Network Working Group H. Chan
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Informational P. Seite
Expires: May 11, 2013 France Telecom - Orange
K. Pentikousis
Huawei Technologies
JH. Lee
Telecom Bretagne
November 7, 2012
Framework for Mobility Management Protocol Analysis
draft-chan-dmm-framework-gap-analysis-06
Abstract
This document introduces a framework for analyzing mobility
management protocols in terms of their key abstracted logical
functions. The framework is capable of presenting a unified view,
reducing the clutter that obscures a casual reader from understanding
the commonalities between different approaches in mobility
management. More importantly, a first order application of this
framework allows us to examine previously standardized mobility
management protocols, such as MIPv6 and PMIPv6 (as well as several of
their extensions), and describe their core functionality in terms of
different configurations of the logical functions defined by the
framework. As a result, we can use the framework to analyze the gaps
between the protocols needed in a distributed mobility management
environment and the functionality provided by the current generation
of mobility management protocols. Our analysis points to the need
for a re-configuration of logical functions identified in the
framework as well as the need for new extensions which can make
distributed mobility management possible in the future.
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."
Chan, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft DMM-framework-gap-analysis November 2012
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 11, 2013.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
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.
Chan, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft DMM-framework-gap-analysis November 2012
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Conventions and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Mobility Management Logical Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Functional Representation of Existing Mobility Protocols . . . 7
4.1. Mobile IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. MIPv6 versus PMIPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3. Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.4. Distributing mobility anchors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.5. Migrating Home Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. DMM Functional Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.1. Flat Network Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.1.1. Network-based Mobility Management . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.1.2. Client-based Mobility Management . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.2. Fully distributed scenario with separation of control
and data planes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6. Gap analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.1. DMM Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.1.1. Considering existing protocols first . . . . . . . . . 18
6.1.2. Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.1.3. IPv6 deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.1.4. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.1.5. Distributed deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.1.6. Transparency to Upper Layers when needed . . . . . . . 20
6.1.7. Route optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.2. Mobility Protocols Gap Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.2.1. Gap analysis with the unified framework . . . . . . . 22
6.2.2. Gap analysis with MIPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.2.3. Gap analysis with PMIPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.2.4. Gap analysis with HMIPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.2.5. Gap analysis with Distributing Mobility Anchors . . . 23
6.2.6. Gap analysis with HAHA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6.2.7. Gap analysis with Dynamic mobility management . . . . 23
6.2.8. Gap Analysis with Multiple MRs and Distributed LM
Database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6.2.9. Gap Analysis with Route Optimization Mechanisms . . . 24
6.3. Gap analysis summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7. DMM analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
7.1. DMM scenarios and Dynamic mobility management
requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
7.2. Route optimization of DMM scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . 27
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Chan, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft DMM-framework-gap-analysis November 2012
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Chan, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft DMM-framework-gap-analysis November 2012
1. Introduction
While there is ongoing research on new protocols for distributed
mobility management (DMM), it has also been proposed, e.g., in
[Paper-Distributed.Mobility.PMIP] and in other publications, that a
distributed mobility management architecture can be designed using
primarily existing mobility management protocols with some
extensions. This is reflected in the requirement presented in [ID-
dmm-requirements]: distributed mobility management is to first use
existing protocols and their extensions before considering new
protocol designs.
Mobile IPv6 [RFC6275], which is a logically centralized mobility
management approach addressing primarily hierarchical mobile
networks, has numerous variants and extensions including, just to
name a few, PMIPv6 [RFC5213], Hierarchical MIPv6 (HMIPv6) [RFC5380],
Fast MIPv6 (FMIPv6) [RFC4068] [RFC4988], Proxy-based FMIPv6 (PFMIPv6)
[RFC5949]. These variants or extensions of MIPv6 have been developed
over the years owing to the different needs that have been arising
ever since the first specification of MIP came into life.
This document argues that we can gain much more insights into this
design space by abstracting functions of existing mobility management
protocols in terms of logical functions. Different variants of
existing mobility management protocols can then be expressed as
different design variations of how these logical functions are put
together. The result is a rich framework that can express
sophisticated functionalities in a more straightforward manner and
can be used to perform gap analysis of existing protocols. What is
more, this document shows how to reconfigure these logical functions
towards various distributed mobility management designs.
The following subsection presents an overview of this document.
1.1. Overview
Section 3 proposes to abstract existing mobility management protocol
functions into three logical functions, namely, home address
allocation, mobility routing and location management. Such
functional decomposition will enable us to clearly separate data
plane and the control plane functionality, and gives us the
flexibility in an implementation to position said logical functions
at their most appropriate places in the system design.
Section 4 shows that these logical functions can indeed perform the
same functions as the major existing mobility protocols. These
functions therefore become the foundation for a unified framework
upon which different designs of distributed mobility management may
Chan, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft DMM-framework-gap-analysis November 2012
be built upon.
Section 6 presents the gap analysis of existing protocols by
comparing them against the DMM requirements as per [ID-dmm-
requirements].
Extensions to overcome the gaps are presented in Sections 5 and 7.
Based on the introduced unified framework, extensions to dynamically
provide mobility support are described in Section 7.1 where the home
IP address of an MN is generalized to that of an application session.
A distributed database architecture is described in Section 5.1.
Using this distributed architecture, various route optimizations can
be defined as explained in Section 7.2.
2. Conventions and Terminology
2.1. Conventions used in this document
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].
2.2. Terminology
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] and in the Proxy mobile IPv6 specification
[RFC5213]. These terms include mobile node (MN), correspondent node
(CN), home agent (HA), local mobility anchor (LMA), and mobile access
gateway (MAG).
In addition, this document uses the following terms:
Mobility routing (MR) is the logical function that intercepts
packets to/from the HoA of a mobile node and forwards them, based
on internetwork location information, either directly towards
their destination or to some other network element that knows how
to forward the packets to their ultimate destination.
Home address allocation is the logical function that allocates the
home network prefix or home address to a mobile node.
Location management (LM) is the logical function that manages and
keeps track of the internetwork location information of a mobile
node, which includes the mapping of the MN HoA to the MN routing
address or another network element that knows where to forward
packets destined for the MN.
Chan, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft DMM-framework-gap-analysis November 2012
Home network of an application session (or an HoA IP address) is the
network that has allocated the IP address used as the session
identifier (HoA) by the application being run in an MN. The MN
may be attached to more than one home networks.
