Distributed Mobility AnchoringCaritas Institute of Higher Education2 Chui Ling Lane, Tseung Kwan ON.T.Hong Kongh.a.chan@ieee.orgHuawei TechnologiesXin-Xi Rd. No. 3, Haidian DistrictBeijing, 100095Chinaweixinpeng@huawei.comSejong University209, Neungdong-ro, Gwangjin-guSeoul05006Republic of Koreajonghyouk@sejong.ac.krSungkyunkwan University2066 Seobu-ro, Jangan-guSuwon, Gyeonggi-doRepublic of Koreaseiljeon.ietf@gmail.comUniversidad Carlos III de MadridAv. Universidad, 30Leganes, Madrid28911Spain+34 91624 6236cjbc@it.uc3m.eshttp://www.it.uc3m.es/cjbc/DMManchoraddress continuityreachabilitycontinuityPMIPv6MIPv6
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, depending on the network's needs. In a
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 restarted using an IP address configured
from the new IP prefix anchored to the new network. If the flow needs to survive
the change of network, there are solutions that can be used to enable IP address
mobility. This document describes different anchoring approaches, depending on
the IP mobility needs, and how this IP address mobility is handled by the
network.
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents
approved by the IESG are candidates for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any
errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 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
() 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
. Introduction
. Conventions and Terminology
. Distributed Mobility Anchoring
. Configurations for Different Networks
. Network-Based DMM
. Client-Based DMM
. IP Mobility Handling in Distributed Anchoring Environments: Mobility Support Only When Needed
. Nomadic Case
. Mobility Case with Traffic Redirection
. Mobility Case with Anchor Relocation
. Security Considerations
. IANA Considerations
. References
. Normative References
. Informative References
Acknowledgements
Contributors
Authors' Addresses
Introduction
A key requirement in distributed mobility management (DMM) 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 avoid unnecessarily long routes when a mobile node moves.
Other distributed mobility management documents already address
source address selection and
control-plane and data-plane signaling . A
number of distributed mobility solutions have also been proposed, for example,
in , , , , and .
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 .
As a Mobile Node (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 . 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 that assigns a new mobility
anchor to the MN. Since the new anchor is located in a different network, the
MN's assigned prefix does not belong to the network where the MN is currently
attached.
When the MN wants to continue using its assigned prefix to complete ongoing data
sessions after it has moved to a new network, the network needs to provide
support for the MN's 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) determine how the IP address
used by 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.
Conventions and Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT",
"REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT",
"RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED",
"MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are
to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 when, and only when, they appear in all capitals,
as shown here.
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
, the Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6)
specification , the Mobility
Terminology document , and the DMM
Current Practices and Gap Analysis document .
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 and definitions:
IP session continuity:
The ability to maintain an ongoing transport interaction by keeping the same
local endpoint IP address throughout the lifetime of the IP socket despite the
mobile host changing its point of attachment within the IP network topology. The
IP address of the host may change after closing the IP socket and before opening
a new one, but that does not jeopardize the ability of applications using these
IP sockets to work flawlessly. Session continuity is essential for mobile hosts
to maintain ongoing flows without any interruption .
Higher-layer session continuity:
The ability to maintain an ongoing transport- or higher-layer (e.g., application)
interaction by keeping the session identifiers throughout the lifetime of the
session despite the mobile host changing its point of attachment within the IP
network topology. This can be achieved by using mechanisms at the transport or
higher layers.
IP address reachability:
The ability to maintain the same IP address for an extended period of time. The
IP address stays the same across independent sessions, even in the absence of
any session. The IP address may be published in a long-term registry (e.g., DNS)
and is made available for serving incoming (e.g., TCP) connections. IP address
reachability is essential for mobile hosts to use specific/published IP
addresses .
IP mobility:
The combination of IP address reachability and session continuity.
Anchoring (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 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 the IP anchor
node as anchoring, which is a data-plane function.
Location Management (LM) function:
A 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), 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 Mobile Network Nodes (MNNs) in the
mobile network.
In a client-server protocol model, secure (i.e., authenticated and authorized) 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 or queried from
the LMc.
Optionally, there may be a Location Management proxy (LMp) between LMc and LMs.
With separation of control plane and data plane, the LM function is in the
control plane. It may be a logical function at the control-plane node, control-plane anchor, or mobility controller.
It may be distributed or centralized.
Forwarding Management (FM) function:
Packet interception and forwarding to/from the IP address/prefix
assigned 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 an FM function in the data plane (FM-DP)
and an 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.
