[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits] [IPR]

Versions: (draft-krishnan-netext-pmip-lr) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 RFC 6705

Netext WG                                                    S. Krishnan
Internet-Draft                                                  Ericsson
Intended status: Standards Track                               R. Koodli
Expires: April 19, 2012                                    Cisco Systems
                                                             P. Loureiro
                                                                     NEC
                                                                   Q. Wu
                                                                  Huawei
                                                                A. Dutta
                                                                  NIKSUN
                                                        October 17, 2011


                Localized Routing for Proxy Mobile IPv6
                      draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr-06

Abstract

   Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) is a network based mobility management
   protocol that enables IP mobility for a host without requiring its
   participation in any mobility-related signaling.  PMIPv6 requires all
   communications to go through the local mobility anchor.  As this can
   be suboptimal, localized routing (LR) allows mobile nodes attached to
   the same or different mobile access gateways to route traffic by
   using localized forwarding or a direct tunnel between the gateways.
   This document proposes initiation, utilization and termination
   mechanisms for localized routing between mobile access gateways
   within a proxy mobile IPv6 domain.  It defines two new signaling
   messages, Localized Routing Initiation (LRI) and Local Routing
   Acknowledgment (LRA), that are used to realize this mechanism.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 19, 2012.




Krishnan, et al.         Expires April 19, 2012                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft          PMIPv6 Localized Routing            October 2011


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Initiation of Localized Routing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.1.  MAG behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.2.  LMA behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Conventions used in this document  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   4.  Scenario A11: Two MNs attached to the same MAG and LMA . . . .  6
     4.1.  Handover Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   5.  Scenario A21: Two MNs attached to different MAGs but same
       LMA  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     5.1.  Handover Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     5.2.  Tunneling between the MAGs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   6.  Scenario A12: Two MNs attached to the same MAG with
       different LMAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     6.1.  Handover Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   7.  Scenario A22: Two MNs attached to different MAGs with
       different LMAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   8.  IPv4 support in Localized Routing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   9.  Message Formats  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     9.1.  Localized Routing Initiation (LRI) . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     9.2.  Localized Routing Acknowledgment (LRA) . . . . . . . . . . 18
   10. New Mobility Option  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     10.1. MAG IPv6 Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   11. Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   12. IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   13. Authors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   14. Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
   15. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26





Krishnan, et al.         Expires April 19, 2012                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft          PMIPv6 Localized Routing            October 2011


1.  Introduction

   Proxy Mobile IPv6 [RFC5213] describes the protocol operations to
   maintain reachability and session persistence for a Mobile Node (MN)
   without the explicit participation from the MN in signaling
   operations at the Internet Protocol (IP) layer.  In order to
   facilitate such network-based mobility, the PMIPv6 protocol defines a
   Mobile Access Gateway (MAG), which acts as a proxy for the Mobile
   IPv6 [RFC3775] signaling, and the Local Mobility Anchor (LMA) which
   acts similar to a Home Agent.  The LMA and the MAG establish a
   bidirectional tunnel for forwarding all data traffic belonging to the
   Mobile Nodes.  In the case where both endpoints are located in the
   same PMIPv6 domain, this can be suboptimal and results in higher
   delay and congestion in the network.  Moreover, it increases
   transport costs and traffic load at the LMA.

   To overcome these issues, localized routing can be used to allow
   nodes attached to the same or different MAGs to directly exchange
   traffic by using localized forwarding or a direct tunnel between the
   gateways.  [RFC6279] defines the problem statement for PMIPv6
   localized routing.  This document describes a solution for PMIPv6
   localized routing.  The protocol specified here assumes that each MN
   is attached to a MAG and that each MN's MAG has established a binding
   for the attached MN at its selected LMA according to [RFC5213].  The
   protocol builds on the scenarios defined in [RFC6279].


























Krishnan, et al.         Expires April 19, 2012                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft          PMIPv6 Localized Routing            October 2011


2.  Initiation of Localized Routing

   Since the traffic to be localized passes through both the LMA and the
   MAGs, it is possible, at least in some scenarios, for either of them
   to initiate Localized Routing (LR).  In order to eliminate ambiguity,
   the protocol described in this document selects the initiator of the
   LR based on the following rules.

2.1.  MAG behavior

   The MAG MUST initiate LR if both the communicating MNs are attached
   to it and the MNs are anchored at different LMAs.  The MAG MUST NOT
   initiate LR in any other case.