3. Mobility Management Logical Functions
The existing mobility management functions of MIPv6, PMIPv6, and
HMIPv6 ca be abstracted into the following logical functions:
1. Anchoring: allocation of home network prefix or HoA to an MN that
registers with the network;
2. Mobility Routing (MR) function: packets interception and
forwarding to/from the HoA of 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;
3. Internetwork Location Management (LM) function: managing and
keeping track of the internetwork location of an MN, which
includes a mapping of the HoA to the mobility anchoring point
that the MN is anchored to;
4. Location Update (LU): provisioning of MN location information to
the LM function;
5. Routing Control (RC): this logical function configures the
forwarding state of the mobility routing function.
4. Functional Representation of Existing Mobility Protocols
This section shows that existing mobility management protocols can be
expressed as different configurations of the logical functions
introduced in Section 3 above.
Using these generic logical functions, we will build up the existing
mobility protocols one step at a time in the following sequence:
MIPv6, PMIPv6, HMIPv6, and HAHA. Functions are added and modified as
needed in each step.
Chan, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft DMM-framework-gap-analysis November 2012
4.1. Mobile IPv6
Figure 1 shows Mobile IPv6 [RFC6275] in a functional representation.
The combination of the logical functions MR, LM and HoA allocation in
network1 is the home agent or the mobility anchor. The mobile node
MN11 was originally attached to Network1 and was allocated the IP
prefix for its home address HoA11. After some time, MN11 moved to
Network3, from which it is allocated a new prefix to configure the IP
address IP32. LM1 maintains the binding HoA11:IP32 so that packets
from CN21 in Network2 destined to HoA11 will be intercepted by MR1,
which will then tunnel them to IP32. MN11 must perform mobility
signaling using the LU function.
Network1 Network3 Network2
+-----+
| LM1 |
+-----+
location=IP32
HoA1 alc IP3 alc IP2 alc
|
|
+-----+
| MR1 |
+-----+
.
. +----+ +----+ +----+
. |MN31| |MN11| |CN21|
. | | |+LU | | |
. +----+ +----+ +----+
HoA11 IP31 IP32,
HoA11
Figure 1. Functional decomposition of Mobile IPv6.
4.2. MIPv6 versus PMIPv6
MIPv6 and PMIPv6 both employ the same concept of separating the
session identifier from the routing address into the HoA and CoA,
respectively. Figure 2 contrasts (a) MIPv6 and (b) PMIPv6 by showing
the destination IP address in the network-layer header as a packet
traverses from a CN to an MN.
Chan, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft DMM-framework-gap-analysis November 2012
(a) MIPv6:
+---+ +---+---+ +---+
|HoA| --> |HoA|HoA| |HoA|
| | | |---| |---|
| | | |CoA| ==> |CoA|
+---+ +---+---+ +---+
CN MR MN+LU
(b) PMIPv6:
+---+ +---+---+ +---+---+ +---+
|HoA| --> |HoA|HoA| |HoA|HoA| --> |HoA|
| | | |---| |---| | | |
| | | |CoA| ==> |CoA| | | |
+---+ +---+---+ +---+---+ +---+
CN MR AR+LU MN
Figure 2. Network layer in the protocol stack of packets sent from
the CN and tunneled (a) to the MN+LU in MIPv6; and (b) to the AR+LU
in PMIPv6 showing the destination IP address as the packet traverses
from the CN to the MN.
Figure 2 shows that, as far as data-plane traffic is concerned,
routing from CN to MN+LU in MIPv6 is similar to the route from CN to
AR+LU in PMIPv6. The difference is in that the MN with the LU
function is substituted by the combination of the AR with the LU
function and the MN. While additional signaling is needed to enable
the combination of AR+LU and MN to behave like MN+LU, such signaling
can be confined between the AR+LU and MN only. It can therefore be
seen under this unified formulation, that a host-based mobility
management protocol can be translated using this substitution into a
network-based mobility management protocol and vice versa.
MIPv6 and PMIPv6 bundle all three mobility management logical
functions: LM1, IP1 prefix allocation, and MR1 into the home agent
(HA) and Local Mobility Anchor (LMA) respectively.
The functional representation of Proxy Mobile IPv6 [RFC5213] is shown
in Figure 3. In PMIPv6, the combination of LM, MR, and HoA
allocation is the Local Mobility Anchor (LMA), whereas the AR+LU
combination together with additional signaling with MN comprises the
Mobile Access Gateway (MAG). Here MN11 is attached to the access
router AR31 which has the IP address IP31 in Network3. LM1 maintains
the binding HoA11:IP31. The access router AR31 also behaves like a
home link to MN11 so that MN11 can use its original IP address HoA11.
Chan, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft DMM-framework-gap-analysis November 2012
Network1 Network3 Network2
+-----+
| LM1 |
+-----+
HoA1 alc IP3 alc IP2 alc
|
|
+-----+
| MR1 |
+-----+
.
. +----+ +----+
. |AR31| |CN21|
. |+LU | | |
. +----+ +----+
HoA11 IP31
|
|
+----+
|MN11|
+----+
HoA11
Figure 3. Functional representation of PMIPv6.
4.3. Hierarchical Mobile IPv6
The functional representation of Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 [RFC5380]
is shown in Figure 4.
Chan, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft DMM-framework-gap-analysis November 2012
Network1 Network3 Network2
+-----+
| LM1 |
+-----+
HoA1 alc IP3 alc IP2 alc
|
|
+-----+ +-----+
| MR1 | | MR3 |
| | |+ LM |
| | |proxy|
+-----+ +-----+
. / \
. / \
. / \
. +----+ +----+ +----+
. |AR31| |MN11| |CN21|
. |+LU | |+LU | | |
. +----+ +----+ +----+
HoA11 IP31 IP32,
| HoA11
|
+----+
|MN31|
+----+
Figure 4. Functional representation of Hierarchical Mobile IPv6.
Besides the logical functions: LM1, MR1, and HoA1 prefix allocation
in Network1 as MIPv6 in Figure 2 and PMIPv6 in Figure 3, there is an
MR function (MR3) in the visited network (Network3). MR3 is also a
proxy between LM1 and MN11 in the hierarchical LM function LM1--MR3--
MN11. That is, LM1 maintains the LM binding HoA11:MR3 while MR3
keeps the LM binding HoA11:IP32. The combined function of MR and the
LM proxy function is the Mobility Anchor Point (MAP).
In Figure 4, if MN11 takes the place of MN31 which is attached to
AR31, the resulting mobility management becomes network-based.
