli, R., editor, "Fast Handovers for Mobile IPv6," RFC
4068, July, 2005. 4068, July, 2005.
[2] Soliman, H., editor, "Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 Mobility [2] Soliman, H., Castelluccia, C., El Malki, K., and Bellier. L.,
Management," RFC 4140, August, 2005. "Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 Mobility Management," RFC 4140,
August, 2005.
[3] Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and Arkko, J., "Mobility Support in [3] Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and Arkko, J., "Mobility Support in
IPv6," RFC 3775. IPv6," RFC 3775.
[4] Moskowitz, R., and Nikander, P., "Host Identity Protocol (HIP) [4] Moskowitz, R., and Nikander, P., "Host Identity Protocol (HIP)
Architecture", RFC 4423, May, 2006. Architecture", RFC 4423, May, 2006.
[5] Eronen, P., editor, "IKEv2 Mobility and Multihoming Protocol [5] Eronen, P., editor, "IKEv2 Mobility and Multihoming Protocol
(MOBIKE)", Internet Draft, work in progress. (MOBIKE)", Internet Draft, work in progress.
[6] Kempf, J., editor, "Goals for Network-based Localized Mobility [6] Kempf, J., editor, "Goals for Network-based Localized Mobility
Management", Internet Draft, work in progress. Management", Internet Draft, work in progress.
[7] Manner, J., and Kojo, M., "Mobility Related Terminology", RFC [7] Manner, J., and Kojo, M., "Mobility Related Terminology", RFC
3753, June, 2004. 3753, June, 2004.
 End of changes. 10 change blocks. 
22 lines changed or deleted 23 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.32. The latest version is available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/