DMM H. Chan, Ed.
Internet-Draft X. Wei
Intended status: Informational Huawei Technologies
Expires: January 3, 2019 J. Lee
Sangmyung University
S. Jeon
Sungkyunkwan University
CJ. Bernardos, Ed.
UC3M
July 2, 2018
Distributed Mobility Anchoring
draft-ietf-dmm-distributed-mobility-anchoring-09
Abstract
This document defines distributed mobility anchoring in terms of the
different configurations and functions to provide IP mobility
support. A network may be configured with distributed mobility
anchoring functions for both network-based or host-based mobility
support according to the needs of mobility support. In the
distributed mobility anchoring environment, multiple anchors are
available for mid-session switching of an IP prefix anchor. To start
a new flow or to handle a flow not requiring IP session continuity as
a mobile node moves to a new network, the flow can be started or re-
started using a new IP address configured from the new IP prefix
which is anchored to the new network. The mobility functions and
their operations and parameters are general for different
configurations.
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 https://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 January 3, 2019.
Chan, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft distributed mobility anchoring July 2018
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 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
(https://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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Distributed Mobility Anchoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Configurations for Different Networks . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.1. Network-based DMM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.2. Client-based DMM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. IP Mobility Handling in Distributed Anchoring Environments -
Mobility Support Only When Needed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. No Need of IP Mobility: Changing to New IP Prefix/Address 8
4.2. Need of IP Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. IP Mobility Handling in Distributed Mobility Anchoring
Environments - Anchor Switching to the New Network . . . . . 11
5.1. IP Prefix/Address Anchor Switching for Flat Network . . . 12
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction
A key requirement in distributed mobility management [RFC7333] is to
enable traffic to avoid traversing a single mobility anchor far from
an optimal route. This document defines different configurations,
functional operations and parameters for distributed mobility
anchoring and explains how to use them to make the route changes to
avoid unnecessarily long routes.
Chan, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft distributed mobility anchoring July 2018
Companion distributed mobility management documents are already
addressing the architecture and deployment
[I-D.ietf-dmm-deployment-models], source address selection
[I-D.ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility], and control-plane data-plane
signaling [I-D.ietf-dmm-fpc-cpdp]. A number of distributed mobility
solutions have also been proposed, for example, in
[I-D.seite-dmm-dma], [I-D.bernardos-dmm-pmipv6-dlif],
[I-D.sarikaya-dmm-for-wifi], [I-D.yhkim-dmm-enhanced-anchoring], and
[I-D.matsushima-stateless-uplane-vepc].
Distributed mobility anchoring employs multiple anchors in the data
plane. In general, control plane functions may be separated from
data plane functions and be centralized but may also be co-located
with the data plane functions at the distributed anchors. Different
configurations of distributed mobility anchoring are described in
Section 3.1.
As an MN attaches to an access router and establishes a link between
them, a /64 IPv6 prefix anchored to the router may be assigned to the
link for exclusive use by the MN [RFC6459]. The MN may then
configure a global IPv6 address from this prefix and use it as the
source IP address in a flow to communicate with its correspondent
node (CN). When there are multiple mobility anchors assigned to the
same MN, an address selection for a given flow is first required
before the flow is initiated. Using an anchor in an MN's network of
attachment has the advantage that the packets can simply be forwarded
according to the forwarding table. However, after the flow has been
initiated, the MN may later move to another network which assigns a
new mobility anchor to the MN. Since the new anchor is located in a
different network, the MN's assigned prefix and the built MN IP
address does not belong to the network where the MN is currently
attached.
When the MN wants to continue using its assigned prefix and IP
address, e.g., to complete ongoing data sessions after it moved to a
new network, the network needs to provide support for IP address- and
session continuity, since routing packets to the MN through the new
network deviates from applying default routes. The IP session
continuity needs of a flow (application) determines the how the IP
address used by the traffic of this flow has to be anchored. If the
ongoing IP flow can cope with an IP prefix/address change, the flow
can be reinitiated with a new IP address anchored in the new network.
On the other hand, if the ongoing IP flow cannot cope with such
change, mobility support is needed. A network supporting a mix of
flows both requiring and not requiring IP mobility support will need
to distinguish these flows.
Chan, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft distributed mobility anchoring July 2018
2. Conventions and Terminology
All general mobility-related terms and their acronyms used in this
document are to be interpreted as defined in the Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6)
base specification [RFC6275], the Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6)
specification [RFC5213], the "Mobility Related Terminologies"
[RFC3753], and the DMM current practices and gap analysis [RFC7429].
