Prefix Delegation for Proxy Mobile IPv6
draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip-02
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 7148.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Xingyue Zhou , Jouni Korhonen , Carl Williams , Sri Gundavelli , Carlos J. Bernardos | ||
| Last updated | 2012-03-12 | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | Basavaraj Patil | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 7148 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip-02
Netext WG X. Zhou
Internet-Draft ZTE Corporation
Intended status: Standards Track J. Korhonen
Expires: September 13, 2012 Nokia Siemens Networks
C. Williams
Consultant
S. Gundavelli
Cisco
CJ. Bernardos
UC3M
March 12, 2012
Prefix Delegation for Proxy Mobile IPv6
draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip-02
Abstract
Proxy Mobile IPv6 enables IP mobility for a host without requiring
its participation in any mobility signaling, being the network
responsible for managing IP mobility on behalf of the host. However,
Proxy Mobile IPv6 does not support assigning a prefix to a router and
managing its IP mobility. This document specifies an extension to
Proxy Mobile IPv6 protocol for supporting network mobility using
DHCPv6-based Prefix Delegation.
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 September 13, 2012.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Zhou, et al. Expires September 13, 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Prefix Delegation for Proxy Mobile IPv6 March 2012
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Convention and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation for Proxy Mobile IPv6 . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Network Mobility Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Binding association with the delegated prefix . . . . . . 5
3.3.1. Mobile Router initiated prefix delegation in PMIPv6 . 6
3.3.2. Refreshing the Delegated Prefix in Proxy Mobile
IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3.3. Deletion of the Delegated Prefix in Proxy Mobile
IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.4. Mobile Access Gateway Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.4.1. Extension to Binding Update List Entry Data
Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.4.2. Forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.4.3. Handover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.5. Local Mobility Anchor Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.5.1. Extension to Binding Cache Entry Data Structure . . . 9
3.5.2. Forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Zhou, et al. Expires September 13, 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Prefix Delegation for Proxy Mobile IPv6 March 2012
1. Introduction
Proxy Mobile IPv6 [RFC5213] enables an IPv6 host to move within a
PMIPv6-Domain without requiring its participation in any IP mobility
signaling. However, PMIPv6 does not support providing a network-
based mobility service to a complete network which is roaming within
a PMIPv6-Domain without requiring the mobile router of that network
to run the Network Mobility Basic Support protocol [RFC3963].
In order to support network mobility in Proxy Mobile IPv6, the IPv6
prefix used by the mobile network should be topologically anchored by
the local mobility anchor. DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation [RFC3633]
(DHCPv6-PD) can be used to assign mobile network prefix(es) to a
mobile router (MR) as specified in DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation for
Network Mobility (NEMO) [RFC6276]. However, if the mobile router is
provided with PMIPv6 Protocol as its mobility management when
connecting the network and uses DHCPv6-PD [RFC3633] to obtain
prefix(es) for the nodes in the mobile network behind the MR,
currently PMIPv6 network entities (i.e., mobile access gateway and
local mobility anchor) are not aware of the delegated prefix(es) and
therefore any packets sourced from or destined to the delegated
prefix would be discarded by the MAG or the LMA. This document
describes extension to PMIPv6 for supporting prefix delegation.
Zhou, et al. Expires September 13, 2012 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Prefix Delegation for Proxy Mobile IPv6 March 2012
2. Convention 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 the mobility related terms used in this document are to be
interpreted as defined in Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6) [RFC6275], Proxy Mobile
IPv6 specification [RFC5213], DHCPv6-PD for NEMO [RFC6276], DHCPv6-PD
[RFC3633] and Mobility Related Terminology [RFC3753]. This document
also provides the following context-specific explanation to the
following term used in this document.
Mobile Router (MR)
Throughout this document, the term mobile router is used to refer
to an IP router whose mobility is managed by the network. The
mobile router is not required to participate in any IP mobility
related signaling for achieving mobility for an IPv6 prefix that
is obtained in that Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain.