2.2.  LMA behavior

   The LMA MUST initiate LR if both the communicating MNs are anchored
   to it.  The LMA MUST NOT initiate LR in any other case.

































Krishnan, et al.         Expires April 19, 2012                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft          PMIPv6 Localized Routing            October 2011


3.  Conventions used in this document

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL","SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

   This document also uses the terminology defined in Section 2 of
   [RFC6279].











































Krishnan, et al.         Expires April 19, 2012                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft          PMIPv6 Localized Routing            October 2011


4.  Scenario A11: Two MNs attached to the same MAG and LMA

   In this scenario, the two Mobile Nodes involved in communication are
   attached to a single MAG and both are anchored at the same LMA.

                        Internet
                           :
                           |
                           |
                        +-----+
                        | LMA |
                        +-----+
                           |
                           |
                           |
                        +-----+
                        | MAG |
                        +-----+
                         :   :
                      +---+ +---+
                      |MN1| |MN2|
                      +---+ +---+

                                 Figure 1

   The LMA initiates a localized routing session by detecting traffic
   between two MNs attached to the same MAG.  The exact traffic
   identification mechanism is not specified in this document, and is
   left open for implementations and specific deployments.  An example
   trigger could be that an application-layer signaling entity detects
   the possibility of localized routing and notifies the LMA about the
   two end-points, and the LMA determines that the two end-points are
   attached to the same MAG.  Such a trigger mechanism offers localized
   routing at the granularity of an individual application session,
   providing flexibility in usage.  It is also possible that one of the
   mobility entities (LMA or MAG) could decide to initiate localized
   routing based on configured policy.  Please note that a MAG
   implementing the protocol specified in this specification will not
   dynamically initiate LR in the same LMA case (i.e. by sending an
   LRI), but can statically initiate LR based on the
   EnableMAGLocalRouting configuration variable specified in [RFC5213].










Krishnan, et al.         Expires April 19, 2012                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft          PMIPv6 Localized Routing            October 2011


   +----+      +----+      +----+          +----+
   |MN1 |      |MN2 |      |MAG1|          |LMA |
   +----+      +----+      +----+          +----+
     |           |           |               |
     |        data           |     data      |
     |<--------------------->|<------------->|
     |           |           |               |
     |           |    data   |     data      |
     |           |<--------->|<------------->|
     |           |           |          LR decision
     |           |           |  LRI(Opt1)    |
     |           |           |<--------------|
     |           |           |               |
     |           |           |  LRA(Opt2)    |
     |           |           |-------------->|
     |           |           |               |
     |        data           |               |
     |<--------------------->|               |
     |           |           |               |
     |           |   data    |               |
     |           |<--------->|               |
     |           |           |               |
     |           |           |               |

   Opt1: R=0,MN1-ID,MN1-HNP,MN2-ID,MN2-HNP
   Opt2: R=1,U=0,MN1-ID,MN1-HNP,MN2-ID,MN2-HNP

   where R and U are the flags defined in Section 9.1 and 9.2.

                                 Figure 2

   After detecting a possibility for localized routing, the LMA
   constructs a Localized Routing Initiation (LRI) message that is used
   to signal the intent to initiate localized routing and to convey
   parameters for the same.  This is a Mobility Header message and it
   contains the MN-Identifier and the Home Network Prefix (as Mobility
   Header options) for each of the MNs involved.  The LMA sends the LRI
   message to the MAG (MAG1) where the two MNs are attached.

   The MAG (MAG1) verifies via the binding cache the existence/
   attachment status of the two MNs locally.  It then verifies if the
   EnableMAGLocalRouting flag is set to 1.  If it is not, the MAG has
   not been configured to allow localized routing and it will reject the
   LRI and send an LRA with status code "Localized Routing Not Allowed".
   Please note that this does not update behavior specified in [RFC5213]
   but merely implements the LMA enforcement specified in Section
   6.10.3. of [RFC5213].  If MAG is configured to allow localized
   routing it then creates Localized Routing Entries (LREs) for each



Krishnan, et al.         Expires April 19, 2012                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft          PMIPv6 Localized Routing            October 2011


   direction of the communication between the two MNs.  The exact form
   of the forwarding entries is left for the implementations to decide;
   however, they should contain the HNP corresponding to the destination
   IP address and a next-hop identifier (e.g. the layer 2 address of the
   next hop).  These LREs MUST override the BUL entries for the specific
   HNPs identified in the LRI message.  Hence all traffic matching the
   HNPs is forwarded locally.