4.4. Distributing mobility anchors
It is possible to repeat the mobility anchoring function for any of
MIPv6, PMIPv6, or HMIPv6, in multiple networks as shown in Figure 5
which shows such an example with three networks.
Chan, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft DMM-framework-gap-analysis November 2012
Network1 Network3 Network2
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+
| LM1 | | LM3 | | LM2 |
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+
HoA1 alc HoA3 alc HoA2 alc
| | |
| | |
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+
| MR1 | | MR3 | | MR2 |
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+
. / \
. / \
. / \
. +----+ +----+ +----+
. |AR31| |MN11| |CN21|
. |+LU | |+LU | | |
. +----+ +----+ +----+
HoA11 IP31 IP32,
| HoA11
|
+----+
|MN31|
+----+
Figure 5. Functional representation of distributing mobility
anchors.
4.5. Migrating Home Agents
When all these logical functions are bundled into one single entity
e.g., a home agent in MIPv6 or a local mobility anchor in PMIPv6, in
a single network, the result is triangular routing when the MN and
the CN are in networks close to each other but are far from the
anchor point.
A method to solve the triangle routing problem is to duplicate the
anchor points in many networks in different geographic locations as
in [Paper-Migrating.Home.Agents]. A functional representation of
Migrating Home Agents is shown in Figure 6.
Chan, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft DMM-framework-gap-analysis November 2012
Network1 Network3 Network2
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+
| LM0 |------| LM0 |------| LM0 |
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+
HoA1 alc HoA3 alc HoA2 alc
| | |
| | |
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+
| MR1 | | MR3 | | MR2 |
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+
. / \
. / \
. / \
. +----+ +----+ +----+
. |AR31| |MN11| |CN21|
. +----+ +----+ +----+
HoA11 IP31 IP32,
| HoA11
|
+----+
|MN31|
+----+
Figure 6. Functional representation of Migrating Home Agents.
Here, the MR function is available in each of the three networks
Network1, Network2, and Network3. The LM function in each network
(LM0) contains the LM information for all networks. Each MR in each
network advertises the HoA IP prefixes of all these networks using
anycast. Traffic from CN21 in Network2 destined to HoA11 will
therefore be intercepted by the MR nearest to CN, which is MR2.
Using the LM information in LM0, MR2 will use the binding HoA11:IP32
to tunnel the packets to MN11.
Similarly, traffic originating from MN11 will be served by its
nearest MR (MR3). Triangular routing is therefore avoided. Yet the
synchronization of all home agents becomes a challenge as discussed
in [Paper-SMGI]. In addition, the amount of signaling traffic needed
in synchronizing the home agents may become excessive when both the
number of mobile nodes and the number of home agents increase.
As before, if MN11 in Figure 6 takes the place of MN31 which is
attached to AR31, the resulting mobility management becomes network-
based.
Chan, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft DMM-framework-gap-analysis November 2012
5. DMM Functional Scenarios
This section covers the functional description of DMM. Basically,
the scenario presents a way to distribute the logical mobility
functions. Gap analysis will be made on the functional scenarios.
5.1. Flat Network Scenario
In a flat network, the logical functions in the functional
representation may all be located at the AR as shown in Figures 7 and
8, respectively. These two figures depict the network- and client-
based distributed mobility management scenarios. The AR is expected
to support the HoA allocation function. Then, depending on the
mobility situation of the MN, the AR can run different functions:
1. the AR can act as a legacy IP router;
2. the AR can provide the MR function (i.e. act as mobility anchor);
3. the AR can provide the LU functions;
4. the AR can provide both MR and LU functions.
For example, [I-D.seite-dmm-dma] and [I-D.bernardos-dmm-distributed-
anchoring] are PMIPv6 based implementation of this scenario.
5.1.1. Network-based Mobility Management
The functional description of network-based mobility management is
depicted in Figure 7.
In case (1), MN1 attaches to AR1. AR advertises prefix HoA1 to MN1
and then acts as a legacy IP router. MN1 initiates a communication
with CN11.
In case (2), MN1 performs a handover from AR1 to AR3 while
maintaining ongoing IP communication with CN11. AR1 becomes the
mobility anchor for the MN1-CN11 IP communication: AR1 runs MR and LM
functions for MN1. AR3 performs LU up to the LM in AR1: AR3
indicates to AR1 the new location of the MN1. AR3 allocates a new IP
prefix (HoA3) for new IP communications. HoA3 is supposed to be used
for new IP communication, e.g., if MN1 initiates IP communication
with CN21. AR3 shall act as a legacy IP router for MN1-CN21
communication.
In case (3), MN1 performs a handover from AR1 to AR2 with ongoing IP
communication with CN11 and CN21. AR1 is the mobility anchor for the
Chan, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft DMM-framework-gap-analysis November 2012
MN1-CN11 IP communication. AR3 becomes the mobility anchor for the
MN1-CN21 IP communication. Both AR1 and AR3 run MR and LM functions
for MN1, respectively, anchoring HoA1 and HoA3. AR2 performs
location updates up to the LMs in AR1 and AR3 for respectively
relocate HoA1 and HoA3.
Network1 Network1 Network3
+----+ HoA1 alc +----+ HoA1 alc HoA3 al +----+
|CN11| +-----+ |CN11| +-----+ +-----+ |CN21|
| |------| | | |------| MR1 |------| |------- | |
+----+ | | +----+ | LM1 |------|LU31 | +----+
| AR1 | | AR1 | |AR3 |
| | | | | |
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+
| |
| |
| |
+----+ +----+
|MN1 | |MN1 |
| | | |
+----+ +----+
HoA11 HoA11,
HoA31
(1) (2)
Network2
Network1 HoA2 al
+----+ HoA1 alc +-----+
|CN11| +-----+ | |
| |------| MR1 |-----------------|LU21 |-------+
+----+ | LM1 |-----------------|AR2 | |
| AR1 | | | |
| | Network3 +-----+ |
+-----+ HoA3 al | | +----+
+-----+ | | |MN1 |
+----+ |MR3 |------ | | |
|CN21| |LM3 |-------- +----+
| |------| | HoA11,
+----+ |AR3 | HoA31
+-----+ (3)
Figure 7. Network-based DMM architecture for a flat network.
5.1.2. Client-based Mobility Management
The functional description of client-based mobility management is
depicted in Figure 8.
Chan, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft DMM-framework-gap-analysis November 2012
In case (1), MN1 attaches to AR1. AR advertises the prefix HoA1 to
MN1 then acts as a legacy IP router. MN1 initiates a communication
with CN11.
