-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
Copy pathdraft-ietf-dmm-distributed-mobility-anchoring-11.txt
952 lines (667 loc) · 39.7 KB
/
draft-ietf-dmm-distributed-mobility-anchoring-11.txt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
DMM H. Chan, Ed.
Internet-Draft X. Wei
Intended status: Informational Huawei Technologies
Expires: March 2, 2019 J. Lee
Sangmyung University
S. Jeon
Sungkyunkwan University
CJ. Bernardos, Ed.
UC3M
August 29, 2018
Distributed Mobility Anchoring
draft-ietf-dmm-distributed-mobility-anchoring-11
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 March 2, 2019.
Chan, et al. Expires March 2, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft distributed mobility anchoring August 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. Nomadic case (no need of IP mobility): Changing to new IP
prefix/address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. Mobility case, traffic redirection . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.3. Mobility case, anchor relocation . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
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.
Companion distributed mobility management documents are already
addressing the architecture and deployment
Chan, et al. Expires March 2, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft distributed mobility anchoring August 2018
[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 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 [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 a
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 do not belong to the network where the MN
is currently attached.
When the MN wants to continue using its assigned prefix and IP
address 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 March 2, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft distributed mobility anchoring August 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) providing 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 March 2, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft distributed mobility anchoring August 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:
o There are multiple data plane anchors (i.e., DPA instances), each
with a FM-DP function.
o The control plane may either be distributed (not shown in the
figure) or centralized (as shown in the figure).
o 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 March 2, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft distributed mobility anchoring August 2018
CPA is co-located with the distributed DPAs, then there are
multiple co-located CPA-DPA instances (not shown in the figure).
o An IP prefix/address IP1 (anchored to the DPA with IP address
IPa1) is assigned for use to a MN. The MN uses this IP1 address
to communicate with CNs (not shown in the figure).
o 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) roles.
Chan, et al. Expires March 2, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft distributed mobility anchoring August 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. Three cases can be considered:
o Nomadic case: no address continuity is required. The IP address
used by the MN changes after movement and traffic using old
address is disrupted. If session continuity is required, then it
needs to be provided by a solution running at L4 or above.
o Mobility case, traffic redirection: address continuity is
required. When the MN moves, the previous anchor still anchors
traffic using the old IP address, and forwards it to the new MN's
location. The MN obtains a new IP address anchored at the new
location, and preferably uses it for new communications,
established while connected at the new location.
o Mobility case, 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's chooses as source IP address of packets belonging to an IP flow,
Chan, et al. Expires March 2, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft distributed mobility anchoring August 2018
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 a
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.
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. Nomadic case (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.
Chan, et al. Expires March 2, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft distributed mobility anchoring August 2018
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
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 attaches to a
network and AR1 sends a router advertisement (RA) including
information about the prefix assigned to MN, from which MN configures
the IP address to use (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
Chan, et al. Expires March 2, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft distributed mobility anchoring August 2018
repeated (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.
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. Mobility case, traffic redirection
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 enables optimized routes but requires some data
plane node that enforces rules for traffic indirection. Next, we
focus on the first case. The second one is addressed in Section 4.3.
Mobility support can be provided by using mobility management methods
such as ([Paper-Distributed.Mobility],
[Paper-Distributed.Mobility.PMIP] and
[Paper-Distributed.Mobility.Review]). After moving, a certain MN's
traffic flow may continue using the IP prefix from the prior network
Chan, et al. Expires March 2, 2019 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft distributed mobility anchoring August 2018
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.
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
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
Chan, et al. Expires March 2, 2019 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft distributed mobility anchoring August 2018
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 Figure 6.
Net1 Net2
+---------------+ +---------------+
|AR1 | |AR2 |
+---------------+ +---------------+
|CPA: | |CPA: |
| | |LM:IP1 at IPa1 |
|---------------| IP1 (anchored at Net1) |---------------|
|DPA(IPa1): | is redirected to Net2 |DPA(IPa2): |
|anchors IP1 | =======> |anchors IP2 |
+---------------+ +---------------+
+...............+ +---------------+
.MN(IP1) . MN moves |MN(IP2,IP1) |
.flow(IP1,...) . =======> |flow(IP1,...) |
. . |flow(IP2,...) |
+...............+ +---------------+
Figure 6: Anchor redirection
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.
4.3. Mobility case, 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 rules for traffic indirection.
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
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.
Chan, et al. Expires March 2, 2019 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft distributed mobility anchoring August 2018
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 7.
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 7: 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 a move is to use a centralized routing
protocol, but such a solution presents some scalability concerns and
its applicability is typically limited to small networks.
5. 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].
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.
Chan, et al. Expires March 2, 2019 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft distributed mobility anchoring August 2018
6. IANA Considerations
This document presents no IANA considerations.
7. 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 and Lyle Bertz also
performed very detailed and helpful reviews of this document.
8. References
8.1. 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.
[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.
Chan, et al. Expires March 2, 2019 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft distributed mobility anchoring August 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-15 (work in progress), July 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>.
[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>.
Chan, et al. Expires March 2, 2019 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft distributed mobility anchoring August 2018
[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>.
8.2. 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: [email protected]
Chan, et al. Expires March 2, 2019 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft distributed mobility anchoring August 2018
Xinpeng Wei
Huawei Technologies
Xin-Xi Rd. No. 3, Haidian District
Beijing, 100095
P. R. China
Email: [email protected]
Jong-Hyouk Lee
Sangmyung University
31, Sangmyeongdae-gil, Dongnam-gu
Cheonan 31066
Republic of Korea
Email: [email protected]
Seil Jeon
Sungkyunkwan University
2066 Seobu-ro, Jangan-gu
Suwon, Gyeonggi-do
Republic of Korea
Email: [email protected]
Carlos J. Bernardos (editor)
Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Av. Universidad, 30
Leganes, Madrid 28911
Spain
Phone: +34 91624 6236
Email: [email protected]
URI: http://www.it.uc3m.es/cjbc/
Chan, et al. Expires March 2, 2019 [Page 17]