Distributed Mobility Anchoring
draft-chan-dmm-distributed-mobility-anchoring-06
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Replaced".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Anthony Chan , Xinpeng Wei , Jong-Hyouk Lee , Seil Jeon , Fred Templin | ||
| Last updated | 2015-11-02 | ||
| Replaced by | draft-ietf-dmm-distributed-mobility-anchoring, RFC 8818 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-chan-dmm-distributed-mobility-anchoring-06
DMM H. Chan
Internet-Draft X. Wei
Intended status: Informational Huawei Technologies
Expires: May 5, 2016 J. Lee
Sangmyung University
S. Jeon
Instituto de Telecomunicacoes
F. Templin
Boeing Research and Technology
November 2, 2015
Distributed Mobility Anchoring
draft-chan-dmm-distributed-mobility-anchoring-06
Abstract
This document defines the solution for mid-session switching of the
IP prefix anchor with distributed mobility anchoring. Without
ongoing session requiring session continuity, the IP prefix anchor
can be moved to a new network of attachment by using the new IP
prefix allocated from the new network. With ongoing session, the
anchoring of the prior IP prefix may be relocated to the new network
to enable session continuity.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 5, 2016.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Chan, et al. Expires May 5, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft mobility anchor switching November 2015
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. IP prefix/address anchored in current network of attachment . 4
3.1. Changing to the new IP prefix/address . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. IP prefix/address anchor switching to the new network . . 8
3.2.1. Centralized control plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.2. Hierarchical network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1. Introduction
A key requirement in distributed mobility management [RFC7333] is to
enable traffic to avoid traversing single mobility anchor far from
the optimal route. Recall that distributed mobility management
solutions do not make use of centrally deployed mobility anchor
[Paper-Distributed.Mobility]. As such, a flow SHOULD be able to have
its traffic changing from traversing one mobility anchor to
traversing another mobility anchor as the mobile node moves, or when
changing operation and management requirements call for mobility
anchor switching, thus avoiding non-optimal routes. This draft
proposes distributed mobility anchoring solutions.
The needs of IP-layer mobility support are diverse so that the use of
distributed anchoring may differ according to the needs.
A mobile node (MN) may be running a flow with its correspondent node
(CN) for which the source IP address of this flow belongs to MN's
network. That is, it is anchored to an access router (anchor)
belonging to MN's network. When there are multiple anchors, the flow
may need to select the anchor when it is initiated (Section 3).
Chan, et al. Expires May 5, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft mobility anchor switching November 2015
Using an anchor in MN's network has the advantage that the packets
can simply be forwarded according to the forwarding table. The
anchor may be in the MN's network when the flow was initiated. As
the MN moves from one network to another, IP address no longer
belongs to the new network. To order that the IP address of the flow
is in the new network different methods can be used dependent on the
needs of the flow. If the ongoing IP flow can cope with an IP
prefix/address change, the flow can be reiniated with a new IP
address anchored in the new network (Section 3.1). On the other
hand, if the ongoing IP flow cannot cope with such change, the IP
address anchoring can be moved from the original network to the new
network (Section 3.2).
2. Conventions and Terminology
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 [RFC2119].
All general mobility-related terms and their acronyms used in this
document are to be interpreted as defined in the Mobile IPv6 base
specification [RFC6275], the Proxy Mobile IPv6 specification
[RFC5213], and the DMM current practices and gap analysis [RFC7429].
This includes terms such as mobile node (MN), correspondent node
(CN), home agent (HA), home address (HoA), care-of-address (CoA),
local mobility anchor (LMA), and mobile access gateway (MAG).
In addition, this document uses the following term:
Home network of an application session (or of an HoA): the network
that has allocated the IP address (HoA) used for the session
identifier by the application running in an MN. An MN may be
running multiple application sessions, and each of these sessions
can have a different home network.
IP prefix/address anchoring: An IP prefix, i.e., Home Network Prefix
(HNP), or address, i.e., Home Address (HoA), allocated to a mobile
node is topologically anchored to a node when the anchor node is
able to advertise a connected route into the routing
infrastructure for the allocated IP prefix.
Internetwork Location Management (LM) function: managing and keeping
track of the internetwork location of an MN. The location
information may be a binding of the IP advertised address/prefix,
e.g., HoA or HNP, to the IP routing address of the MN or of a node
that can forward packets destined to the MN. It is a control
plane function.