   If a MAG is unable to deliver packets using the LREs, it is possible
   that the MN is no longer attached to the MAG.  Hence, the MAG SHOULD
   fall back to using the BUL entry, and the LMA MUST forward the
   received packets using its BCE.

   The local forwarding is not permanent.  For instance, the LMA may
   send a LRI message with a request to cancel an existing local
   forwarding service.  The local forwarding also has a default
   lifetime, upon the expiry of which, the forwarding reverts to
   bidirectional tunneling.  When local forwarding service ceases, the
   corresponding LRE entries MUST be removed.

   The MAG completes the processing of the LRI message and responds with
   a Local Routing Acknowledgment (LRA) message.  This Mobility Header
   message also includes the MN-ID and the HNP for each of the
   communicating MNs as well as an appropriate Status code indicating
   the outcome of LRI processing.  Status code 0 indicates localized
   routing was successfully offered by the MAG.  Any other value for
   Status code indicates the reason for the failure to offer localized
   routing service.  When Status code is 0, the LMA sets a flag in the
   BCE corresponding to the HNPs to record that localized routing is in
   progress for that HNP.

4.1.  Handover Considerations

   If one of the MNs, say MN1, detaches from the MAG and attaches to
   another MAG (say nMAG) the localized routing state needs to be re-
   established.  When the LMA receives the PBU from nMAG for MN1, it
   will see that localized routing is active for MN1.  It will hence
   initiate LR at nMAG and update the LR state of MAG.  After the
   handover completes, the localized routing will resemble Scenario A21.












Krishnan, et al.         Expires April 19, 2012                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft          PMIPv6 Localized Routing            October 2011


5.  Scenario A21: Two MNs attached to different MAGs but same LMA

   The LMA may choose to support local forwarding to mobile nodes
   attached to two different MAGs within a single PMIPv6 domain.

                        Internet
                           :
                           |
                           |
                        +-----+
                        | LMA |
                        +-----+
                           |
                           |
                      +----+-----+
                      |          |
                   +----+     +----+
                   |MAG1|     |MAG2|
                   +----+     +----+
                     :           :
                   +---+       +---+
                   |MN1|       |MN2|
                   +---+       +---+

                                 Figure 3

   As earlier, the LMA initiates LR as a response to some trigger
   mechanism.  In this case, however, it sends two separate LRI messages
   to the two MAGs.  In addition to the MN-ID and the HNP options, each
   LRI message contains the IP Address of the counterpart MAG.  When the
   MAG IP Address option is present, each MAG MUST create a local
   forwarding entry such that the packets for the MN attached to the
   remote MAG are sent over a tunnel associated with that remote MAG.
   The tunnel between the MAGs is assumed to be established following
   the considerations mentioned in Section 5.2.
















Krishnan, et al.         Expires April 19, 2012                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft          PMIPv6 Localized Routing            October 2011


   +----+      +----+      +----+      +----+        +----+
   |MN1 |      |MN2 |      |MAG1|      |MAG2|        |LMA |
   +----+      +----+      +----+      +----+        +----+
     |           |           |           |             |
     |        data           |          data           |
     |<--------------------->|<----------------------->|
     |           |           |           |             |
     |           |         data          |    data     |
     |           |<--------------------->|<----------->|
     |           |           |           |             |
     |           |           |           |             |
     |           |           |       LRI(Opt1)         |
     |           |           |<------------------------|
     |           |           |           |             |
     |           |           |           |  LRI(Opt2)  |
     |           |           |           |<------------|
     |           |           |           |             |
     |           |           |        LRA(Opt3)        |
     |           |           |------------------------>|
     |           |           |           |             |
     |           |           |           |   LRA(Opt4) |
     |           |           |           |------------>|
     |           |           |           |             |
     |           |           |           |             |
     |           |           |           |             |
     |        data           |    data   |             |
     |<--------------------->|<--------->|             |
     |           |           |           |             |
     |           |         data          |             |
     |           |<--------------------->|             |
     |           |           |           |             |
     |           |           |           |             |

   Opt1: R=0,MN1-ID,MN1-HNP,MAG2-IPv6-Address
   Opt2: R=0,MN2-ID,MN2-HNP,MAG1-IPv6-Address
   Opt3: R=1,U=0,MN1-ID,MN1-HNP,MAG2-IPv6-Address
   Opt4: R=1,U=0,MN2-ID,MN2-HNP,MAG1-IPv6-Address

   where R and U are the flags defined in Section 9.1 and 9.2.