Zhou, et al. Expires September 13, 2012 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Prefix Delegation for Proxy Mobile IPv6 March 2012
3. DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation for Proxy Mobile IPv6
3.1. Assumptions
This specification extends PMIPv6 to assign a mobile network prefix
to a mobile router for supporting network mobility. The
specification assumes that a MR is a regular IPv6 router without
extension for mobility management. The MR sends the packets from its
mobile network to the MAG and the MAG delivers the packets to the
mobile network via the MR.
In order to use DHCPv6-PD as mobile network prefix assignment
mechanism in mobile networks, this specification has following
assumptions.
o The mobile router (MR) MUST be able to function as a requesting
router (RR).
o The delegating router (DR) is located at the LMA.
o The MAG MUST have a DHCPv6 Relay Agent functionality (as described
in [RFC5213] to be able to intercept the related DHCPv6 message
sourced from the MR.
o The MR MUST either obtain the Home Network Prefix (HNP) before
initiating the DHCPv6-PD procedure or in case of stateful address
configuration simultaneously while configuring the Mobile Node
Home Address (MN-HoA).
o The MR (as a RR) SHOULD support Prefix Exclude Option for
DHCPv6-PD as described in [I-D.ietf-dhc-pd-exclude].
3.2. Network Mobility Service
The network mobility service of a MR is managed by the policy profile
defined in [RFC5213]. During mobile router's initial attach
procedure, the mobile access gateway (MAG) MUST identify the MR and
acquire the policy profile to determine whether the network mobility
service is offered to the MR. If the network mobility service needs
to be offered to the mobile node, the mobile access gateway MUST set
the Mobile Router Flag (R) when sending the Proxy Binding Update
(PBU) message to the LMA.
3.3. Binding association with the delegated prefix
Zhou, et al. Expires September 13, 2012 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Prefix Delegation for Proxy Mobile IPv6 March 2012
3.3.1. Mobile Router initiated prefix delegation in PMIPv6
+-------------+ +--------------+ +-------------------+
|Mobile Router| | MAG | | LMA |
|(Req. Router)| |(DHCPv6 Relay)| |(Delegating Router)|
+-------------+ +--------------+ +-------------------+
| | |
| |o========================o|
1) | | PMIPv6 tunnel |
| |o========================o|
2) |-- Solicit ------>| |
| | |
3) | |----------PBU------------>|
| | |
4) | |<---------PBA-------------|
| | |
5) | |--- Solicit ------------->|
- - - - <-+
6) | |<-- Advertise ------------| |
| | | |
7) |<- Advertise -----| | Opt
| | | ion
8) |-- Request ------>| | al.
| | | |
9) | |--- Request ------------->| |
- - - - <-+
10) | |<-- Reply-----------------|
| | |
11) |<-- Reply --------| |
| | |
Figure 1: Prefix Delegation in PMIPv6 during the initial attachment
to the PMIPv6 Domain
The steps of the procedures required to complete the delegation of an
IPv6 prefix to a mobile router that is provided with network-based
network mobility service in Figure 1 are as following:
1. The PMIPv6 tunnel is set up between the MAG and LMA as described
in [RFC5213]. The MAG has the function of DHCPv6 Relay Agent
between the MR and the DHCPv6 server and intercept all the
DHCPv6 related messages.
2. The MR, acting as a "Requesting Router" as described in
[RFC3633], sends a DHCPv6 SOLICIT message including one or more
IA_PD option(s) to the MAG to acquire the delegated prefix(es).
Zhou, et al. Expires September 13, 2012 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Prefix Delegation for Proxy Mobile IPv6 March 2012
3. Upon receiving the DHCPv6 SOLICIT message, the MAG sends a PBU
message including a Mobile Network Prefix (MNP) mobility option
as defined in Section 4.3 of [RFC3963] to the LMA. All the
considerations from Section 5.3.1 of [RFC5213] MUST be applied
on the encapsulated Proxy Binding Update message. If the MAG
does not know the delegated prefix, then mobile network prefix
in the MNP option MUST be set to unspecified address "::" and
prefix length to 0. The LMA either assigns the MR a new
delegated prefix or returns an existing one.