Chan, et al. Expires May 5, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft mobility anchor switching November 2015
In a client-server protocol model, location query and update
messages may be exchanged between a Location Management client
(LMc) and a Location Management server (LMs).
With separation of control plane and data plane, the LM function
is in the control plane. It may be a logical function at the
control plane node, control plane anchor, or mobility controller.
It may be distributed or centralized.
Forwarding Management (FM) function: packet interception and
forwarding to/from the IP address/prefix assigned to the MN, based
on the internetwork location information, either to the
destination or to some other network element that knows how to
forward the packets to their destination.
This function may be used to achieve indirection. With separation
of control plane and data plane, FM may split into a FM function
in the data plane (FM-DP) and a FM function in the control plane
(FM-CP).
FM-DP may be distributed with distributed mobility management. It
may be a function in a data plane anchor or data plane node.
FM-CP may be distributed or centralized. It may be a function in
a control plane node, control plane anchor or mobility controller.
Security Management (SM) function: The security management function
controls security mechanisms/protocols providing access control,
integrity, authentication, authorization, confidentiality, etc.
for the control plane and data plane.
This function resides in all nodes such as control plane anchor,
data plane anchor, mobile node, and correspondent node.
3. IP prefix/address anchored in current network of attachment
The deployment models of mobility management functions in the cases
introduced through the subsections are referred from
[I-D.templin-aerolink] [I-D.sijeon-dmm-deployment-models]
The IP prefix/address at the MN's side of a flow may be anchored at
the access router to which the MN is attached.
For example, when an MN attaches to a network (Net1) or moves to a
new network (Net2), it is allocated an IP prefix from that network.
It configures from this prefix an IP address which is typically a
dynamic IP address. It then uses this IP address when it a flow is
Chan, et al. Expires May 5, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft mobility anchor switching November 2015
initiated. Packets to the MN in this flow are simply forwarded
according to the forwarding table.
Net1 Net2
+---------------+ +---------------+
|AR1 anchors IP1| |AR2 anchors IP2|
+---------------+ +---------------+
+---------------+ +---------------+
|MN(IP1): | |MN(IP2): |
|flow(IP2,...) | or |flow(IP2,...) |
+---------------+ +---------------+
Figure 1. IP prefix/address anchored in network of attachment. MN
is attached to AR1 in Net1 where it has initiated a flow using IP1 or
has moved to AR2 in Net2 where it initiates a new flow using IP2.
There may be multiple IP prefixes/addresses to choose from. They may
be from the same access network or different access networks. The
network may advertise these prefixes with cost options
[I-D.mccann-dmm-prefixcost] so that the mobile node may choose the
one with the least cost. In addition, these IP prefixes/addresses
may be of different types regarding whether mobility support is
needed [I-D.dmm-ondemand-mobility-api]. A flow will need to choose
the appropriate one according to whether it needs IP mobility
support.
With on-demand mobility, IP mobility support is provided only when
needed instead of being provided by default.
3.1. Changing to the new IP prefix/address
A straightforward choice of mobility anchoring is for a flow to use
the IP prefix of the network to which the MN is attached when the
flow is initiated [I-D.seite-dmm-dma]. This is shown in Figure 2.
Chan, et al. Expires May 5, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft mobility anchor switching November 2015
Net1 Net2
+---------------+ +---------------+
|AR1 anchors IP1| |AR2 anchors IP2|
+---------------+ +---------------+
+...............+ move +---------------+
.MN(IP1): . =======> |MN(IP2): |
.flow(IP1,...) . |flow(IP2,...) |
+...............+ +---------------+
Figure 2. Changing to the new IP prefix/address. MN running a flow
using IP1 in Net1 changes to running a flow using IP2 in Net2.
When IP mobility is not provided to a specific flow, the flow may use
a new IP address acquired from a new network as the MN moves to the
new network.
Regardless of whether IP mobility is needed, if the flow has
terminated before the MN moves to a new network, the flow may
subsequently restart using the new IP address allocated from the new
network.
When session continuity is needed, even if a flow is ongoing as the
MN moves, it may still be desirable for the flow to change to using
the new IP prefix configured in the new network. The flow may then
close and then restart using a new IP address configured in the new
network. Yet such a change in flow may be using a higher layer
mobility support which is not in the scope of this document to change
the IP address of the flow.