These include 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 terms:
Home network of a home address: the network that has assigned the
HoA used as the session identifier by the application running in
an MN. The MN may be running multiple application sessions, and
each of these sessions can have a different home network.
Anchor (of an IP prefix/address): An IP prefix, i.e., Home Network
Prefix (HNP), or address, i.e., HoA, assigned for use by an MN is
topologically anchored to an anchor node when the anchor node is
able to advertise a connected route into the routing
infrastructure for the assigned IP prefix. The traffic using the
assigned IP address/prefix must traverse the anchor node. We can
refer to the function performed by IP anchor node as anchoring,
which is a data plane function.
Location Management (LM) function: control plane function that keeps
and manages the network location information of an MN. The
location information may be a binding of the advertised IP
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.
When the MN is a mobile router (MR) carrying a mobile network of
mobile network nodes (MNN), the location information will also
include the mobile network prefix (MNP), which is the aggregate IP
prefix delegated to the MR to assign IP prefixes for use by the
MNNs in the mobile network.
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), where the location
information can be updated to or queried from the LMc.
Optionally, there may be a Location Management proxy (LMp) between
LMc and LMs.
Chan, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft distributed mobility anchoring July 2018
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 for use by 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 traffic indirection. With
separation of control plane and data plane, the FM function 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.
3. Distributed Mobility Anchoring
3.1. Configurations for Different Networks
We next describe some configurations with multiple distributed
anchors. To cover the widest possible spectrum of scenarios, we
consider architectures in which the control and data planes are
separated, as described in [I-D.ietf-dmm-deployment-models].
3.1.1. Network-based DMM
Figure 1 shows a general scenario for network-based distributed
mobility management.
The main characteristics of a network-based DMM solution are:
There are multiple data plane anchors (i.e., DPA instances), each
with an FM-DP function.
The control plane may either be distributed (not shown in the
figure) or centralized (as shown in the figure).
The control plane and the data plane (Control Plane Anchor -- CPA
-- and Data Plane Anchor -- DPA) may be co-located or not. If the
Chan, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft distributed mobility anchoring July 2018
CPA is co-located with the distributed DPAs, then there are
multiple co-located CPA-DPA instances (not shown in the figure).
An IP prefix/address IP1 (anchored to the DPA with IP address
IPa1) is assigned for use by an MN. The MN uses this IP1 address
to communicate with CNs (not shown in the figure).
The location management (LM) function may be co-located or split
(as shown in the figure) into a separate server (LMs) and a client
(LMc). In this case, the LMs may be centralized whereas the LMc
may be distributed or centralized.
____________ Network
___/ \___________
/ +-----+ \___
( |LMs | Control \
/ +-.---+ plane \
/ +--------.---+ functions \
( |CPA: . | in the )
( |FM-CP, LMc | network )
( +------------+ \
/ . . \
( . . )
( . . )
( . . \
\ +------------+ +------------+Distributed )
( |DPA(IPa1): | |DPA(IPa2): |DPAs )
( |anchors IP1 | |anchors IP2 | _/
\ |FM-DP | |FM-DP | etc. /
\ +------------+ +------------+ /
\___ Data plane _____/
\______ functions /
\__________________/
+------------+
|MN(IP1) | Mobile node attached
|flow(IP1,..)| to the network
+------------+
Figure 1: Network-based DMM configuration
3.1.2. Client-based DMM
Figure 2 shows a general scenario for client-based distributed
mobility management. In this configuration, the mobile node performs
Control Plane Node (CPN) and Data Plane Node (DPN) mobility
functions, namely the forwarding management and location management
(client role) ones.
Chan, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft distributed mobility anchoring July 2018
+-----+
|LMs |
+-.---+
+--------.---+
|CPA: . |
|FM-CP, LMp |
+------------+
. .
. .
. .
. .
+------------+ +------------+ Distributed
|DPA(IPa1): | |DPA(IPa2): | DPAs
|anchors IP1 | |anchors IP2 |
|FM-DP | |FM-DP | etc.
+------------+ +------------+
+------------+
|MN(IP1) |Mobile node
|flow(IP1,..)|using IP1
|FM, LMc |anchored to
+------------+DPA(IPa1)
Figure 2: Client-based DMM configuration
4. IP Mobility Handling in Distributed Anchoring Environments -
Mobility Support Only When Needed
IP mobility support may be provided only when needed instead of being
provided by default.