4. On reception of the PBU the LMA returns the assigned prefix in
the MNP option carried by a Proxy Binding Acknowledgment (PBA)
to the MAG, unless the prefix was the IPv6 unspecified address
"::". The assigned prefix is the same one that will be assigned
via DHCPv6PD in step 6. This prefix MUST be added to the
delegated prefix(es) in the LMA binding cache which is extended
as in Section 3.5.1.
5. The DHCPv6 Relay Agent on the MAG as described in [RFC3315]
relays the DHCPv6 SOLICIT message to the delegation router. The
DR inserts one or more IA_PD option(s) including the delegated
prefix(es) to the reply message.
Note: steps 6 to 9 are not present if DHCPv6 Rapid Commit is
used.
6. The DR sends delegated prefix(es) in one or more IA_PD(s) to the
MAG (DHCPv6 Relay Agent) inside the DHCPv6 ADVERTISE message.
7. The MAG relays the DHCPv6 ADVERTISE message to the MR.
8. The MR sends DHCPv6 REQUEST message with the IA_PD option(s)
received from previous message to the MAG (DHCPv6 Relay Agent).
9. The MAG relays the DHCPv6 REQUEST message to the DR.
10. The DR responses to the REQUEST from the MAG using DHCPv6 REPLY
message.
11. The MR receives one or more IA_PD prefix(es) in the DHCPv6 REPLY
message from the MAG.
3.3.2. Refreshing the Delegated Prefix in Proxy Mobile IPv6
When the MR sends DHCPv6 Renew messages to extend the lifetime of the
delegated prefix, the messages are also intercepted by the MAG
(acting as DHCPv6 Relay Agent) and relayed to the DR.
Zhou, et al. Expires September 13, 2012 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Prefix Delegation for Proxy Mobile IPv6 March 2012
3.3.3. Deletion of the Delegated Prefix in Proxy Mobile IPv6
If the lifetime of the delegated prefix (included in the IA_PD Prefix
Option carried by the DHCPv6 Reply message) is set to zero, the MAG
MUST trigger a PBU to remove the binding for that home mobile network
prefix.
3.4. Mobile Access Gateway Operation
3.4.1. Extension to Binding Update List Entry Data Structure
In order to support this specification, the conceptual Binding Update
List Entry (BULE) data structure needs to be extended with a new
prefix information field as [RFC3963] does. This prefix information
field is used to store the MNP information which is assigned to the
MR in the PBA.
3.4.2. Forwarding
Forwarding packets sent to the mobile router's MNP:
o On receiving a packet from the bi-directional tunnel established
with the MR's LMA, the MAG MUST first decapsulate the packet
(removing the outer header) and then use the destination address
of the (inner) packet to forward it on the interface through which
the destination MNP is reachable.
Forwarding packets sent by the mobile router:
o On receiving packets from a MR connected to one access link, the
MAG MUST ensure that there is an established binding for the MR
and its LMA before tunneling the packet to the MR's LMA.
Other considerations from Section 6.10.5 of [RFC5213] also apply
here.
3.4.3. Handover
When the MR moves from the previously attached MAG to the newly
attached target MAG, the newly attached target MAG MAY know the
mobile network prefix which was assigned during the previous
attachment from some network element, e.g. from the previous MAG. It
is out of scope of this specification how the newly attached MAG
could obtain the previously assigned mobile network prefix. After
handover to the new target MAG, a PBU message including the assigned
mobile network prefix (if available) MUST be sent from the new target
MAG to the LMA. The LMA MUST check the mobile network prefix in the
PBU message and return the same assigned mobile network prefix in the
Zhou, et al. Expires September 13, 2012 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Prefix Delegation for Proxy Mobile IPv6 March 2012
PBA message. If the previously assigned mobile network prefix is not
available in the new target MAG, the new target MAG MUST contain the
mobile network prefix set to unspecified address "::" and the prefix
length to 0 in the PBU message. In this case, the LMA MUST return
the same previously assigned mobile network prefix in PBA.