In Figure 2, a flow initiated while the MN was in Net1 has terminated
before the MN moves to a new network Net2. After moving to Net2, the
MN uses the new IP prefix anchored in Net2 to start a new flow. The
packets may then be forwarded without requiring IP layer mobility
support.
The call flow is outlined in Figure 3.
Chan, et al. Expires May 5, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft mobility anchor switching November 2015
MN p-AR n-AR CN
|MN attaches to p-AR: | | |
|acquire MN-ID and profile | |
|--RS---------------->| | |
| | | |
|<----------RA(HNP1)--| | |
| | | |
Allocated prefix HNP1
IP1 address configuration
| | | |
|<-Flow(IP1,IPcn,...)-+--------------------------------------------->|
| | | |
|MN detach from p-AR | | |
|MN attach to n-AR | | |
| | | |
|--RS------------------------------>| |
| | | |
|<--------------RA(HNP2)------------| |
| | | |
Allocated prefix HNP2
IP2 address configuration
| | | |
|<-new Flow(IP2,IPcn,...)-----------+------------------------------->|
| | | |
Figure 3. A flow uses the IP allocated from the network at which the
MN is attached when the flow is initiated.
The security management function in the anchor node at a new network
must allow to assign a valid IP prefix/address to a mobile node.
When IP mobility is needed for a flow, the mobility support may be
provided by IP prefix anchor switching to the new network to be
described in Section 3.2 or by using other mobility management
methods ([Paper-Distributed.Mobility.PMIP] and
[Paper-Distributed.Mobility.Review]) Then the flow may continue to
use the IP prefix from the prior network. Yet some time later, the
flow of a certain user application may be closed. If the spplication
is started again, the new flow may not need to use the prior network
address to avoid having to invoke IP mobility support. This is the
case when the use of a permanent IP prefix/address is not needed.
The flow may then use the new IP prefix in the network where the flow
is initiated. Routing is again kept simpler without employing IP
mobility and will remain so as long as the MN has not moved away from
that network.
The call flow in this case is outlined in Figure 4.
Chan, et al. Expires May 5, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft mobility anchor switching November 2015
MN p-AR n-AR CN
|MN attaches to p-AR: | | |
|acquire MN-ID and profile | |
|--RS---------------->| | |
| | | |
|<----------RA(HNP1)--| | |
| | | |
Allocated prefix HNP1
IP1 address configuration
| | | |
|<-Flow(IP1,IPcn,...)-+--------------------------------------------->|
| | | |
|MN detach from p-AR | | |
|MN attach to n-AR | | |
| | | |
|--RS------------------------------>| |
HNP2 anchor switching to n-AR to be described in next sub-section
|<--------------RA(HNP2,HNP1)---------| |
| | | |
|<-Flow(IP1,IPcn,...)---------------+------------------------------->|
| | | |
Allocated prefix HNP2
IP2 address configuration
| | | |
Flow(IP1,IPcn) teminates
| | | |
|<-new Flow(IP2,IPcn,...)-----------+------------------------------->|
| | | |
Figure 4. A flow uses the IP allocated from the network at which the
MN is attached when the flow is initiated.
3.2. IP prefix/address anchor switching to the new network
The IP prefix/address anchor may move without changing the IP prefix/
address of the flow.
Chan, et al. Expires May 5, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft mobility anchor switching November 2015
Net1 Net2
+---------------+ +---------------+
|LM:IP1<-->IPar2| |LM:IP1<-->IPar2|
|FM:DHCPv6-PD | | |
|---------------| move |---------------|
|AR1 anchors IP1| =======> |AR2 anc IP1,IP2|
+---------------+ +---------------+
+...............+ +---------------+
.MN(IP1): . move |MN(IP1,IP2): |
.flow(IP1,...) . =======> |flow(IP1,...) |
+...............+ +---------------+
Figure 5. IP prefix/address anchor switching to the new network. MN
with flow using IP1 in Net1 continues to run the flow using IP1 as it
moves to Net2.
As an MN with an ongoing session moves to a new network, the flow may
preserve session continuity by moving the original IP prefix/address
of the flow to the new network. An example is in the use of BGP
UPDATE messages to change the forwarding table entries as described
in [I-D.mccann-dmm-flatarch] and also for 3GPP Evolved Packet Core
(EPC) network in [I-D.matsushima-stateless-uplane-vepc].
