Network Working Group J-C. Lee
Internet-Draft D. Kaspar
Intended status: Standards Track ETRI
Expires: February 8, 2008 August 7, 2007
NEMO in PMIPv6 domain
(draft-lee-netlmm-nemo-ps-01.txt)
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on February 8, 2008.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Lee & Kaspar Expires February 8, 2008 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft NEMO in PMIPv6 August 2007
Abstract
The PMIPv6 protocol provides local mobility to a mobile node without
its involvement in mobility management. To provide session
continuity without involvement of the mobile node, MAG and LMA
maintain forwarding information for the mobile node's HNP. If the
mobile node is a mobile router and the PMIPv6 domain is a home
network of it, the MAG and LMA should also have forwarding state for
MNP. This memo describes several NEMO related issues including this.
Table of Contents
1. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Local Mobility Management and Granularity of Mobility
Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. The Requirements for NetLMM protocol . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. A PMIPv6 domain as a Mobile Router's Home Network . . . . 5
4. Issues for NEMO in PMIPv6 domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. MNP for mobile router . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Ingress Filtering for MNP of Mobile Router . . . . . . . . 6
4.3. LMA as HA of Mobile Router . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.4. Dynamic Routing Protocol at LMA . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Proposed Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. Using MNP option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 13
Lee & Kaspar Expires February 8, 2008 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft NEMO in PMIPv6 August 2007
1. Requirements notation
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].
Lee & Kaspar Expires February 8, 2008 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft NEMO in PMIPv6 August 2007
2. Introduction
The PMIPv6 protocol provides local mobility to a mobile node without
requiring any involvement of a mobile node stack. From the
perspective of the mobile node the entire PMIPv6 domain looks like a
single link. This allows the mobile node in a PMIPv6 domain to
operate as if it were still in home link while it roams in the PMIPv6
domain.
The PMIPv6 protocol has two principal functional entities which
maintain forwarding information for the mobile node. MAG (Mobile
Access Gateway) and LMA (Local Mobility Anchor) are them. The MAG
maintains data path for the mobile node, and the LMA maintains a
collection of routes for individual mobile node while the mobile node
roams in the PMIPv6 domain.
Those forwarding information, however, is for the traffic for mobile
node. It doesn't care about the traffic for LFN of the mobile
router. If a mobile node is a mobile router, MAG and LMA of current
PMIPv6 protocol could not handle the traffic for LFN of mobile
router.
The goal of this memo is to provide short descriptions for NEMO
related issues like this.
Lee & Kaspar Expires February 8, 2008 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft NEMO in PMIPv6 August 2007
3. Assumptions
3.1. Local Mobility Management and Granularity of Mobility Management
Mobility management can be broken down into localized mobility
management and global mobility management. Localized mobility
involves movements across some administratively and geographically
contiguous set of subnets, whereas the mobile node that implements a
global mobility protocol is able to move across broad administrative,
geographical, and topological domains. The local subdomains of these
domains could be domains implementing localized mobility management
or not.
3.2. The Requirements for NetLMM protocol
[netlmm-goals] includes following goals for NetLMM protocol.
o The NetLMM protocol should be able to support unmodified mobile
nodes (goal #7 of [netlmm-goals]).
o Localized mobility management is independent of global mobility
management (goal #10 of [netlmm-goals]).
Considering these two goals for NetLMM protocol, we can say that a
mobile node in PMIPv6 domain could be a host or router (mobile
router), and even if a mobile node is a mobile router the PMIPv6
domain should support it without requiring any modification of it.
3.3. A PMIPv6 domain as a Mobile Router's Home Network
This memo deals with a PMIPv6 domain which is a mobile router's home
network.
Lee & Kaspar Expires February 8, 2008 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft NEMO in PMIPv6 August 2007
4. Issues for NEMO in PMIPv6 domain
4.1. MNP for mobile router
[netlmm-goals] describes the goals (or requirements) for NetLMM.
Section 3.7 "Support for Unmodified Mobile Nodes (Goal #7)" says that
the NetLMM solution should be able to support any mobile node without
requiring localized mobility management software on the mobile node.
In this context, the mobile node can be an ordinary host or a node
that has global mobility protocol.
The entire PMIPv6 domain appears as a single link to the mobile node,
so the mobile node that has a global mobility protocol will not
trigger the global mobility protocol while roaming in the PMIPv6
domain. In this situation most of the mobile nodes that have a host-
based global mobility protocol may work well, but if the mobile node
is a mobile router there may be problems in forwarding packets from
LFN.