3.5. Local Mobility Anchor Operation
3.5.1. Extension to Binding Cache Entry Data Structure
In order to support this specification, the conceptual Binding Cache
Entry (BCE) data structure needs to be extended with a new prefix
information field as [RFC3963] does. This prefix information field
is used to store the mobile network prefix information which is
assigned to the BCE in the PBA during the procedure of binding
association with the delegated prefix in Section 3.2
3.5.2. Forwarding
Intercepting packets sent to the MR's mobile network prefix:
o When the LMA is serving to the MR, it MUST be able to receive
packets destined to the MR's mobile network. In order to receive
those packets, the LMA MUST be the topological anchor of the MR's
MNP(s).
Forwarding packets to the MR:
o On receiving a packet from a correspondent node with the
destination address matching the MR's MNP(s) the LMA MUST forward
the packet through the bi-directional tunnel set up for the MR.
Other considerations from Section 5.6.2 of [RFC5213] also apply here.
Zhou, et al. Expires September 13, 2012 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Prefix Delegation for Proxy Mobile IPv6 March 2012
4. Security Considerations
This document describes extensions to the Proxy Mobile IPv6 protocol
for supporting network mobility using DHCPv6-based Prefix Delegation.
The security considerations for DHCPv6 described in the "Security
Considerations" section of the DHCPv6 base specification [RFC3315],
the "Security Considerations" of the DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation
specification [RFC3633], and the security considerations from the
base Proxy Mobile IPv6 [RFC5213] apply when using the extensions
defined in this document.
Zhou, et al. Expires September 13, 2012 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Prefix Delegation for Proxy Mobile IPv6 March 2012
5. IANA Considerations
This document reuses the mobile network prefix option defined in
[RFC3963] in Proxy Mobile IPv6 to assign the mobile network prefix
via DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation. It does not introduce any additional
IANA considerations.
Zhou, et al. Expires September 13, 2012 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Prefix Delegation for Proxy Mobile IPv6 March 2012
6. Acknowledgments
The work of Carlos J. Bernardos has also been partially supported by
the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7-ICT-2009-5)
under grant agreement n. 258053 (MEDIEVAL project) and by the
Ministry of Science and Innovation of Spain under the QUARTET project
(TIN2009-13992-C02-01).
Zhou, et al. Expires September 13, 2012 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Prefix Delegation for Proxy Mobile IPv6 March 2012
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3315] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C.,
and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for
IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003.
[RFC3633] Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic
Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6", RFC 3633,
December 2003.
[RFC3963] Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., and P.
Thubert, "Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol",
RFC 3963, January 2005.
[RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V., Chowdhury, K.,
and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 5213, August 2008.
[RFC6275] Perkins, C., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support
in IPv6", RFC 6275, July 2011.
[RFC6276] Droms, R., Thubert, P., Dupont, F., Haddad, W., and C.
Bernardos, "DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation for Network Mobility
(NEMO)", RFC 6276, July 2011.
7.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-dhc-pd-exclude]
Korhonen, J., Savolainen, T., Krishnan, S., and O. Troan,
"Prefix Exclude Option for DHCPv6-based Prefix
Delegation", draft-ietf-dhc-pd-exclude-04 (work in
progress), December 2011.
[RFC3753] Manner, J. and M. Kojo, "Mobility Related Terminology",
RFC 3753, June 2004.
Zhou, et al. Expires September 13, 2012 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Prefix Delegation for Proxy Mobile IPv6 March 2012
Authors' Addresses
Xingyue Zhou
ZTE Corporation
No.50 Software Avenue, Yuhuatai District
Nanjing
China
Phone: +86-25-8801-4634
Email: zhou.xingyue@zte.com.cn
Jouni Korhonen
Nokia Siemens Networks
Linnoitustie 6
Espoo FIN-02600
Finland
Email: jouni.nospam@gmail.com
Carl Williams
Consultant
San Jose, CA
USA
Email: carlw@mcsr-labs.org
Sri Gundavelli
Cisco
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
Email: sgundave@cisco.com
Carlos J. Bernardos
Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Av. Universidad, 30
Leganes, Madrid 28911
Spain
Phone: +34 91624 6236
Email: cjbc@it.uc3m.es
URI: http://www.it.uc3m.es/cjbc/
Zhou, et al. Expires September 13, 2012 [Page 14]