A straightforward choice of mobility anchoring is the following: the
MN's choses as source IP address of packets belonging to an IP flow,
an address allocated by the network the MN is attached to when the
flow was initiated. As such, traffic belonging to this flow
traverses the MN's mobility anchor [I-D.seite-dmm-dma]
[I-D.bernardos-dmm-pmipv6-dlif].
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), an
IP prefix from the attached network is assigned to the MN's
interface. In addition to configuring new link-local addresses, the
MN configures from this prefix an IP address which is typically a
dynamic IP address. It then uses this IP address when a flow is
initiated. Packets to the MN in this flow are simply forwarded
according to the forwarding table.
Chan, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft distributed mobility anchoring July 2018
There may be multiple IP prefixes/addresses that an MN can select
when initiating a flow. 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.ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility]. A flow
will need to choose the appropriate one according to whether it needs
IP mobility support.
4.1. No Need of IP Mobility: Changing to New IP Prefix/Address
When IP mobility support is not needed for a flow, the LM and FM
functions are not utilized so that the configurations in Section 3.1
are simplified as shown in Figure 3.
Net1 Net2
+---------------+ +---------------+
|AR1 | AR is changed |AR2 |
+---------------+ -------> +---------------+
|CPA: | |CPA: |
|---------------| |---------------|
|DPA(IPa1): | |DPA(IPa2): |
|anchors IP1 | |anchors IP2 |
+---------------+ +---------------+
+...............+ +---------------+
.MN(IP1) . MN moves |MN(IP2) |
.flow(IP1,...) . =======> |flow(IP2,...) |
+...............+ +---------------+
Figure 3: Changing to a new IP address/prefix
When there is no need to provide IP mobility to a 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 assigned from the new
network.
When IP 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. Such a change in the IP address of the flow may be
Chan, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft distributed mobility anchoring July 2018
enabled using a higher layer mobility support which is not in the
scope of this document.
In Figure 3, a flow initiated while the MN was using the IP prefix
IP1 anchored to a previous access router AR1 in network Net1 has
terminated before the MN moves to a new network Net2. After moving
to Net2, the MN uses the new IP prefix IP2 anchored to a new access
router AR2 in network Net2 to start a new flow. The packets may then
be forwarded without requiring IP layer mobility support.
An example call flow is outlined in Figure 4
MN AR1 AR2 CN
|MN attaches to AR1: | | |
|acquire MN-ID and profile | |
|--RS---------------->| | |
| | | |
|<----------RA(IP1)---| | |
| | | |
Assigned prefix IP1 | | |
IP1 address configuration | |
| | | |
|<-Flow(IP1,IPcn,...)-+------------------------------------------>|
| | | |
|MN detaches from AR1 | | |
|MN attaches to AR2 | | |
| | | |
|--RS------------------------------>| |
| | | |
|<--------------RA(IP2)-------------| |
| | | |
Assigned prefix IP2 | | |
IP2 address configuration | |
| | | |
|<-new Flow(IP2,IPcn,...)-----------+---------------------------->|
| | | |
Figure 4: Re-starting a flow with new IP prefix/address
4.2. Need of IP Mobility
When IP mobility is needed for a flow, the LM and FM functions in
Section 3.1 are utilized. There are two possible cases: (i) the
initial anchor remains the anchor and forwards traffic to a new
locator in the new network, and (ii) the mobility anchor (data plane
function) is changed but binds the MN's transferred IP address/
prefix. The latter enable optimized routes but requires some data
plane node that enforces rules for traffic indirection.
Chan, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft distributed mobility anchoring July 2018
The first case identified above (mobility support provided by IP
prefix anchor switching to the new network) can be performed as
described in Section 5 or by using other mobility management methods
([Paper-Distributed.Mobility], [Paper-Distributed.Mobility.PMIP] and
[Paper-Distributed.Mobility.Review]). Then the flow may continue to
use the IP prefix from the prior network of attachment. Yet some
time later, the user application for the flow may be closed. If the
application is started again, the new flow may not need to use the
prior network's IP address to avoid having to invoke IP mobility
support. This may be the case where a dynamic IP prefix/address
rather than a permanent one is used. The flow may then use the new
IP prefix in the network where the flow is being initiated. Routing
is again kept simpler without employing IP mobility and will remain
so as long as the MN which is now in the new network has not moved
again and left to another new network.