The security management function in the anchor node at a new network
must allow to assign the original IP prefix/address used by the
mobile node at the previous (original) network. As the assigned
original IP prefix/address is to be used in the new network, the
security management function in the anchor node must allow to
advertise the prefix of the original IP address and also allow the
mobile node to send and receive data packets with the original IP
address.
The security management function in the mobile node must allow to
configure the original IP prefix/address used at the previous
(original) network when the original IP prefix/address is assigned by
the anchor node in the new network. The security management function
in the mobile node also allows to use the original IP address for the
previous flow in the new network.
3.2.1. Centralized control plane
An example of IP prefix anchor switching is in the case where Net1
and Net2 both belong to the same operator network with separation of
control and data planes ([I-D.liu-dmm-deployment-scenario] and
[I-D.matsushima-stateless-uplane-vepc]), where the controller may
send to the switches/routers the updated information of the
Chan, et al. Expires May 5, 2016 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft mobility anchor switching November 2015
forwarding tables with the IP addressing anchoring of the original IP
prefix/address at AR1 moved to AR2 in the new network. That is, the
IP address anchoring in the original network which was advertising
the prefix will need to move to the new network. As the anchoring in
the new network advertises the prefix of the original IP address in
the new network, the forwarding tables will be updated so that
packets of the flow will be forwarded according to the updated
forwarding tables. Figure 6 shows such a case where the functions
LM, FM-CP are centralized whereas the FM-DP's are distributed.
Net1 Net2
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| LM:IP1<-->IPar2 |
| FM-CP |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
+---------------+ +---------------+
|FM-DP:DHCPv6-PD| |FM-DP |
|---------------| move |---------------|
|AR1 anchors IP1| =======> |AR2 anc IP1,IP2|
+---------------+ +---------------+
+...............+ +---------------+
.MN(IP1): . move |MN(IP1,IP2): |
.flow(IP1,...) . =======> |flow(IP1,...) |
+...............+ +---------------+
Figure 6. IP prefix/address anchor switching to the new network and
with LM and FM-CP in a centralized control plane whereas the FM-DP's
are distributed.
The call flow in Figure 7 shows that MN is allocated HNP1 when it
attaches to the p-AR. A flow running in MN may or may not need IP
mobility. If it does, it may continue to use the previous IP prefix.
If it does not, it may use a new IP prefix allocated from the new
network.
Chan, et al. Expires May 5, 2016 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft mobility anchor switching November 2015
MN p-AR n-AR DHCP Servers CN
|MN attaches to p-AR: | | | |
|acquire MN-ID and profile | | |
|--RS---------------->| | | |
|<----------RA(HNP1)--| | | |
| | | Allocate MN-HNP1 |
IP addr config | | | |
| | | | |
|<-Flow(IP1,IPcn,...)-+--------------------------------------------->|
| | | | |
|MN detach from p-AR | | | |
|MN attach to n-AR | | | |
| | | | |
|--RS------------------------------>| | |
| | | | |
| |------DHCPv6 release-------------->| |
| | | | |
| | |--DHCPv6 PD request->| |
| | |<-DHCPv6 PD reply--->| |
| | | | |
| BGP route updates | |
| | | | |
|<--------------RA(HNP2,HNP1)-------| | |
| | | Allocate MN-HNP2 |
IP addr config | | | |
| | | | |
|<-Flow(IP1,IPcn,...)---------------+------------------------------->|
| | | | |
| Flow(IP1,IPcn,...) terminates | | |
| | | | |
| | DHCPv6-PD timeout | |
| | | | |
| BGP route updates | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|<-new Flow(IP2,IPcn,...)-----------+------------------------------->|
| | | | |
Figure 7. DMM solution. MN with flow using IP1 in Net1 continues to
run the flow using IP1 as it moves to Net2.
As the MN moves from p-AR to n-AR, the p-AR as a DHCP client may send
a DHCP release message to release the HNP1. It is now necessary for
n-AR to learn the IP prefix of the MN from the previous network so
that it will be possible for Net2 to allocate both the previous
network prefix and the new network prefix. The network may learn the
previous prefix in different methods. For example, the MN may
Chan, et al. Expires May 5, 2016 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft mobility anchor switching November 2015
provide its previous network prefix information by including it to
the RS message [I-D.jhlee-dmm-dnpp].