                                 Figure 4

   In this case, each MAG responds to the LRI with an LRA message.
   Barring the error cases, all subsequent packets are routed between
   the MAGs locally, without traversing the LMA.

   The protocol does not require any synchronization between the MAGs
   before local forwarding begins.  Each MAG begins its local forwarding



Krishnan, et al.         Expires April 19, 2012                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft          PMIPv6 Localized Routing            October 2011


   independent of the other.

5.1.  Handover Considerations

   If one of the MNs, say MN1, detaches from its current MAG (in this
   case MAG1) and attaches to another MAG (say nMAG1) the localized
   routing state needs to be re-established.  When the LMA receives the
   PBU from nMAG1 for MN1, it will see that localized routing is active
   for MN1.  It will hence initiate LR at nMAG1 and update the LR state
   of MAG2 to use nMAG1 instead of MAG1.

5.2.  Tunneling between the MAGs

   In order to support localized routing both MAGs SHOULD support the
   following encapsulation modes for the user packets, which are also
   defined for the tunnel between the LMA and MAG:

   o  IPv4-or-IPv6-over-IPv6 [RFC5844]

   o  IPv4-or-IPv6-over-IPv4 [RFC5844]

   o  IPv4-or-IPv6-over-IPv4-UDP [RFC5844]

   o  TLV-header UDP tunneling [RFC5845]

   o  Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) tunneling with or without GRE
      key(s) [RFC5845]

   MAG1 and the MAG2 MUST use the same tunneling mechanism for the data
   traffic tunneled between them.  The encapsulation mode to be employed
   SHOULD be configurable.  It is RECOMMENDED that:

   1.  As the default behavior, the inter-MAG tunnel uses the same
       encapsulation mechanism as that being used for the PMIPv6 tunnel
       between the LMA and the MAGs.  MAG1 and MAG2 automatically start
       using the same encapsulation mechanism without a need for a
       special configuration on the MAGs or a dynamic tunneling
       mechanism negotiation between them.

   2.  Configuration on the MAGs can override the default mechanism
       specified in Option 1 above.  MAG1 and MAG2 MUST be configured
       with the same mechanism, and this configuration is most likely to
       be uniform throughout the PMIPv6 domain.  If the packets on the
       PMIPv6 tunnel cannot be uniquely mapped on to the configured
       inter-MAG tunnel, this scenario is not applicable, and Option 3
       below SHOULD directly be applied.





Krishnan, et al.         Expires April 19, 2012                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft          PMIPv6 Localized Routing            October 2011


   3.  An implicit or explicit tunnel negotiation mechanism between the
       MAGs can override the default mechanism specified in Option 1
       above.  The employed tunnel negotiation mechanism is outside the
       scope of this document.















































Krishnan, et al.         Expires April 19, 2012                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft          PMIPv6 Localized Routing            October 2011


6.  Scenario A12: Two MNs attached to the same MAG with different LMAs

   In this scenario, both the MNs are attached to the same MAG, but are
   anchored at two different LMAs.  Note that the two LMAs are part of
   the same Provider Domain.


                        Internet
                  :                  :
                  +------------------+
                  |                  |
               +----+              +----+
               |LMA1|              |LMA2|
               +----+              +----+
                  |                  |
                  |                  |
                  +------------------+
                           |
                           |
                           |
                        +-----+
                        | MAG |
                        +-----+
                         :   :
                      +---+ +---+
                      |MN1| |MN2|
                      +---+ +---+

                                 Figure 5

   Hence, neither LMA has a means to determine that the two Mobile Nodes
   are attached to the same MAG.  Only the MAG can possibly determine
   that the two Mobile Nodes involved in communication are attached to
   it.  Hence the localized routing has to be initiated by the MAG.