In case (2), MN1 performs a handover from AR1 to AR3 with ongoing IP
communication with CN11. AR1 becomes the mobility anchor for the
MN1-CN11 IP communication: AR1 runs MR and LM functions for MN1. The
MN performs LU directly up to the LM in AR1 or via AR3; in this case
AR3 acts as a proxy locator (pLU) (e.g. as a FA in MIPv4). AR3
allocates a new IP prefix (HoA3) for new IP communications. HoA3 is
supposed to be used for new IP communications, e.g., if MN1 initiates
IP communication with CN21. AR3 shall act as a legacy IP router for
MN1-CN21 communication.
Network1 Network1 Network3
+----+ HoA1 alc +----+ HoA1 alc +----+
|CN11| +-----+ |CN | +-----+ +-----+ |CN21|
| |------| | | |------| MR1 |------| |------- | |
+----+ | | +----+ | LM1 |------|pLU31| +----+
| AR1 | | AR1 | |AR31 |
| | | | | |
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+
| |
| |
| |
+----+ +----+
|MN1 | |MN1 |
| | |LU31|
+----+ +----+
HoA11 HoA11,
IP31
(1) (2)
Figure 8. Client-based DMM architecture for a flat network.
5.2. Fully distributed scenario with separation of control and data
planes
This scenario considers multiple MRs and a distributed LM database.
The different use case scenarios of distributed mobility management
are described in [I-D.yokota-dmm-scenario] as well as in [Paper-
Distributed.Mobility.Review]. The architecture described in this
document is mainly on separating the data plane from the control
plane.
Chan, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft DMM-framework-gap-analysis November 2012
Figure 9 shows an example DMM architecture with the same three
networks as in Figure 5. As is in Figure 5, each network in Figure 9
has its own IP prefix allocation function. In the data plane, the
mobility routing function is distributed to multiple locations at the
MRs so that routing can be optimized. In the control plane, the MRs
may exchange signaling with each other. In addition to these
features in Figure 5, the LM function in Figure 9 is a distributed
database, with multiple servers, of the mapping of HoA to CoA.
Network1 Network3 Network2
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+
| LM1 | | LM3 | | LM2 |
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+
HoA1 alc HoA3 alc HoA2 alc
| \ \ / | \ / / |
| \ \ / | \ / / |
| \ \/ | \/ / |
| \ / \ | / \ / |
| \/ \|/ \/ |
| /\ /|\ /\ |
| / \ / | \ / \ |
| / /\ | /\ \ |
| / / \ | / \ \ |
| / / \ | / \ \ |
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+
| MR1 |------| MR3 |------| MR2 |
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+
. / \
. / \
. / \
. +----+ +----+ +----+
. |AR31| |MN11| |CN21|
. |+LU | |+LU | | |
. +----+ +----+ +----+
HoA11 IP31 IP32,
| HoA11
|
+----+
|MN31|
+----+
Figure 9. A distributed architecture for mobility management.
To perform mobility routing, the MRs need the location information
which is maintained at the LMs. The MRs are therefore the clients of
the LM servers and may also send location updates to the LM as the
MNs perform the handover. The location information may either be
Chan, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft DMM-framework-gap-analysis November 2012
pulled from the LM servers by the MR, or pushed to the MR by the LM
servers. In addition, the MR may also cache a limited amount of
location information.
This figure shows three MRs (MR1, MR2, and MR3) in three networks.
MN11 has moved from the first network supported by MR1 and LM1 to the
third network supported by MR3 and LM3. It may use an HoA (HoA11)
allocated to it when it was in the first network for those
application sessions that had already started when MN11 was attached
there and that require session continuity after the handover to the
third network. When MN11 was in the first network, no location
management is needed so that LM1 will not keep an entry of HoA11.
After MN11 has performed its handover to the third network, the
database server LM1 maintains a mapping of HoA11 to MR3. That is,
LM1 points to the third network and it is the third network that will
keep track of how to reach MN11. Such a hierarchical mapping can
prevent frequent update signaling to LM1 as MN11 performs intra-
network handover within the third network. In other words, the
concept of hierarchical mobile IP [RFC5380] is applied here but only
in location management and not in routing in the data plane.
6. Gap analysis
6.1. DMM Requirements
6.1.1. Considering existing protocols first
The fourth DMM requirement is on existing mobility protocols [ID-dmm-
requirements:
REQ4: A DMM solution SHOULD first consider reusing and extending
IETF-standardized protocols before specifying new protocols.
Abstracting the existing protocol functions into logical functions in
this draft is a way to see how one can maximize the use of existing
protocols. It remains to be seen whether all DMM requirements can be
met. One needs to check the rest of the requirements to identify the
gaps.
In addition, individual DMM proposals available at the IETF DMM
working group are mostly based on the existing IETF-standardized
protocols.
6.1.2. Compatibility
The first part of the fifth DMM requirement is on compatibility:
Chan, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft DMM-framework-gap-analysis November 2012
REQ5: (first part) The DMM solution MUST be able to co-exist with
existing network deployments and end hosts. For example, depending
on the environment in which DMM is deployed, DMM solutions may need
to be compatible with other deployed mobility protocols or may need
to interoperate with a network or mobile hosts/routers that do not
support DMM protocols.
Different deployments using the same abstract functions are basically
reconfiguration of these same functions if their functions use common
message formats between these functions. A design principle of the
IPv6 message format accommodates the use of common message formats as
it allows to define extension headers, e.g., use of mobility header
and options. It is shown in Section 4 that MIPv6, PMIPv6, HMIPv6,
Distributing mobility anchors can be constructed from the abstract
functions by adding more features and additional messages one on top
of the other in the above order. The later protocol will therefore
support the one from which the later is constructed by adding more
messages.
6.1.3. IPv6 deployment
The third DMM requirement on IPv6 deployment is the following.
REQ3: DMM solutions SHOULD target IPv6 as the primary deployment
environment and SHOULD NOT be tailored specifically to support IPv4,
in particular in situations where private IPv4 addresses and/or NATs
are used.
This is not an issue with MIPv6, PMIPv6 and their extensions. Using
the unified scheme here based on abstracting these existing protocol
functions will meet the DMM requirements as these protocols are
originally designed for IPv6.
6.1.4. Security considerations
The first part of the fourth requirement as well as the sixth DMM
requirement [ID-dmm-requirements] are as follows:
REQ5 (second part): Furthermore, a DMM solution SHOULD work across
different networks, possibly operated as separate administrative
domains, when allowed by the trust relationship between them.
