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

Versions: (draft-giaretta-netlmm-mip-interactions) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 RFC 6612

NETLMM Working Group                                    G. Giaretta, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                  Qualcomm
Intended status: Informational                               May 1, 2009
Expires: November 2, 2009


  Interactions between PMIPv6 and MIPv6: scenarios and related issues
                 draft-ietf-netlmm-mip-interactions-03

Status of this Memo

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

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

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

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 19, 2009.

Abstract

   The scenarios where Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) and Mobile IPv6
   (MIPv6) protocols are both deployed in a network require some
   analysis and considerations.  This document describes all identified
   possible scenarios, which require an interaction between PMIPv6 and
   MIPv6 and discusses all issues related to these scenarios.  Solutions
   and recommendations to enable these scenarios are also described.

Requirements Language

   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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].



Giaretta                Expires November 2, 2009                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft          PMIPv6-MIPv6 Interactions               May 2009


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  Overview of the scenarios and related issues . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.1.  Issues related to scenario A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     3.2.  Issues related to scenario B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     3.3.  Issues related to scenario C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   4.  Analysis of possible solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     4.1.  Solutions related to scenario A  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     4.2.  Solutions related to scenario B  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     4.3.  Solutions related to scenario C  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       4.3.1.  Mobility from a PMIPv6 domain to a non-PMIPv6
               domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
       4.3.2.  Mobility from a non-PMIPv6 domain to a PMIPv6
               domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   5.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   6.  Additional Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   7.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     8.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     8.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 20



























Giaretta                Expires November 2, 2009                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft          PMIPv6-MIPv6 Interactions               May 2009


1.  Introduction

   Proxy Mobile IPv6 [RFC5213] is a network based IP mobility protocol
   standardized by IETF.  In some deployment scenarios this protocol
   will be deployed together with MIPv6 [RFC3775], for example with
   PMIPv6 as local mobility protocol and MIPv6 as global mobility
   protocol.  While the usage of a local mobility protocol should not
   have implications of how global mobility is managed, since PMIPv6 is
   partially based on MIPv6 signaling and data structure, some
   considerations are needed to understand how the protocols interact
   and how the different scenarios can be enabled.

   Some SDOs are also investigating more complex scenarios where the
   mobility of some nodes is handled using Proxy Mobile IPv6, while
   other nodes use Mobile IPv6; or the mobility of a node is managed in
   turn by a host-based and a network-based mechanism.  This needs also
   to be analyzed as a possible deployment scenario.

   This document provides a taxonomy of all scenarios that require
   direct interaction between MIPv6 and PMIPv6.  Moreover, this document
   presents and identifies all issues pertained to these scenarios and
   discusses possible means and mechanisms that are recommended to
   enable them.


2.  Terminology

   General mobility terminology can be found in [RFC3753].  The
   following acronyms are used in this document:

      MN-HoA: the home address of a mobile node in a Proxy Mobile IPv6
      domain.

      MN-HNP: the IPv6 prefix that is always present in the Router
      Advertisements that the mobile node receives when it is attached
      to any of the access links in that Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain.  MN-
      HoA always belongs to this prefix.

      MIPv6-HoA: the Home Address the MN includes in MIPv6 binding
      update messages.

      MIPv6-CoA: the Care-of Address the MN includes in MIPv6 binding
      update messages.








Giaretta                Expires November 2, 2009                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft          PMIPv6-MIPv6 Interactions               May 2009


3.  Overview of the scenarios and related issues

   Several scenarios can be identified where Mobile IPv6 and Proxy
   Mobile IPv6 are deployed in the same network.  This document does not
   only focus on scenarios where the two protocols are used by the same
   mobile node to manage local and global mobility, but it investigates
   also more complex scenarios where the protocols are more tightly
   integrated or where there is a co-existence of nodes which do or do
   not implement Mobile IPv6.

   The following scenarios are identified:

   o  Scenario A - in this scenario Proxy Mobile IPv6 is used as a
      network based local mobility management protocol whereas Mobile
      IPv6 is used as a global mobility management protocol.  This
      interaction is very similar to the HMIPv6-MIPv6 interaction;
      Mobile IPv6 is used to manage mobility among different access
      networks, while the mobility within the access network is handled
      by Proxy Mobile IPv6.  The address managed by PMIPv6 (i.e. the MN-
      HoA) is registered as Care-of Address by the MN at the HA.  This
      means that the HA has a binding cache entry for MIPv6-HoA that
      points to the MN-HoA.





























Giaretta                Expires November 2, 2009                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft          PMIPv6-MIPv6 Interactions               May 2009


      The following figure illustrates this scenario.