Home Control-Plane Anchor (Home-CPA or H-CPA):
The Home-CPA function hosts the MN's mobility
session. There can be more than one mobility session for a mobile
node, and those sessions may be anchored on the same or different
Home-CPA's. The Home-CPA will interface with the Home-DPA for
managing the forwarding state.
Home Data-Plane Anchor (Home-DPA or H-DPA):
The Home-DPA is the topological anchor for the MN's IP address/prefix(es).
The Home-DPA is chosen by the Home-CPA on a session basis. The Home-DPA is
in the forwarding path for all the mobile node's IP traffic.
Access Control-Plane Node (Access-CPN or A-CPN):
The Access-CPN is responsible for interfacing with the mobile
node's Home-CPA and with the Access-DPN. The Access-CPN has a
protocol interface to the Home-CPA.
Access Data-Plane Node (Access-DPN or A-DPN):
The Access-DPN function is hosted on the first-hop router where
the mobile node is attached. This function is not hosted on a
Layer 2 bridging device such as an eNode(B) or Access Point.
Distributed Mobility AnchoringConfigurations 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. We analyze where LM and FM
functions, which are specific sub-functions involved in mobility management,
can be placed when looking at the different scenarios with distributed
anchors.
Network-Based DMM 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, 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 Anchor (CPA) and the Data Plane Anchor (DPA) may or may not
be co-located. If the 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 to 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.
Client-Based DMM 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) roles.
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. Three cases can be considered:
Nomadic case: No address continuity is required. The IP address used by the MN
changes after a movement and traffic using the old address is disrupted. If
session continuity is required, then it needs to be provided by a solution
running at Layer 4 or above.
Mobility case with traffic redirection: Address continuity is required. When the
MN moves, the previous anchor still anchors the traffic using the old IP
address and forwards it to the new MN's location. The MN obtains a new IP
address anchored to the new location and preferably uses it for new
communications established while connected at the new location.
Mobility case with anchor relocation: Address continuity is required. In this case,
the route followed by the traffic is optimized by using some means for traffic
indirection to deviate from default routes.
A straightforward choice of mobility anchoring is the following: the MN
chooses, as a source IP address for 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
.
The IP prefix/address at the MN's side of a flow may be anchored to the Access
Router (AR) 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 that is
typically a dynamic IP address (meaning that this address is only used while the
MN is attached to this access router, so the IP address configured by
the MN dynamically changes when attaching to a different access network). It
then uses this IP address when a flow is initiated. Packets from this flow
addressed to the MN are simply forwarded according to the forwarding table.
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
so that the mobile
node may choose the one with the least cost. In addition, the IP
prefixes/addresses provided by the network may be of different types regarding
whether mobility support is supported . An MN will need to choose which IP prefix/address to use
for each flow according to whether or not it needs IP mobility support,
for example, using the mechanisms described in .
Nomadic Case
When IP mobility support is not needed for a flow, the LM and FM functions are
not utilized so that the configurations in are simplified as shown in
.
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 or not IP mobility is needed, if the flow has not 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 an application flow is ongoing as
the MN moves, it may still be desirable for the application flow to change to
using the new IP prefix configured in the new network. The application flow may
then be closed at the IP level and then be restarted using a new IP address
configured in the new network. Such a change in the IP address used by the
application flow may be enabled using a higher-layer mobility support that is
not in the scope of this document.
In , 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. Packets may then be forwarded without requiring IP-layer mobility support.
An example call flow is outlined in . An MN attaches to AR1, which sends a router advertisement
(RA) including information about the prefix assigned to the MN, from which the
MN configures an IP address (IP1). This address is used for new
communications, for example, with a correspondent node (CN). If the MN moves to
a new network and attaches to AR2, the process is repeated (the MN obtains a new
IP address, IP2, from AR2). Since the IP address (IP1) configured at the
previously visited network is not valid at the current attachment point,
any existing flows have to be reestablished using IP2.
Note that in these scenarios, if there is no mobility support provided by
Layer 4 or
above, application traffic would stop.
Mobility Case with Traffic Redirection
When IP mobility is needed for a flow, the LM and FM functions in are utilized. There are two
possible cases: (i) the mobility anchor remains playing that role 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 enables optimized routes but requires some data-plane node that
enforces traffic indirection. We focus on the first case in this section. The
second case is addressed in .
Mobility support can be provided by using mobility management methods, such as
the approaches surveyed in the following academic papers: , , and . After moving, a certain MN's traffic flow may continue
using the IP prefix from the prior network of attachment. Yet, some time
later, the application generating this traffic 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. Packets belonging to this flow may then use the new IP prefix (the one
allocated 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, does not move again to another network.