REQ6: DMM protocol solutions MUST consider security aspects,
including confidentiality and integrity. Examples of aspects to be
considered are authentication and authorization mechanisms that allow
a legitimate mobile host/router to use the mobility support provided
by the DMM solution; signaling message protection in terms of
authentication, encryption, etc.; data integrity and confidentiality;
Chan, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft DMM-framework-gap-analysis November 2012
opt-in or opt-out data confidentiality to signaling messages
depending on network environments or user requirements.
It is preferred that these security requirements are considered as an
integral part of the DMM design.
6.1.5. Distributed deployment
The first DMM requirement has 2 parts. The first part is on
distributed deployment whereas the second part is on avoiding longer
routes.
REQ1: (part 1)IP mobility, network access and routing solutions
provided by DMM MUST enable distributed deployment for mobility
management of IP sessions (part 2) so that traffic does not need to
traverse centrally deployed mobility anchors and thus can be routed
in an optimal manner.
With the first part, multiple MRs will become available in MIPv6 by
simply having an HA for each home network. This is illustrated in
terms of the logical functions as in Figure 9. Note that [Paper-
Host.based.DMM] shows an example of a host-based DMM protocol based
on MIPv6.
With the second part, one can examine dynamic mobility and route
optimization to be discussed later.
6.1.6. Transparency to Upper Layers when needed
To see how to avoid traversing centralized deployed mobility anchors,
let us look at the second requirement on non-optimal routes [ID-dmm-
requirements].
REQ2: DMM solutions MUST provide transparent mobility support above
the IP layer when needed. Such transparency is needed, for example,
when, upon change of point of attachment to the Internet, an
application flow cannot cope with a change in the IP address.
Otherwise, support for maintaining a stable home IP address or prefix
during handovers may be declined.
In order to avoid traversing long routes after the MN has moved to a
new network, the new network can simply be used as the home network
for new sessions. The sessions that had already started in the
previous network would still need to use the original network in
which the session had started as the home network. There may then be
different IP sessions using different IP prefixes/addresses in the
same MN.
Chan, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft DMM-framework-gap-analysis November 2012
The capability to use different IP addresses for different IP
sessions are therefore needed.
The association with the HoA of an MN is not sufficient to support
the above use of IP for an application. This gap can be overcome by
generalizing the concept of the HoA of the MN to the HoA of an
application running on the MN as will be discussed in Section 7.1
below.
Using the dynamic mobility management scheme has avoided routing back
to the home network when the application does not have such a need.
There are, however, application sessions that had originated from a
prior network and that require mobility support. Longer routes than
the natural IP route can therefore emerge. Route optimization
schemes already exist, but one needs to deal with multiple HA's when
using multiple HA's.
6.1.7. Route optimization
The second part of first requirement is on route optimization.
REQ1: (part 1)IP mobility, network access and routing solutions
provided by DMM MUST enable distributed deployment for mobility
management of IP sessions (part 2) so that traffic does not need to
traverse centrally deployed mobility anchors and thus can be routed
in an optimal manner.
One generalization in terms of the unified framework is that the LM
functions can be considered as a distributed database as will be
shown in the next section. There, the MN and the LM have a client-
server relationship, with optionally a proxy in between and the proxy
can be co-located with an MR. A distributed database may have
different servers to store different data. The data in each server
need not be pushed to all other servers but the database system only
needs to know which data resides on which server. In addition, each
client (i.e., MN) needs to be able to query the database.
Existing functions, such as BU and BA messages, can be considered as
a method of database update function for the mobility context of the
MN. Completing the design of messages for the database update
functions will enable the distributed database design for route
optimization.
In the unified scheme, complete with database and mobility routing
functionalities, numerous route optimizations can be designed as
described in Section 7.2.
Chan, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft DMM-framework-gap-analysis November 2012
6.2. Mobility Protocols Gap Analysis
6.2.1. Gap analysis with the unified framework
The use of the unified framework meets the following requirements:
REQ4: Considering existing protocols first
REQ5: (first part) compatibility
REQ3: IPv6 deployment
The unified framework has separated the HA function into an MR and an
LM function. The following is needed in addition:
REQ6: Security - Trust between MR and LM is needed when they are not
co-located.
6.2.2. Gap analysis with MIPv6
MIPv6 using the unified framework follows the above gap analysis with
the unified framework. In addition, the following is needed.
REQ6: Security consideration
Trust between MN and MR is needed.
6.2.3. Gap analysis with PMIPv6
In terms of the unified framework, PMIPv6 differs from MIPv6 only in
the sense that the combination of an AR and the MN in the network-
based solution behaves like an MN in the host-based solution. While
the gap analysis with MIPv6 applies here, the following change is
needed: The trust between MN and MR in MIPv6 is therefore replaced by
the trust between AR and MR, and trust between the AR and the MN is
needed.
REQ6: Security consideration
Trust between AR and MR is needed.
Trust between MN and MR is needed.
6.2.4. Gap analysis with HMIPv6
In terms of the unified framework, HMIPv6 differs from MIPv6 and
PMIPv6 only in the addition that packets are routed in the hierarchy
MR(home network) -- MR(visited network) -- MN in MIPv6 or AR in
Chan, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft DMM-framework-gap-analysis November 2012
PMIPv6. While the gap analysis with MIPv6 and PMIPv6 applies to
HMIPv6, the following additional trust relationship is needed between
the MR's of different networks.
REQ6: Security consideration
Trust between MRs in different networks is needed.
6.2.5. Gap analysis with Distributing Mobility Anchors
The scenario of distributing mobility anchors is simply achieved with
the implementation of the unified framework for MIPv6, PMIPv6, or
HMIPv6 in each network of the multiple network. Therefore the gap
analysis for MIPv6, PMIPv6, or HMIPv6 apply depending on which of
these variants of MIP is used in these networks. In addition, the MR
function is now available in different networks. The following
requirement of distributed deployment is then met.
REQ1: Distributed deployment
The unified framework functions can be deployed in each of the
multiple networks.
6.2.6. Gap analysis with HAHA
The scenario for Migrating Home Agent can be constructed from that of
the distributing mobility anchors and modifying the LM in each
network to propagate its data to all LM servers in all other
networks. Therefore the gap analysis with distributing mobility
anchors apply.
In addition, trust between the LM servers is needed.
REQ6: Security consideration
Trust among the LM servers is needed.