The PMIPv6 protocol has two principal functional entities which are
called MAG (Mobile Access Gateway) and LMA (Local Mobility Anchor).
The MAG maintains data path for the mobile node, and the LMA
maintains a collection of routes for individual mobile node while the
mobile node roams in the PMIPv6 domain.
Those forwarding information, however, is for the traffic for mobile
node. It doesn't care about the traffic for LFN of the mobile
router. If a mobile node is a mobile router, MAG and LMA of current
PMIPv6 protocol could not handle the traffic for LFN of mobile
router.
If the mobile router boots up in a normal home network and then moves
into a PMIPv6 domain this problem would not occur, because the mobile
router will make a tunnel to the home agent and forwards all packets
from its mobile network via this tunnel to the home agent. In this
case the source address of packets is the CoA of the mobile router
and the MAG and LMA can handle these packets.
4.2. Ingress Filtering for MNP of Mobile Router
If the MAG doesn't have any information about MNP, the packets from
LFN might be filtered out at the MAG.
4.3. LMA as HA of Mobile Router
In PMIPv6 domain LMA is usually HA for a mobile router, and MAG
advertises RA message on behalf of LMA (HA). Therefore the RA
message advertised by the MAG should not have 'H' bit because the HA
Lee & Kaspar Expires February 8, 2008 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft NEMO in PMIPv6 August 2007
and the mobile router are not on same link.
4.4. Dynamic Routing Protocol at LMA
[RFC3963] describes that intra-domain routing protocol like RIPng can
be used as an alternative way to set up forwarding state for MNP at
the home agent. After bootstrapping of the mobile router, the mobile
router and the home agent start to exchange routing updates messages
periodically. Normally a request message is sent as multicast from
the routing protocol's specific port, but the mobile router couldn't
receive this message because the LMA and the mobile router are not in
the same link (the mobile router is not the tunnel's end point). As
part of normal routing protocol operation, the next hop information
in routing entries is filled with the mobile router's link-local
address with the outgoing interface set to the bi-directional tunnel,
but link-local address can't be used because of same reason as
before.
Lee & Kaspar Expires February 8, 2008 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft NEMO in PMIPv6 August 2007
5. Proposed Solution
5.1. Using MNP option
If we can know MNP for the mobile router it could be registered on a
profile server in advance. Once a mobile router enters PMIPv6 domain
it performs access authentication. During this procedure a MAG can
get MNP together with HNP for the mobile router, and then the MAG
sends BU including MNP and HNP to the LMA. While the mobile router
roams in the PMIPv6 domain, the MAG that the mobile router is
attached to should always send BU containing HNP and MNP.
Lee & Kaspar Expires February 8, 2008 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft NEMO in PMIPv6 August 2007
6. IANA Considerations
There is no IANA consideration in this document.
Lee & Kaspar Expires February 8, 2008 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft NEMO in PMIPv6 August 2007
7. Security Considerations
The security consideration is not studied for this issue yet.
Lee & Kaspar Expires February 8, 2008 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft NEMO in PMIPv6 August 2007
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[netlmm-dt-protocol]
Levkowetz, H., "The NetLMM Protocol", October 2006.
[netlmm-goals]
Kempf, J., "Goals for Network-based Localized Mobility
Management", October 2006.
[netlmm-pmipv6]
Gundavelli, S., "Proxy Mobile IPv6", January 2007.
[netlmm-ps]
Kempf, J., "Problem Statement for Network-based Localized
Mobility Management", September 2006.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC3963] Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., and P.
Thubert, "Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol",
RFC 3963, January 2005.
Lee & Kaspar Expires February 8, 2008 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft NEMO in PMIPv6 August 2007
Authors' Addresses
Joo-Chul Lee
ETRI
161 Gajeong-dong Yuseong-gu
Daejeon, 305-700
Korea
Fax: +82 42 861 5404
Email: rune@etri.re.kr
Dominik Kaspar
ETRI
161 Gajeong-dong Yuseong-gu
Daejeon, 305-700
Korea
Fax: +82 42 861 5404
Email: dominik@etri.re.kr
Lee & Kaspar Expires February 8, 2008 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft NEMO in PMIPv6 August 2007
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Lee & Kaspar Expires February 8, 2008 [Page 13]