   The MAG sends an LRI message containing the MN-ID, HNP and the
   counterpart LMA address to each LMA.  Each LMA makes decision to
   support local forwarding independently, based on, among others,
   policy configuration for the counterpart LMA.  Each LMA MUST respond
   to the LRI message with an LRA message.  Only after it receives both
   the LRA messages each with Status value set to zero (success) from
   the two different LMAs, the MAG MUST conclude that it can provide
   local forwarding support for the two Mobile Nodes.








Krishnan, et al.         Expires April 19, 2012                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft          PMIPv6 Localized Routing            October 2011


   +----+      +----+      +----+      +----+        +----+
   |MN1 |      |MN2 |      |MAG |      |LMA1|        |LMA2|
   +----+      +----+      +----+      +----+        +----+
     |           |           |           |             |
     |        data           |   data    |    data     |
     |<--------------------->|<--------->|<----------->|
     |           |           |           |             |
     |           |   data    |          data           |
     |           |<--------->|<----------------------->|
     |           |           |           |             |
     |           |           |           |             |
     |           |           | LRI(Opt1) |             |
     |           |           |---------->|             |
     |           |           |           |             |
     |           |           |        LRI(Opt2)        |
     |           |           |------------------------>|
     |           |           |           |             |
     |           |           | LRA(Opt3) |             |
     |           |           |<----------|             |
     |           |           |           |             |
     |           |           |        LRA(Opt4)        |
     |           |           |<------------------------|
     |           |           |           |             |
     |           |           |           |             |
     |           |           |           |             |
     |        data           |           |             |
     |<--------------------->|           |             |
     |           |           |           |             |
     |           |    data   |           |             |
     |           |<--------->|           |             |
     |           |           |           |             |
     |           |           |           |             |

   Opt1: R=0,MN1-ID,MN1-HNP
   Opt2: R=0,MN2-ID,MN2-HNP
   Opt3: R=1,U=0,MN1-ID,MN1-HNP
   Opt4: R=1,U=0,MN2-ID,MN2-HNP

   where R and U are the flags defined in Section 9.1 and 9.2.

                                 Figure 6

6.1.  Handover Considerations

   If one of the MNs, say MN1, detaches from its current MAG (in this
   case MAG1) and attaches to another MAG (say nMAG1) the localized
   routing state needs to be re-established.  After the handover
   completes, the localized routing will resemble Scenario A22.



Krishnan, et al.         Expires April 19, 2012                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft          PMIPv6 Localized Routing            October 2011


7.  Scenario A22: Two MNs attached to different MAGs with different LMAs

   This scenario will not be covered in this document since PMIPv6 does
   not define any form of inter-LMA communications.  When a supported
   scenario, such as Scenario A12, morphs into Scenario A22 the node
   that initiated the localized routing session SHOULD tear it down in
   order to prevent lasting packet loss.  This can result in transient
   packet loss when routing switches between the localized path into the
   normal path through the LMAs.  In applications that are loss
   sensitive, this can lead to observable service disruptions.  In
   deployments where Scenario A22 is possible, it is recommended that
   localized routing not be initiated when packet-loss-sensitive
   applications are in use.






































Krishnan, et al.         Expires April 19, 2012                [Page 15]

Internet-Draft          PMIPv6 Localized Routing            October 2011


8.  IPv4 support in Localized Routing

   PMIPv6 MNs can use an IPv4 HoA as described in [RFC5844].  In order
   to support the setup and maintenance of localized routes for these
   IPv4 HoAs in PMIPv6, MAGs must add the IPv4 HoAs into their LREs.
   The MAGs MUST also support encapsulation of IPv4 packets as described
   in [RFC5844].  The localized routing protocol messages MUST include a
   IPv4 HoA option in their signaling messages in order to support IPv4
   addresses for localized routing.

   If the transport network between the PMIPv6 entities involved in
   localized routing is IPv4-only, the LRI and LRA messages MUST be
   encapsulated similar to the PBU/PBA messages as specified in
   [RFC5844].  The encapsulation mode used SHOULD be identical to the
   one used to transport PBU and PBA messages.

   Note that this document supports LR only for IPv6 traffic, and LR is
   not supported for IPv4 traffic.

































Krishnan, et al.         Expires April 19, 2012                [Page 16]

Internet-Draft          PMIPv6 Localized Routing            October 2011


9.  Message Formats

   All the Localized routing messages use a new mobility header type
   (TBA1).  The LRI message requests creation or deletion of localized
   routing state and the LRA message acknowledges the creation or
   deletion of such localized routing state.