6.2.7. Gap analysis with Dynamic mobility management
In Section 6, the unified framework functions are built by extending
that of the distributing mobility anchors scenario. Therefore the
gap analyses with distributing mobility anchors apply to the dynamic
mobility management. In addition,
REQ2: Transparency to upper layers when needed.
The home network and HoA was previously associated with an MN. By
extending the concept to that of an application rather than an MN
Chan, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft DMM-framework-gap-analysis November 2012
which has multiple applications, dynamic mobility management can be
achieved.
6.2.8. Gap Analysis with Multiple MRs and Distributed LM Database
In Section 7, an architecture of distributed mobility management is
constructed from the unified framework functions and can be seen as
an extension of the distributing mobility anchor scenario with
dynamic mobility management support. Therefore the gap analyses for
the dynamic mobility management also apply. In addition, the
following gap analysis applies.
REQ1: (part 2) Distributed deployment
The LMs may generalize into a distributed database.
REQ6: Security considerations
Trust between the LM in a different network and the MR is needed.
6.2.9. Gap Analysis with Route Optimization Mechanisms
In Section 8, different possibilities to optimize the route using the
architecture in Section 7 is described. Therefore the gap analyses
for the DMM architecture in Section 7 apply. In addition, the
following gap analyses apply.
REQ1: (part 2) Distributed deployment
MR may cache the LM information when needed.
MR function is needed in the CN's network.
REQ6: Security considerations
Trust between the MR and the LM is needed.
6.3. Gap analysis summary
The gap analyses for different protocols are summarized in this
section.
Table 1. Summary of Gap Analysis
Chan, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft DMM-framework-gap-analysis November 2012
Upper-
layer
Existing Distri- trans-
proto- IPv6 Security buted parency Route
cols Compati- deploy- consi- deploy- when Optimi-
first bility ment derations ment needed zation
Unified
framework Y Y Y
MIPv6 Y Y Y Y N N N
PMIPv6 Y Y Y Y N N N
(supports (MN-AR)
above)
HMIPv6 Y Y Y Y N N N
(supports (MN-AR)
above)
Optimize Y Y Y Y N N locat-
route (supports ion pr
above) ivacy
Distribute Y Y Y Y Y N N
mobility (supports
anchors above)
Multiple
MRs and Y Y Y Y Y Y
Distri- (supports (LM-MR in
buted LM above) different
database networks)
Dynamic Y Y Y Y Y Y most
mobility (supports (LM,MR-MR in (HoA of cases
above) different appl)
networks)
DMM Y Y Y Y Y Y except
(supports (LM,MR-MR in (HoA of 1st
above) different appl) pkts
networks)
7. DMM analysis
This section analyses how DMM proposals meet above requirements.
Chan, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft DMM-framework-gap-analysis November 2012
7.1. DMM scenarios and Dynamic mobility management requirement
The distributed architecture described in Section 5.1, which has an
MR and an HoA allocation function in each network, enables dynamic
mobility management.
When new applications are started after the MN moves to a new
network, the device can simply use a new IP address allocated by the
new network. Dynamic mobility management, i.e., invoking mobility
management only when needed, has been proposed in [Paper-
Distributed.Dynamic.Mobility] and [Paper-Host.based.DMM].
The architecture with multiple mobility routing functions compared
with a centralized approach is more appropriate for achieving dynamic
mobility management. In Figure 9 above, the LM function and the IP
address allocation function may be co-located. The device MN11,
originally attached to the first network (Network1), may simply be
using a dynamic IP address HoA11 which is leased from Network1 with a
finite lifetime of, say, 24 hours. As MN11 leaves the first network
and attaches to the third network (Network3), it acquires a new IP
address IP33 from Network3. MN11 may or may not have ongoing
sessions requiring session continuity. If it does not have, there is
no need for LM1 to keep a binding for the home address HoA11 of MN11.
If it does, it may use the existing MIPv6 signaling mechanism so that
the LM1 will maintain the binding HoA11:MR3. MR3 in turn will
maintain the binding HoA11:IP33. Such a hierarchy of binding with
MR3 acting as the proxy location maintenance function between LM1 and
MN11 will also cause MR3 to act as a proxy MR function between MR1
and MN11 so that packets destined to MR1 will be redirected to MR3.
When all ongoing sessions requiring session continuity terminate, it
is possible for MN11 to deregister from LM1. Yet one may not assume
the device will always perform the de-registration. Alternatively
the lease of the dynamic IP address HoA11 will expire upon which LM1
will remove the binding.
In the event that the ongoing session outlives the lease of HoA11,
MN11 will need to renew the lease with the IP address allocation
function in the first network.
More details on dynamically providing mobility support are found in
[ID.seite-dmm-dma], [ID.liu-dmm-dynamic-anchor-discussion],
[ID.bernardos-dmm-pmip], [I-D.ma-dmm-armip], and [ID.sarikaya-dmm-
dmipv6].
[I-D.seite-dmm-dma] describes dynamic mobility management using
PMIPv6. In that document, MR, LM, and the HoA allocation functions
are co-located at the access router in a flat network.
Chan, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft DMM-framework-gap-analysis November 2012
[Paper-Net.based.DMM], or equivalently the draft [I-D.seite-dmm-dma],
also describes dynamic mobility management in which the MR and the
HoA allocation functions are both co-located at the access router,
whereas the LM information in each of these access routers are linked
together under the hierarchy of a centralized LM server.
[Paper-Host.based.DMM] described fully distributed dynamic mobility
management using MIPv6. An access mobility anchor (AMA) is
introduced as a mobility anchor that provides the MR, LM, and HoA
allocation functions. As a host-based DMM protocol, an MN is allowed
to signal its movement to a serving AMA co-located at an access
router. The serving AMA signals to other AMAs associated to the
active sessions of the MN that enable session continuity for the
sessions anchored to the other AMAs. No centralized LM server is
required.
[ID.sarikaya-dmm-dmipv6] also described dynamic mobility management
for a flat network, with separate data plane and control plane. The
needed authentication is also described.
[ID.bernardos-dmm-pmip] co-locates the home prefix allocation
function and the mobility routing function at the access router,
which is then named Mobility Anchor and Access Router (MAAR) in that
draft. The LM function is centralized and is named Central Mobility
Database (CMD).
[I-D.ma-dmm-armip] again describes dynamic mobility management in
which the MR and the HoA allocation function are both co-located at
the access router.
[ID.liu-dmm-dynamic-anchor-discussion] describes the gaps and
extensions needed to accomplish dynamic mobility management.