An example call flow in this case is outlined in Figure 5. In this
example, the AR1 plays the role of FM-DP entity and redirects the
traffic (e.g., using an IP tunnel) to AR2. Another solution could be
to place an FM-DP entity closer to the CN network to perform traffic
steering to deviate from default routes (which will bring the packet
to AR1 per default routing).
Chan, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft distributed mobility anchoring July 2018
MN AR1 AR2 CN
|MN attaches to AR1: | | |
|acquire MN-ID and profile | |
|--RS---------------->| | |
| | | |
|<----------RA(IP1)---| | |
| | | |
Assigned prefix IP1 | | |
IP1 address configuration | |
| | | |
|<-Flow(IP1,IPcn,...)-+------------------------------------------>|
| | | |
|MN detach from AR1 | | |
|MN attach to AR2 | | |
| | | |
|--RS------------------------------>| |
IP mobility support such as that described in next sub-section
|<--------------RA(IP2,IP1)---------| |
| | | |
| +<-Flow(IP1,IPcn,...)---------------------->|
| +<===========>+ |
|<-Flow(IP1,IPcn,...)-------------->+ |
| | | |
Assigned prefix IP2 | | |
IP2 address configuration | |
| | | |
Flow(IP1,IPcn) terminates | |
| | | |
|<-new Flow(IP2,IPcn,...)-----------+---------------------------->|
| | | |
Figure 5: A flow continues to use the IP prefix from its home network
after MN has moved to a new network
Multiple instances of DPAs (at access routers), which are providing
IP prefix to the MNs, are needed to provide distributed mobility
anchoring in an appropriate configuration such as those described in
Figure 1 (Section 3.1.1) for network-based distributed mobility or in
Figure 2 (Section 3.1.2) for client-based distributed mobility.
5. IP Mobility Handling in Distributed Mobility Anchoring Environments
- Anchor Switching to the New Network
IP mobility is invoked to enable IP session continuity for an ongoing
flow as the MN moves to a new network. Here the anchoring of the IP
address of the flow is in the home network of the flow, which is not
in the current network of attachment. A centralized mobility
management mechanism may employ indirection from the anchor in the
Chan, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft distributed mobility anchoring July 2018
home network to the current network of attachment. Yet it may be
difficult to avoid unnecessarily long route when the route between
the MN and the CN via the anchor in the home network is significantly
longer than the direct route between them. An alternative is to
switch the IP prefix/address anchoring to the new network.
5.1. IP Prefix/Address Anchor Switching for Flat Network
The IP prefix/address anchoring may move without changing the IP
prefix/address of the flow. Here the LM and FM functions in Figure 1
in Section 3.1 are implemented as shown in Figure 6.
Net1 Net2
+---------------+ +---------------+
|AR1 | |AR2 |
+---------------+ +---------------+
|CPA: | |CPA: |
|LM:IP1 at IPa1 | |LM:IP1 at IPa2 |
| changes to | | |
| IP1 at IPa2 | | |
|---------------| |---------------|
|DPA(IPa1): | IP1 anchoring is effectively moved|DPA(IPa2): |
|anchored IP1 | =======> |anchors IP2,IP1|
+---------------+ +---------------+
+...............+ +---------------+
.MN(IP1) . MN moves |MN(IP2,IP1) |
.flow(IP1,...) . =======> |flow(IP1,...) |
+...............+ +---------------+
Figure 6: Anchor mobility
As an MN with an ongoing session moves to a new network, the flow may
preserve IP session continuity by moving the anchoring of the
original IP prefix/address of the flow to the new network.
One way to accomplish such move is to use a centralized routing
protocol, but note that this solution presents some scalability
concerns and its applicability is typically limited to small
networks.
6. Security Considerations
Security protocols and mechanisms are employed to secure the network
and to make continuous security improvements, and a DMM solution is
required to support them [RFC7333].
Chan, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft distributed mobility anchoring July 2018
In a DMM deployment [I-D.ietf-dmm-deployment-models] various attacks
such as impersonation, denial of service, man-in-the-middle attacks
need to be prevented.
7. IANA Considerations
This document presents no IANA considerations.