An example call flow in this case is outlined in . In this example, the AR1
plays the role of the 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). The LM and FM
functions are implemented as shown in .
Multiple instances of DPAs (at access routers), which are providing IP prefixes
to the MNs, are needed to provide distributed mobility anchoring in an
appropriate configuration such as those described in () for network-based
distributed mobility or in () for client-based distributed
mobility.
Mobility Case with Anchor Relocation
We focus next on the case where the mobility anchor (data-plane function) is
changed but binds the MN's transferred IP address/prefix. This enables optimized
routes but requires some data-plane node that enforces traffic indirection.
IP mobility is invoked to enable IP session continuity for an ongoing flow as
the MN moves to a new network. The anchoring of the IP address of the flow is in
the home network of the flow (i.e., different from the current network of
attachment). A centralized mobility management mechanism may employ indirection
from the anchor in the home network to the current network of attachment. Yet, it
may be difficult to avoid using an 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 move the IP
prefix/address anchoring to the new network.
The IP prefix/address anchoring may move
without changing the IP prefix/address of the flow.
The LM function in of
is implemented as shown in .
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 a move is to use a centralized routing protocol,
but such a solution may present some scalability concerns and its
applicability is typically limited to small networks. One example of this type
of solution is described in .
When an MN associates with an anchor, the anchor injects the MN's prefix into
the global routing system. If the MN moves to a new anchor, the old anchor
withdraws the /64 and the new anchor injects it instead.
Security Considerations
As stated in , "a DMM solution MUST support any security
protocols and mechanisms needed to secure the network and to make continuous
security improvements". It "MUST NOT introduce new security risks".
There are different potential deployment models of a DMM solution. The present
document has presented three different scenarios for distributed anchoring:
(i) nomadic case, (ii) mobility case with traffic redirection, and (iii)
mobility case with anchor relocation. Each of these cases has different security
requirements, and the actual security mechanisms depend on the specifics
of each solution/scenario.
As general rules, for the first distributed anchoring scenario (nomadic case),
no additional security consideration is needed, as this does not involve any
additional mechanism at Layer 3. If session connectivity is required, the
Layer 4 or
above solution used to provide it MUST also provide the
required authentication and security.
The second and third distributed anchoring scenarios (mobility case) involve
mobility signaling among the mobile node and the control-plane and data-plane
anchors. The control-plane messages exchanged between these entities
MUST be protected using end-to-end security associations with
data-integrity and data-origination capabilities. IPsec Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) in transport mode with
mandatory integrity protection SHOULD be used for protecting
the signaling messages. Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2) SHOULD be used to set up security associations between the data-plane
and control-plane anchors. Note that in scenarios in which traffic indirection
mechanisms are used to relocate an anchor, authentication and authorization
mechanisms MUST be used.
Control-plane functionality MUST apply authorization checks to any commands or
updates that are made by the control-plane protocol.
IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions.
ReferencesNormative ReferencesKey words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement LevelsIn many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.Mobility Related TerminologyThere is a need for common definitions of terminology in the work to be done around IP mobility. This document defines terms for mobility related terminology. The document originated out of work done in the Seamoby Working Group but has broader applicability for terminology used in IETF-wide discourse on technology for mobility and IP networks. Other working groups dealing with mobility may want to take advantage of this terminology. This memo provides information for the Internet community.Proxy Mobile IPv6Network-based mobility management enables IP mobility for a host without requiring its participation in any mobility-related signaling. The network is responsible for managing IP mobility on behalf of the host. The mobility entities in the network are responsible for tracking the movements of the host and initiating the required mobility signaling on its behalf. This specification describes a network-based mobility management protocol and is referred to as Proxy Mobile IPv6. [STANDARDS-TRACK]Mobility Support in IPv6This document specifies Mobile IPv6, a protocol that allows nodes to remain reachable while moving around in the IPv6 Internet. Each mobile node is always identified by its home address, regardless of its current point of attachment to the Internet. While situated away from its home, a mobile node is also associated with a care-of address, which provides information about the mobile node's current location. IPv6 packets addressed to a mobile node's home address are transparently routed to its care-of address. The protocol enables IPv6 nodes to cache the binding of a mobile node's home address with its care-of address, and to then send any packets destined for the mobile node directly to it at this care-of address. To