7.2. Route optimization of DMM scenarios
The distributed architecture has already enabled dynamic mobility
management, as is described in [I-D.seite-dmm-dma], even when the
routes are not optimized. Route optimization mechanism can be
achieved in addition to dynamic mobility.
With the above architecture, there are a number of ways to enable
reachability of an MN by packets sent from a CN using the mobility
routing function.
The target to avoid unnecessarily long route is the direct route
instead of a triangular route. In general, when a packet is sent
from a CN in one network to an MN in another network, the direct
route consists of the following 3 routing segments (RS):
Chan, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft DMM-framework-gap-analysis November 2012
RS1.CN-MR(CN): the route segment from the CN to the nearest MR;
RS2.MR(CN)-MR(MN): the route segment from the MR serving (and
therefore being closest to) the CN to the MR serving the MN; and
RS3.MR(MN)-MN: the route segment from the MR serving the MN to the
MN.
One may therefore examine the route optimization mechanism in terms
of these 3 routing segments. In the first segment RS1:CN-MR(CN), the
alternatives are:
RS1.CN-MR(CN).anycast: Use anycast to route the packet to the
nearest MR function. Here, each MR includes all the HoAs in its
route announcement as if each of them is the destination for the
HoA. Such route announcements will affect the routing table such
that the packet destined to an HoA will be routed to the nearest
MR. The use of anycast to reach the nearest HA has been used in
[Paper-Migrating.Home.Agents] but with a different distributed
architecture of duplicating many HAs. It is again proposed in
[Paper-Distributed.Mobility.PMIP].
RS1.CN-MR(CN).gw/ar: Co-locate the MR function at a convenient
location to which the packet will always pass. Such locations may
be the gateway router or the access router. This approach will be
described later.
It is noted here that in a PMIPv6 design with a hierarchical
network, the MAG generally is at the access router but LMA can be
in the gateway router of a network. Whether a distributed
mobility design enhances the MAG or the LMA may involve quite
different mechanisms. Yet when looking at the logical function,
it is basically the same MR function whether this function co-
locates with the access router or the gateway router. This draft
therefore put both approaches together. There is however a
difference that the access router needs to perform proxy function
when using PMIPv6. Yet the logical MR functions are the same.
It is again noted that in flattened network, the access router and
the gateway router may merge together. With they are merged, the
needed function is again the same logical MR function.
In the second segment RS2.MR(CN)-MR(MN), the alternatives are:
RS2.MR(CN)-MR(MN).query: The MR query the LM database and use the
result to tunnel the packet to the MR serving the MN. In order
words, the MR pulls the needed internetwork location information
from the LM server. There will be a delay owing to the time taken
to send this query and to receive the reply. Optionally, before
receiving the reply, the first packet or the first few packets may
Chan, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft DMM-framework-gap-analysis November 2012
be forwarded using mip or pmip. Then the first packet may incur a
triangle route rather than to wait for the query reply. After
receiving the reply, the packet will be tunneled to the MR(MN).
The result may be cached for forwarding subsequent packets.
RS2.MR(CN)-MR(MN).push: The MR routes the first packet to the home
network using the existing MIPv6 or PMIPv6 mechanism. It will
then be intercepted by the MR of the MN which, with the help of
LM, knows whether the MN has moved to a different network and use
the mapping in LM to tunnel the packet to the MR of the MN. Then
the MR of the MN will inform MR of the CN to tunnel the packet
directly to the MR of the MN in future. In order words, after
MR(CN) has forwarded the first packet to MR(MN), the MR(MN) is
triggered to push the location information to MR(CN). The MR of
the CN may keep this information in its cache memory for
forwarding subsequent packets.
In the final segment RS3.MR(MN)-MN, the MR may keep track of the
location of MN and route to it using its intra-network mobility
management mechanism.
Different designs using the above architecture can be made by taking
different combinations of the different designs in the different
route segments. For example, the overall design of DMM may be:
1. RS1.CN-MR(CN).anycast followed by RS2.MR(CN)-MR(MN).query:
2. RS1.CN-MR(CN).anycast followed by RS2.MR(CN)-MR(MN).push:
An example is [Paper-Distributed.Mobility.PMIP] which is
explained for network-based mobile IP but is also applicable to
host-based mobile IP.
3. RS1.CN-MR(CN).gw/ar followed by RS2.MR(CN)-MR(MN).query:
An example is in [I-D.luo-dmm-pmip-based-dmm-approach] or
[I-D.liu-dmm-pmip-based-dmm-approach] in which the MR function is
co-located at the MAG which is usually at the access router.
Here, when CN is also an MN using PMIPv6, the packet sent from it
naturally goes to the access router which takes the logical
function of MR so that it will query the LM, which resides in the
LMA. It then uses the query result to tunnel the packet to the
MR(MN), which resides in the AR/MAG of the destination MN. The
signaling flow and other details are described in the referenced
draft.
Another example is in [I-D.jikim-dmm-pmip]. In the signal driven
approach, the MR is co-located the access router, which is
Chan, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft DMM-framework-gap-analysis November 2012
considered as an extension of MAG. The MR, i.e., the extended
MAG, serving the CN queries the LM and cache the result so that
it can tunnel packets to the MR serving the destination MN.
[I-D.liebsch-mext-dmm-nat-phl] also co-locates the MR at the
gateways. The gateway which serves the network of transmitting
node and where the MR is co-located is called the Ingress router,
whereas that at the network of the MN at the receiving side is
called egress router. Instead of tunneling between these 2
gateways, header rewrite using NAT is used to forward the packet
through the internetwork route segment.
4. RS1.CN-MR(CN).gw/ar followed by RS2.MR(CN)-MR(MN).push:
Another example is described in [Paper-
Distributed.Mobility.Management].
8. Security Considerations
TBD
9. IANA Considerations
None
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
10.2. Informative References
[I-D.bernardos-dmm-distributed-anchoring]
Bernardos, CJ. and JC. Zuniga, "PMIPv6-based distributed
anchoring", draft-bernardos-dmm-distributed-anchoring-01
(work in progress), September 2012.
[I-D.bernardos-dmm-pmip]
Bernardos, C., Oliva, A., Giust, F., Melia, T., and R.
Costa, "A PMIPv6-based solution for Distributed Mobility
Management", draft-bernardos-dmm-pmip-01 (work in
progress), March 2012.
Chan, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft DMM-framework-gap-analysis November 2012
[I-D.jikim-dmm-pmip]
Kim, J., Koh, S., Jung, H., and Y. Han, "Use of Proxy
Mobile IPv6 for Distributed Mobility Management",
draft-jikim-dmm-pmip-00 (work in progress), March 2012.