Knowing that MN is using HNP1, the n-AR sends to a DHCP server a
DHCPv6-PD request to move the HNP1 to n-AR. The server sends to n-AR
a DHCPv6-PD reply to move the HNP1. Then BGP route updates will take
place here.
In addition, the MN also needs a new HNP in the new network. The
n-AR may now send RA to n-AR, with prefix information that includes
HNP1 and HNP2. The MN may then continue to use IP1. In addition,
the MN is allocated the prefix HNP2 with which it may configure its
IP addresses. Now for flows using IP1, packets destined to IP1 will
be forwarded to the MN via n-AR.
As such flows have terminated and DHCP-PD has timed out, HNP1 goes
back to Net1. MN will then be left with HNP2 only, which it will use
when it now starts a new flow.
3.2.2. Hierarchical network
A hierarchy may also exist as shown the Figure 8. Here the IP prefix
allocated to the MN is anchored at an edge router (ER) supporting
multiple access routers to which the MN may be attached. Mobility of
the MN involving change of AR but not of ER may be accomplished using
tunneling between the ER and the AR or using some other L2 mobility
mechanism.
Chan, et al. Expires May 5, 2016 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft mobility anchor switching November 2015
Net1 Net2
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| LM:IP1<-->IPar2 |
| FM-CP |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
+---------------+
|FM-DP |
|---------------|
|ER1 anchors IP1|
+---------------+
+---------------+ +---------------+
|FM-DP | |FM-DP |
|---------------| move |---------------|
|AR1 | =======> |AR2 |
+---------------+ +---------------+
+...............+ +---------------+
.MN(IP1): . move |MN(IP1) |
.flow(IP1,...) . =======> |flow(IP1,...) |
+...............+ +---------------+
Figure 8. Mobility without involving change of IP anchoring in a
network with hierarchy in which the IP prefix allocated to the MN is
anchored at an Edge Router supporting multiple access routers to
which the MN may connect to.
The mobility event shown in Figure 9 involves a change of the IP
prefix anchoring. ER1 acting as a DHCP-PD client may exchange
message with the DHCP server to release the prefix IP1. Meanwhile,
ER2 acting as a DHCP-PD client may exchange message with the DHCP
server to delegate the prefix IP1 to ER2.
Chan, et al. Expires May 5, 2016 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft mobility anchor switching November 2015
Net1 Net2
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| LM:IP1<-->IPar2 |
| FM-CP |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
+---------------+
|FM-DP |
|---------------|
|GW |
+---------------+
+---------------+ +---------------+
|FM-DP:DHCPv6-PD| |FM-DP |
|---------------| move |---------------|
|ER1 anchors IP1| =======> |ER2 anc IP1,IP2|
+---------------+ +---------------+
+---------------+ +---------------+
|FM-DP | |FM-DP |
|---------------| |---------------|
|AR1 | |AR2 |
+---------------+ +---------------+
+...............+ +---------------+
.MN(IP1): . move |MN(IP1,IP2): |
.flow(IP1,...) . =======> |flow(IP1,...) |
+...............+ +---------------+
Figure 9. Mobility involving change of IP anchoring in a network
with hierarchy in which the IP prefix allocated to the MN is anchored
at an Edge Router supporting multiple access routers. to which the MN
may connect to.
4. Security Considerations
TBD
5. IANA Considerations
This document presents no IANA considerations.
6. Contributors
This document has benefited from other work on mobility solutions
using BGP update, on mobility support in SDN network, on providing
mobility support only when needed, and on mobility support in
enterprise network. These work have been referenced. While some of
Chan, et al. Expires May 5, 2016 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft mobility anchor switching November 2015
these authors have taken the work to jointly write this document,
others have contributed at least indirectly by writing these drafts.
The latter include Philippe Bertin, Dapeng Liu, Satoru Matushima,
Peter McCann, and Pierrick Seite.
Valuable comments have also been received from John Kaippallimil,
ChunShan Xiong, and Dapeng Liu.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[I-D.dmm-ondemand-mobility-api]
Yegin, A., Kweon, K., Lee, J., Park, J., and D. Moses, "On
Demand Mobility API", draft-dmm-ondemand-mobility-api-00
(work in progress), May 2015.