support this operation, Mobile IPv6 defines a new IPv6 protocol and a new destination option. All IPv6 nodes, whether mobile or stationary, can communicate with mobile nodes. This document obsoletes RFC 3775. [STANDARDS-TRACK]Requirements for Distributed Mobility ManagementThis document defines the requirements for Distributed Mobility Management (DMM) at the network layer. The hierarchical structure in traditional wireless networks has led primarily to centrally deployed mobility anchors. As some wireless networks are evolving away from the hierarchical structure, it can be useful to have a distributed model for mobility management in which traffic does not need to traverse centrally deployed mobility anchors far from the optimal route. The motivation and the problems addressed by each requirement are also described.Distributed Mobility Management: Current Practices and Gap AnalysisThis document analyzes deployment practices of existing IP mobility protocols in a distributed mobility management environment. It then identifies existing limitations when compared to the requirements defined for a distributed mobility management solution.Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key WordsRFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol specifications. This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings.Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation Requirements and Usage Guidance for Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) and Authentication Header (AH)This document replaces RFC 7321, "Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation Requirements and Usage Guidance for Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) and Authentication Header (AH)". The goal of this document is to enable ESP and AH to benefit from cryptography that is up to date while making IPsec interoperable.Algorithm Implementation Requirements and Usage Guidance for the Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)The IPsec series of protocols makes use of various cryptographic algorithms in order to provide security services. The Internet Key Exchange (IKE) protocol is used to negotiate the IPsec Security Association (IPsec SA) parameters, such as which algorithms should be used. To ensure interoperability between different implementations, it is necessary to specify a set of algorithm implementation requirements and usage guidance to ensure that there is at least one algorithm that all implementations support. This document updates RFC 7296 and obsoletes RFC 4307 in defining the current algorithm implementation requirements and usage guidance for IKEv2, and does minor cleaning up of the IKEv2 IANA registry. This document does not update the algorithms used for packet encryption using IPsec Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP).Informative ReferencesA Simple BGP-based Mobile Routing System for the Aeronautical Telecommunications NetworkThe International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is investigating mobile routing solutions for a worldwide Aeronautical Telecommunications Network with Internet Protocol Services (ATN/IPS). The ATN/IPS will eventually replace existing communication services with an IPv6-based service supporting pervasive Air Traffic Management (ATM) for Air Traffic Controllers (ATC), Airline Operations Controllers (AOC), and all commercial aircraft worldwide. This informational document describes a simple and extensible mobile routing service based on industry-standard BGP to address the ATN/IPS requirements.Work in ProgressDistributed Mobility AnchoringMost existing IP mobility solutions are derived from Mobile IP principles where a given mobility anchor maintains Mobile Nodes (MNs) binding up-to-date. Data traffic is then encapsulated between the mobility anchor and the MN or its Access Router. These approaches are usually implemented on a centralised architectures where both MN context and traffic encapsulation need to be processed at a central network entity, i.e. the mobility anchor. However, one of the trend in mobile network evolution is to "flatten" mobility architecture by confining mobility support in the access network, e.g. at the access routers level, keeping the rest of the network unaware of the mobility events and their support. This document discusses the deployment of legay Proxy Mobile IP approach in such a flat architecture. The solution allows to dynamically distribute mobility functions among access routers for an optimal routing management. The goal is also to dynamically adapt the mobility support of the MN's needs by applying traffic redirection only to MNs' flows when an IP handover occurs.Work in ProgressEnhanced Mobility Anchoring in Distributed Mobility ManagementThis document presents a new perspective for the solution design of enhanced mobility anchoring over DMM deployment models described in [draft-sijeon-dmm-deployment-models].Work in ProgressDistributed and Dynamic Mobility Management in Mobile Internet: Current Approaches and IssuesJournal of Communications, Vol. 6, No. 1
Distributed Mobility Management Protocol for WiFi Users in Fixed NetworkAs networks are moving towards flat architectures, a distributed approach is needed to mobility management. This document presents a use case distributed mobility management protocol called Distributed Mobility Management for Wi-Fi. The protocol is based on mobility aware virtualized routing system with software-defined network support. Routing is in Layer 2 in the access network and in Layer 3 in the core network. Smart phones access the network over IEEE 802.11 (Wi-Fi) interface and can move in home, hotspot and enterprise buildings.Work in ProgressProtocol for Forwarding Policy Configuration (FPC) in DMMThis document describes a way, called Forwarding Policy Configuration (FPC) to manage the separation of data-plane and control-plane. FPC defines a flexible mobility management system using FPC agent and FPC client functions. A FPC agent provides an abstract interface to the data-plane. The FPC client configures data-plane nodes by using the functions and abstractions provided by the FPC agent for the data- plane nodes. The data-plane abstractions presented in this document are extensible in order to support many different types of mobility management systems and data-plane functions.Work in ProgressDistributed IP mobility management from the perspective of the IETF: motivations, requirements, approaches, comparison, and challengesIEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 159-168