[I-D.liebsch-mext-dmm-nat-phl]
Liebsch, M., "Per-Host Locators for Distributed Mobility
Management", draft-liebsch-mext-dmm-nat-phl-02 (work in
progress), October 2012.
[I-D.liu-dmm-dynamic-anchor-discussion]
Liu, D., Deng, H., and W. Luo, "DMM Dynamic Anchor
Discussion", draft-liu-dmm-dynamic-anchor-discussion-00
(work in progress), March 2012.
[I-D.liu-dmm-pmip-based-approach]
Liu, D., Song, J., and W. Luo, "PMIP Based DMM
Approaches", draft-liu-dmm-pmip-based-approach-02 (work in
progress), March 2012.
[I-D.luo-dmm-pmip-based-dmm-approach]
Luo, W. and J. Liu, "PMIP Based DMM Approaches",
draft-luo-dmm-pmip-based-dmm-approach-01 (work in
progress), March 2012.
[I-D.ma-dmm-armip]
Ma, Z. and X. Zhang, "An AR-level solution support for
Distributed Mobility Management", draft-ma-dmm-armip-00
(work in progress), February 2012.
[I-D.patil-dmm-issues-and-approaches2dmm]
Patil, B., Williams, C., and J. Korhonen, "Approaches to
Distributed mobility management using Mobile IPv6 and its
extensions", draft-patil-dmm-issues-and-approaches2dmm-00
(work in progress), March 2012.
[I-D.sarikaya-dmm-dmipv6]
Sarikaya, B., "Distributed Mobile IPv6",
draft-sarikaya-dmm-dmipv6-00 (work in progress),
February 2012.
[I-D.seite-dmm-dma]
Seite, P. and P. Bertin, "Distributed Mobility Anchoring",
draft-seite-dmm-dma-05 (work in progress), July 2012.
[I-D.xue-dmm-routing-optimization]
Xue, K., Li, L., Hong, P., and P. McCann, "Routing
optimization in DMM",
Chan, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft DMM-framework-gap-analysis November 2012
draft-xue-dmm-routing-optimization-00 (work in progress),
June 2012.
[I-D.yokota-dmm-scenario]
Yokota, H., Seite, P., Demaria, E., and Z. Cao, "Use case
scenarios for Distributed Mobility Management",
draft-yokota-dmm-scenario-00 (work in progress),
October 2010.
[MHA] Wakikawa, R., Valadon, G., and J. Murai, "Migrating Home
Agents Towards Internet-scale Mobility Deployments",
Proceedings of the ACM 2nd CoNEXT Conference on Future
Networking Technologies, Lisboa, Portugal, December 2006.
[Paper-Distributed.Centralized.Mobility]
Bertin, P., Bonjour, S., and J-M. Bonnin, "Distributed or
Centralized Mobility?", Proceedings of Global
Communications Conference (GlobeCom), December 2009.
[Paper-Distributed.Dynamic.Mobility]
Bertin, P., Bonjour, S., and J-M. Bonnin, "A Distributed
Dynamic Mobility Management Scheme Designed for Flat IP
Architectures", Proceedings of 3rd International
Conference on New Technologies, Mobility and Security
(NTMS), 2008.
[Paper-Distributed.Mobility.Management]
Chan, H., "Distributed Mobility Management with Mobile
IP", Proceedings of IEEE ICC 2012 Workshop on
Telecommunications: from Research to Standards, June 2012.
[Paper-Distributed.Mobility.PMIP]
Chan, H., "Proxy Mobile IP with Distributed Mobility
Anchors", Proceedings of GlobeCom Workshop on Seamless
Wireless Mobility, December 2010.
[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.
[Paper-Host.based.DMM]
Lee, JH., Bonnin, JM., and X. Lagrange, "Host-based
Distributed Mobility Management Support Protocol for IPv6
Mobile Networks", Proceedings of IEEE WiMob, Barcelona,
Spain, October 2012.
[Paper-Migrating.Home.Agents]
Chan, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft DMM-framework-gap-analysis November 2012
Wakikawa, R., Valadon, G., and J. Murai, "Migrating Home
Agents Towards Internet-scale Mobility Deployments",
Proceedings of the ACM 2nd CoNEXT Conference on Future
Networking Technologies, December 2006.
[Paper-Net.based.DMM]
Giust, F., de la Oliva, A., Bernardos, CJ., and RPF. Da
Costa, "A network-based localized mobility solution for
Distributed Mobility Management", Proceedings of 14th
International Symposium on Wireless Personal Multimedia
Communications (WPMC), October 2011.
[Paper-SMGI]
Zhang, L., Wakikawa, R., and Z. Zhu, "Support Mobility in
the Global Internet", Proceedings of ACM Workshop on
MICNET, MobiCom 2009, Beijing, China, September 2009.
[RFC4068] Koodli, R., "Fast Handovers for Mobile IPv6", RFC 4068,
July 2005.
[RFC4988] Koodli, R. and C. Perkins, "Mobile IPv4 Fast Handovers",
RFC 4988, October 2007.
[RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V., Chowdhury, K.,
and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 5213, August 2008.
[RFC5380] Soliman, H., Castelluccia, C., ElMalki, K., and L.
Bellier, "Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 (HMIPv6) Mobility
Management", RFC 5380, October 2008.
[RFC5949] Yokota, H., Chowdhury, K., Koodli, R., Patil, B., and F.
Xia, "Fast Handovers for Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 5949,
September 2010.
[RFC6275] Perkins, C., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support
in IPv6", RFC 6275, July 2011.
Authors' Addresses
H Anthony Chan
Huawei Technologies
5340 Legacy Dr. Building 3, Plano, TX 75024, USA
Email: h.a.chan@ieee.org
Chan, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft DMM-framework-gap-analysis November 2012
Pierrick Seite
France Telecom - Orange
4, rue du Clos Courtel, BP 91226, Cesson-Sevigne 35512, France
Email: pierrick.seite@orange-ftgroup.com
Kostas Pentikousis
Huawei Technologies
Carnotstr. 4 10587 Berlin, Germany
Email: k.pentikousis@huawei.com
Jong-Hyouk Lee
Telecom Bretagne
RSM Department, Telecom Bretagne, Cesson-Sevigne, 35512, France
Email: jh.lee@telecom-bretagne.eu
Chan, et al. Expires May 11, 2013 [Page 34]