8. Contributors
Alexandre Petrescu and Fred L. Templin had contributed to earlier
versions of this document regarding distributed anchoring for
hierarchical network and for network mobility, although these
extensions were removed to keep the document within reasonable
length.
This document has benefited from other work on mobility support in
SDN network, on providing mobility support only when needed, and on
mobility support in enterprise network. These works have been
referenced. While some of 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, Pierrick Seite, Jouni Korhonen,
and Sri Gundavelli.
Valuable comments have been received from John Kaippallimalil,
ChunShan Xiong, and Dapeng Liu. Dirk von Hugo, Byju Pularikkal,
Pierrick Seite have generously provided careful review with helpful
corrections and suggestions. Marco Liebsch also performed a very
detailed and helpful review of this document.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[I-D.bernardos-dmm-pmipv6-dlif]
Bernardos, C., Oliva, A., Giust, F., Zuniga, J., and A.
Mourad, "Proxy Mobile IPv6 extensions for Distributed
Mobility Management", draft-bernardos-dmm-pmipv6-dlif-01
(work in progress), March 2018.
[I-D.ietf-dmm-deployment-models]
Gundavelli, S. and S. Jeon, "DMM Deployment Models and
Architectural Considerations", draft-ietf-dmm-deployment-
models-04 (work in progress), May 2018.
Chan, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft distributed mobility anchoring July 2018
[I-D.ietf-dmm-fpc-cpdp]
Matsushima, S., Bertz, L., Liebsch, M., Gundavelli, S.,
Moses, D., and C. Perkins, "Protocol for Forwarding Policy
Configuration (FPC) in DMM", draft-ietf-dmm-fpc-cpdp-12
(work in progress), June 2018.
[I-D.ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility]
Yegin, A., Moses, D., Kweon, K., Lee, J., Park, J., and S.
Jeon, "On Demand Mobility Management", draft-ietf-dmm-
ondemand-mobility-14 (work in progress), March 2018.
[I-D.matsushima-stateless-uplane-vepc]
Matsushima, S. and R. Wakikawa, "Stateless user-plane
architecture for virtualized EPC (vEPC)", draft-
matsushima-stateless-uplane-vepc-06 (work in progress),
March 2016.
[I-D.mccann-dmm-prefixcost]
McCann, P. and J. Kaippallimalil, "Communicating Prefix
Cost to Mobile Nodes", draft-mccann-dmm-prefixcost-03
(work in progress), April 2016.
[I-D.sarikaya-dmm-for-wifi]
Sarikaya, B. and L. Li, "Distributed Mobility Management
Protocol for WiFi Users in Fixed Network", draft-sarikaya-
dmm-for-wifi-05 (work in progress), October 2017.
[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.
[I-D.yhkim-dmm-enhanced-anchoring]
Kim, Y. and S. Jeon, "Enhanced Mobility Anchoring in
Distributed Mobility Management", draft-yhkim-dmm-
enhanced-anchoring-05 (work in progress), July 2016.
[RFC3753] Manner, J., Ed. and M. Kojo, Ed., "Mobility Related
Terminology", RFC 3753, DOI 10.17487/RFC3753, June 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3753>.
[RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., Ed., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V.,
Chowdhury, K., and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6",
RFC 5213, DOI 10.17487/RFC5213, August 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5213>.
Chan, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft distributed mobility anchoring July 2018
[RFC6275] Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility
Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, DOI 10.17487/RFC6275, July
2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6275>.
[RFC6459] Korhonen, J., Ed., Soininen, J., Patil, B., Savolainen,
T., Bajko, G., and K. Iisakkila, "IPv6 in 3rd Generation
Partnership Project (3GPP) Evolved Packet System (EPS)",
RFC 6459, DOI 10.17487/RFC6459, January 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6459>.
[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,
<https://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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7429>.
9.2. 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.
[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 (editor)
Huawei Technologies
5340 Legacy Dr. Building 3
Plano, TX 75024
USA
Email: h.a.chan@ieee.org
Chan, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft distributed mobility anchoring July 2018
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
31, Sangmyeongdae-gil, Dongnam-gu
Cheonan 31066
Republic of Korea
Email: jonghyouk@smu.ac.kr
Seil Jeon
Sungkyunkwan University
2066 Seobu-ro, Jangan-gu
Suwon, Gyeonggi-do
Republic of Korea
Email: seiljeon@skku.edu
Carlos J. Bernardos (editor)
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/
Chan, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 16]