[I-D.jhlee-dmm-dnpp]
Lee, J. and Z. Yan, "Deprecated Network Prefix Provision",
draft-jhlee-dmm-dnpp-00 (work in progress), October 2015.
[I-D.liu-dmm-deployment-scenario]
Liu, V., Liu, D., Chan, A., Lingli, D., and X. Wei,
"Distributed mobility management deployment scenario and
architecture", draft-liu-dmm-deployment-scenario-05 (work
in progress), October 2015.
[I-D.matsushima-stateless-uplane-vepc]
Matsushima, S. and R. Wakikawa, "Stateless user-plane
architecture for virtualized EPC (vEPC)", draft-
matsushima-stateless-uplane-vepc-05 (work in progress),
September 2015.
[I-D.mccann-dmm-flatarch]
McCann, P., "Authentication and Mobility Management in a
Flat Architecture", draft-mccann-dmm-flatarch-00 (work in
progress), March 2012.
[I-D.mccann-dmm-prefixcost]
McCann, P. and J. Kaippallimalil, "Communicating Prefix
Cost to Mobile Nodes", draft-mccann-dmm-prefixcost-02
(work in progress), October 2015.
[I-D.seite-dmm-dma]
Seite, P., Bertin, P., and J. Lee, "Distributed Mobility
Anchoring", draft-seite-dmm-dma-07 (work in progress),
February 2014.
Chan, et al. Expires May 5, 2016 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft mobility anchor switching November 2015
[I-D.sijeon-dmm-deployment-models]
Jeon, S. and Y. Kim, "Deployment Models for Distributed
Mobility Management", draft-sijeon-dmm-deployment-
models-01 (work in progress), October 2015.
[I-D.templin-aerolink]
Templin, F., "Asymmetric Extended Route Optimization
(AERO)", draft-templin-aerolink-63 (work in progress),
August 2015.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., Ed., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V.,
Chowdhury, K., and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6",
RFC 5213, DOI 10.17487/RFC5213, August 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5213>.
[RFC6275] Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility
Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, DOI 10.17487/RFC6275, July
2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6275>.
[RFC7333] Chan, H., Ed., Liu, D., Seite, P., Yokota, H., and J.
Korhonen, "Requirements for Distributed Mobility
Management", RFC 7333, DOI 10.17487/RFC7333, August 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7333>.
[RFC7429] Liu, D., Ed., Zuniga, JC., Ed., Seite, P., Chan, H., and
CJ. Bernardos, "Distributed Mobility Management: Current
Practices and Gap Analysis", RFC 7429,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7429, January 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7429>.
7.2. Informative References
[Paper-Distributed.Mobility]
Lee, J., Bonnin, J., Seite, P., and H. Chan, "Distributed
IP Mobility Management from the Perspective of the IETF:
Motivations, Requirements, Approaches, Comparison, and
Challenges", IEEE Wireless Communications, October 2013.
[Paper-Distributed.Mobility.PMIP]
Chan, H., "Proxy Mobile IP with Distributed Mobility
Anchors", Proceedings of GlobeCom Workshop on Seamless
Wireless Mobility, December 2010.
Chan, et al. Expires May 5, 2016 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft mobility anchor switching November 2015
[Paper-Distributed.Mobility.Review]
Chan, H., Yokota, H., Xie, J., Seite, P., and D. Liu,
"Distributed and Dynamic Mobility Management in Mobile
Internet: Current Approaches and Issues", February 2011.
Authors' Addresses
H Anthony Chan
Huawei Technologies
5340 Legacy Dr. Building 3
Plano, TX 75024
USA
Email: h.a.chan@ieee.org
Xinpeng Wei
Huawei Technologies
Xin-Xi Rd. No. 3, Haidian District
Beijing, 100095
P. R. China
Email: weixinpeng@huawei.com
Jong-Hyouk Lee
Sangmyung University
708 Hannuri Building
Cheonan 330-720
Korea
Email: jonghyouk@smu.ac.kr
Seil Jeon
Instituto de Telecomunicacoes
Campus Universitario de Santiago
Aveiro 3810-193
Portugal
Email: seiljeon@av.it.pt
Chan, et al. Expires May 5, 2016 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft mobility anchor switching November 2015
Fred L. Templin
Boeing Research and Technology
P.O. Box 3707
Seattle, WA 98124
USA
Email: fltemplin@acm.org
Chan, et al. Expires May 5, 2016 [Page 18]