Network-based Localized Mobility Management
charter-ietf-netlmm-04

Document Charter Network-based Localized Mobility Management WG (netlmm)
Title Network-based Localized Mobility Management
Last updated 2010-10-05
State Approved
WG State Concluded
IESG Responsible AD Jari Arkko
Charter Edit AD (None)
Send notices to (None)

Charter
charter-ietf-netlmm-04

The IETF has defined both local and global mobility management
  protocols that are intended to handle IP mobility for nodes. All IP
  mobility management protocols defined thus far require the involvement
  of the mobile node in order to accomplish mobility. This working
  group is tasked with defining a network-based local mobility
  management protocol, where local IP mobility is handled without
  involvement from the mobile node. The idea is that the mobile node
  may move across multiple access routers without encountering a change
  in its IP address, thereby hiding the mobility from the IP layer and
  above.
  
  As part of the first phase of efforts in this working group, a
  protocol for such network-based local mobility has been developed.
  This protocol, Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6), has been developed based on
  Mobile IPv6, after considering other alternative approaches. With
  this protocol, unmodified IP nodes may change access routers without
  having to change the IP address on an interface, within a given
  administrative domain. This is accomplished by having Mobile Access
  Gateways (MAGs), often part of the access routers in a network, send
  binding updates on behalf of mobile nodes attached to them, to a Local
  Mobility Anchor (LMA). The LMA manages the mobility of the mobile
  nodes across the MAGs within a given PMIPv6 domain.
  
  The PMIPv6 protocol is being adopted as part of several wide-area
  wireless network (e.g., 3GPP, 3GPP2, WiMAX) and local area network
  environments. The current charter of this working group involves
  specification of some necessary features that make the deployment of
  this protocol feasible in these various environments.
  
  As part of this effort, it is essential to support mobility for IPv4
  end nodes. Some means of dealing with overlapping private IPv4
  addresses of mobile nodes and supporting separation of flows between
  the MAG and LMA is also required. Further, given that local and
  global mobility management protocols are likely to be deployed in some
  combination in various environments, it is necessary to clearly define
  the interactions between PMIPv6 and MIPv6. Interactions with AAA
  protocols such as RADIUS and Diameter may be required for
  authorization or provisioning purposes. When multiple LMAs are
  present, an automated LMA discovery mechanism may be needed to
  facilitate deployment. The above items are in scope of the current
  charter.
  
  The MAG and LMA are considered to be IPv6 capable for all efforts of
  this protocol. Also, all features defined must work with unmodified
  IP nodes. Specifying any changes to mobile nodes is out of scope of
  the current charter. Handoff and route optimizations are also out of
  scope. There is, however, considerable interest in optimization work,
  for instance, and a future recharter of this working group is likely
  to address this in some manner.
  
  NETLMM WG Deliverables
  ----------------------
  
  1) Interface between a PMIPv6 MAG and MN: This interface will define
  the interaction between a regular IP node and a MAG that will be used
  to trigger various mobility management actions on the MAG. This is
  necessary for the MAG to properly trigger binding updates to the LMA
  and create appropriate mobility management state.
  
  2) IPv4 Support for PMIPv6: This will define the support for IPv4
  nodes in PMIPv6. This will also define the protocol operation over an
  IPv4 transport between the MAG and LMA, by employing protocol extensions
  already developed in the MEXT WG.
  
  3) Interactions between Mobile IPv6 and Proxy Mobile IPv6: This will
  highlight the interactions required between these protocols in various
  methods of co-existence of these in a system, with a view to
  documenting the best practices to be used. The scenarios considered
  will include a hierarchical model of local and global mobility
  management using PMIPv6 and MIPv6 respectively, a mixed mode of the
  two with some nodes supporting MIPv6 and others not, and the use of
  MIPv6 upon movement of nodes outside a PMIPv6 domain.
  
  4) GRE Keying option for PMIPv6: This will define a mechanism using
  GRE keys to support separation of flows between a MAG and LMA.
  
  5) RADIUS support for PMIPv6: This will define the interactions
  between RADIUS and PMIPv6 to support policy provisioning and
  authorization.
  
  6) Automatic LMA discovery: This will define the ability for MAGs to
  automatically discover and use an LMA within a PMIPv6 domain. The
  scope of this effort may include specifying the use of DNS or DHCP
  based LMA discovery or LMA discovery using policy information
  retrieved via AAA protocols.
  
  7) MIB for PMIPv6: This will define the MIB for the protocol for
  interoperability purposes.
  
  8) PMIPv6 path management and failure detection: This will define
  an extension to the PMIPv6 protocol allowing PMIPv6 peers to
  verify bidirectional reachability with their peer, detect
  failure of their peer, and signal their own failure to their
  peer.