9.1.  Localized Routing Initiation (LRI)

   The LMA sends an LRI message to a MAG to request local forwarding for
   a pair of MNs.  The MAG may also send this message to request the two
   LMAs for offering local forwarding as described in Section 6 .







































Krishnan, et al.         Expires April 19, 2012                [Page 17]

Internet-Draft          PMIPv6 Localized Routing            October 2011


       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
                                       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                       |           Sequence #          |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |R|       Reserved              |           Lifetime            |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                                                               |
       .                                                               .
       .                        Mobility options                       .
       .                                                               .
       |                                                               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      Sequence Number: A monotonically increasing integer.  Set by a
      sending node in a request message, and used to match a reply to
      the request.

      'R' flag: Set to 0, indicates it is an LRI message.

      Reserved: This field is unused.  MUST be set zero.

      Lifetime: The requested time in seconds for which the sender
      wishes to have local forwarding. A value of 0xffff (all ones)
      indicates an infinite lifetime. When set to 0, indicates a request
      to stop localized routing.



      Mobility Options: MUST contain the MN-ID, followed by one or more
      HNPs for each of the MNs.  For instance, for Mobile Nodes MN1 and
      MN2 with identifiers MN1-ID, MN2-ID and Home Network Prefixes
      MN1-HNP and MN2-HNP, the following tuple in the following order
      MUST be present: [MN1-ID, MN1-HNP], [MN2-ID, MN2-HNP].  The
      MN-ID and HNP options are the same as in [RFC5213].  MAY contain
      the remote MAG IPv6 address option, which is formatted identically
      to the HNP option, except that it uses a different Type code and
      the Prefix Length is always equal to 128 bits (see Section 10.1).

   The LRI message SHOULD be re-transmitted if a corresponding LRA
   message is not received within LRA_WAIT_TIME time units, up to a
   maximum of LRI_RETRIES, each separated by LRA_WAIT_TIME time units.

9.2.  Localized Routing Acknowledgment (LRA)

   A MAG sends an LRA message to the LMA as a response to the LRI
   message.  An LMA may also send this message to a MAG as a response to
   the LRI message as described in Section 6 .



Krishnan, et al.         Expires April 19, 2012                [Page 18]

Internet-Draft          PMIPv6 Localized Routing            October 2011


       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
                                       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                       |           Sequence #          |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |R|U| Reserved  |   Status      |           Lifetime            |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                                                               |
       .                                                               .
       .                        Mobility options                       .
       .                                                               .
       |                                                               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


      Sequence Number: is copied from the sequence number field of the
      LRI message being responded to.

      'R' flag: Set to 1, indicates it is an LRA message.

      'U' flag: When set to 1, the LRA message is sent unsolicited.
      The Lifetime field indicates a new requested value.  The MAG MUST
      wait for the regular LRI message to confirm that the request is
      acceptable to the LMA.

      Reserved: This field is unused.  MUST be set zero.

      Status:


         0: Success

         128: Localized Routing Not Allowed
         129: MN not attached

      Lifetime: The time in seconds for which the local forwarding is
      supported.  Typically copied from the corresponding field in the
      LRI message.

      Mobility Options: When Status code is 0, MUST contain the
      [MN-ID, HNP] tuples in the same order as in the LRI message.
      When Status code is not 0, MUST contain only those [MN-ID, HNP]
      tuples for which local forwarding is supported.  The MN-ID and
      HNP options are the same as in [RFC5213].







Krishnan, et al.         Expires April 19, 2012                [Page 19]

Internet-Draft          PMIPv6 Localized Routing            October 2011


10.  New Mobility Option

10.1.  MAG IPv6 Address

   The MAG IPv6 address mobility option contains the IPv6 address of a
   MAG involved in the localized routing.  The MAG IPv6 address option
   has an alignment requirement of 8n+4.

        0                   1                   2                   3
        0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |      Type     |   Length      |   Reserved    | Address Length|
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                                                               |
       +                                                               +
       |                                                               |
       +                       MAG IPv6 Address                        +
       |                                                               |
       +                                                               +
       |                                                               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

        Type
            TBA3

        Length

            8-bit unsigned integer indicating the length of the option
            in octets, excluding the type and length fields.  This field
            MUST be set to 18.

        Reserved (R)

            This 8-bit field is unused for now.  The value MUST be
            initialized to 0 by the sender and MUST be ignored by the
            receiver.