Proxy mobile IP with distributed mobility anchorsIEEE Globecom Workshops Miami, FL, 2010, pp. 16-20
Communicating Prefix Cost to Mobile NodesIn a network implementing Distributed Mobility Management, it has been agreed that Mobile Nodes (MNs) should exhibit agility in their use of IP addresses. For example, an MN might use an old address for ongoing socket connections but use a new, locally assigned address for new socket connections. Determining when to assign a new address, and when to release old addresses, is currently an open problem. Making an optimal decision about address assignment and release must involve a tradeoff in the amount of signaling used to allocate the new addresses, the amount of utility that applications are deriving from the use of a previously assigned address, and the cost of maintaining an address that was assigned at a previous point of attachment. As the MN moves farther and farther from the initial point where an address was assigned, more and more resources are used to redirect packets destined for that IP address to its current location. The MN currently does not know the amount of resources used as this depends on mobility path and internal routing topology of the network(s) which are known only to the network operator. This document provides a mechanism to communicate to the MN the cost of maintaining a given prefix at the MN's current point of attachment so that the MN can make better decisions about when to release old addresses and assign new ones.Work in ProgressIPv6 in 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Evolved Packet System (EPS)The use of cellular broadband for accessing the Internet and other data services via smartphones, tablets, and notebook/netbook computers has increased rapidly as a result of high-speed packet data networks such as HSPA, HSPA+, and now Long-Term Evolution (LTE) being deployed. Operators that have deployed networks based on 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) network architectures are facing IPv4 address shortages at the Internet registries and are feeling pressure to migrate to IPv6. This document describes the support for IPv6 in 3GPP network architectures. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.On-Demand Mobility ManagementApplications differ with respect to whether they need session continuity and/or IP address reachability. The network providing the same type of service to any mobile host and any application running on the host yields inefficiencies, as described in RFC 7333. This document defines a new concept of enabling applications to influence the network's mobility services (session continuity and/or IP address reachability) on a per-socket basis, and suggests extensions to the networking stack's API to accommodate this concept.Proxy Mobile IPv6 Extensions for Distributed Mobility ManagementStateless user-plane architecture for virtualized EPC (vEPC)We envision a new mobile architecture for the future Evolved Packet Core (EPC). The new architecture is designed to support the virtualization scheme called NFV (Network Function Virtualization). In our architecture, the user plane of EPC is decoupled from the control-plane and uses routing information to forward packets of mobile nodes. Although the EPC control plane will run on hypervisor, our proposal does not modify the signaling of the EPC control plane. The benefits of our architecture are 1) scalability, 2) flexibility and 3) Manageability. How to run the EPC control plane on NFV is out of our focus in this document.Work in ProgressAcknowledgements
The work of was supported by the MSIT (Ministry of Science
and ICT), Korea, under the ITRC (Information Technology Research Center)
support program (IITP-2020-2015-0-00403) supervised by the IITP (Institute for
Information & communications Technology Planning & Evaluation).
Contributors and had contributed to earlier draft versions of this document regarding
distributed anchoring for hierarchical networks 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 networks,
on providing mobility support only when needed, and on mobility support in
enterprise networks. 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 works. The latter include
, ,
, ,
,
and .
For completeness, some terminology from draft-ietf-dmm-deployment-models-04
has been incorporated into this document.
Valuable comments have been received from , , , , , , , ,
, ,
, , , , and . , , and have
generously provided careful review with helpful corrections and
suggestions. and also performed very detailed and helpful reviews of this document.
Authors' AddressesCaritas Institute of Higher Education2 Chui Ling Lane, Tseung Kwan ON.T.Hong Kongh.a.chan@ieee.orgHuawei TechnologiesXin-Xi Rd. No. 3, Haidian DistrictBeijing, 100095Chinaweixinpeng@huawei.comSejong University209, Neungdong-ro, Gwangjin-guSeoul05006Republic of Koreajonghyouk@sejong.ac.krSungkyunkwan University2066 Seobu-ro, Jangan-guSuwon, Gyeonggi-doRepublic of Koreaseiljeon.ietf@gmail.comUniversidad Carlos III de MadridAv. Universidad, 30Leganes, Madrid28911Spain+34 91624 6236cjbc@it.uc3m.eshttp://www.it.uc3m.es/cjbc/