        Address Length

            This field MUST be set to 128.

        MAG IPv6 Address

            A 16 byte field containing the MAG's IPv6 Address.







Krishnan, et al.         Expires April 19, 2012                [Page 20]

Internet-Draft          PMIPv6 Localized Routing            October 2011


11.  Security Considerations

   The protocol specified in this document uses the same security
   association as defined in [RFC5213] for use between the LMA and the
   MAG to protect the LRI and LRA messages.  This document also assumes
   the pre-existence of a MAG-MAG security association if LR needs to be
   supported between them.  No new security risks are identified as
   compared to [RFC5213].  Support for integrity protection using IPsec
   is required, but support for confidentiality is not necessary.










































Krishnan, et al.         Expires April 19, 2012                [Page 21]

Internet-Draft          PMIPv6 Localized Routing            October 2011


12.  IANA Considerations

   The Localized Routing Initiation, described in Section 9.1 and the
   Localized Routing Acknowledgment, described in Section 9.2 require a
   single Mobility Header Type (TBA1) from the Mobility Header Types
   registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters

   The MAG IPv6 Address and the LMA IPv6 Address require a Mobility
   Option Type each (TBA2 and TBA3) from the Mobility Options registry
   at http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters









































Krishnan, et al.         Expires April 19, 2012                [Page 22]

Internet-Draft          PMIPv6 Localized Routing            October 2011


13.  Authors

   This draft merges ideas from five different drafts addressing the
   PMIP localized routing problem.  The authors of these drafts are
   listed below (in alphabetical order)

      Kuntal Chowdhury <kchowdhury@starentnetworks.com>

      Ashutosh Dutta <adutta@niksun.com>

      Rajeev Koodli <rkoodli@starentnetworks.com>

      Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>

      Marco Liebsch <marco.liebsch@nw.neclab.eu>

      Paulo Loureiro <paulo.loureiro@nw.neclab.eu>

      Desire Oulai <desire.oulai@videotron.com>

      Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya@ieee.org>

      Qin Wu <sunseawq@huawei.com>

      Hidetoshi Yokota <yokota@kddilabs.jp>


























Krishnan, et al.         Expires April 19, 2012                [Page 23]

Internet-Draft          PMIPv6 Localized Routing            October 2011


14.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Sri Gundavelli, Julien Abeille, Tom
   Taylor, Kent Leung, Mohana Jeyatharan, Jouni Korhonen, Glen Zorn,
   Ahmad Muhanna, Zoltan Turanyi, Dirk von Hugo, Pete McCann, Xiansong
   Cui, Carlos Bernardos and Basavaraj Patil for their comments and
   suggestions.












































Krishnan, et al.         Expires April 19, 2012                [Page 24]

Internet-Draft          PMIPv6 Localized Routing            October 2011


15.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC3775]  Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support
              in IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004.

   [RFC5213]  Gundavelli, S., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V., Chowdhury, K.,
              and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 5213, August 2008.

   [RFC5844]  Wakikawa, R. and S. Gundavelli, "IPv4 Support for Proxy
              Mobile IPv6", RFC 5844, May 2010.

   [RFC5845]  Muhanna, A., Khalil, M., Gundavelli, S., and K. Leung,
              "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) Key Option for Proxy
              Mobile IPv6", RFC 5845, June 2010.

   [RFC6279]  Liebsch, M., Jeong, S., and Q. Wu, "Proxy Mobile IPv6
              (PMIPv6) Localized Routing Problem Statement", RFC 6279,
              June 2011.






























Krishnan, et al.         Expires April 19, 2012                [Page 25]

Internet-Draft          PMIPv6 Localized Routing            October 2011


Authors' Addresses

   Suresh Krishnan
   Ericsson
   8400 Blvd Decarie
   Town of Mount Royal, Quebec
   Canada

   Phone: +1 514 345 7900 x42871
   Email: suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com


   Rajeev Koodli
   Cisco Systems

   Email: rkoodli@cisco.com


   Paulo Loureiro
   NEC

   Email: paulo.loureiro@nw.neclab.eu


   Qin Wu
   Huawei

   Email: Sunseawq@huawei.com


   Ashutosh Dutta
   NIKSUN

   Email: adutta@niksun.com

















Krishnan, et al.         Expires April 19, 2012                [Page 26]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/