                           +----+
                           | HA |  MIPv6-HoA -> MN-HoA
                           +----+
                             /\
                            /  \
             +-------------/----\--------------+
            (             /      \              ) Global Mobile IPv6
            (            /        \             ) Domain
             +----------/----------\-----------+
                       /            \
                    +----+         +----+
    MN-HoA -> MAG1  |LMA1|         |LMA2|
                    +----+         +----+
                     //\\             \\
               +----//--\\---+   +-----\\------+
              (    //    \\   ) (       \\      ) Local Mobility Network
              (   //      \\  ) (        \\     ) PMIPv6 domain
               +-//--------\\+   +--------\\---+
                //          \\             \\
               //            \\             \\
              //              \\             \\
           +----+           +----+         +----+
           |MAG1|           |MAG2|         |MAG3|
           +----+           +----+         +----+
             |                |              |
            [MN]

                                Figure 1 - Scenario A


   o  Scenario B - in this scenario some mobile nodes use Mobile IPv6 to
      manage their movements while others rely on a network-based
      mobility solution provided by the network as they don't support
      Mobile IPv6.  There may be a common mobility anchor that acts as
      Mobile IPv6 Home Agent and Proxy Mobile IPv6 LMA, depending on the
      type of the node as depicted in the figure.  However, the LMA and
      HA can be also separated and this has no impacts to the mobility
      of the nodes.











Giaretta                Expires November 2, 2009                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft          PMIPv6-MIPv6 Interactions               May 2009


                                  +--------+
                                  | HA/LMA |
                                  +--------+

             +------+                              +------+
             | MAG1 |                              | MAG2 |
             +------+                              +------+

                        +-----------+
                        | IPv6 host |   ----------------->
                        +-----------+       movement
                     +----------+
                     | MIPv6 MN |  ----------------->
                     +----------+       movement

                                 Figure 2 - Scenario B


   o  Scenario C - in this scenario the mobile node is moving across
      different access networks, some of them supporting Proxy Mobile
      IPv6 and some others not supporting it.  Therefore the mobile node
      is roaming from an access network where the mobility is managed
      through a network-based solution to an access network where a
      host-based management (i.e.  Mobile IPv6) is needed.  This
      scenario may have different sub-scenarios depending on the
      relations between the Mobile IPv6 home network and the Proxy
      Mobile IPv6 domain.  The following figure illustrates an example
      of this scenario, where the MN is moving from an access network
      where PMIPv6 is supported (i.e.  MAG functionality is supported)
      to a network where PMIPv6 is not supported (i.e.  MAG
      functionality is not supported by the AR).  This implies that the
      home link of the MN is actually a PMIPv6 domain.  In this case the
      MIPv6-HoA is equal to the MN-HoA (i.e. the address managed by
      PMIPv6).

















Giaretta                Expires November 2, 2009                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft          PMIPv6-MIPv6 Interactions               May 2009


              MIPv6-HoA == MN-HoA -> MAG1
                    +------+
                    |HA/LMA|-----------------------+
                    +------+                       |
                      //\\                         |
             +-------//--\\--------+               |
            (       //    \\ PMIPv6 )              |
            (      //      \\ domain)       +--------------+
             +----//--------\\-----+       (   Non-PMIPv6   )
                 //          \\            (   domain       )
                //            \\            +--------------+
               //              \\                  |
            +----+           +----+              +----+
            |MAG1|           |MAG2|              | AR |
            +----+           +----+              +----+
              |                |                   |
             [MN]


                           Figure 3 - Scenario C


      In the above figure the non-PMIPv6 domain can actually be also a
      different PMIPv6 domain that handles a different MN_HoA.  The
      following figure illustrates this sub-case: the MIPv6-HoA is equal
      to the MN_HoA; however when the MN hands over to MAG3 it gets a
      different IP address (managed by LMA2 using PMIPv6) and registers
      it as a MIPv6 CoA.























Giaretta                Expires November 2, 2009                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft          PMIPv6-MIPv6 Interactions               May 2009


             MIPv6-HoA == MN-HoA -> MAG_1
                     +-------+
                     |HA/LMA1|-----------------------+
                     +-------+                       |
                       //\\                       +----+
              +-------//--\\--------+             |LMA2|
             (       //    \\  home  )            +----+
             (      //      \\ PMIPv6)       +------||------+
             (     //        \\domain)      (       ||visited)
              +---//----------\\----+       (       ||PMIPv6 )
                 //            \\           (       ||domain )
                //              \\           +------||------+
             +----+           +----+              +----+
             |MAG1|           |MAG2|              |MAG3|
             +----+           +----+              +----+
               |                |                   |
              [MN]

                               (a)

              MIPv6-HoA -> MN_CoA
                     +-------+
                     |HA/LMA1|-----------------------+
                     +-------+                       |
                       //\\                       +----+
              +-------//--\\--------+             |LMA2|  MN_CoA -> MAG3
             (       //    \\  home  )            +----+
             (      //      \\ PMIPv6)       +------||------+
             (     //        \\domain)      (       ||visited)
              +---//----------\\----+       (       ||PMIPv6 )
                 //            \\           (       ||domain )
                //              \\           +------||------+
             +----+           +----+              +----+
             |MAG1|           |MAG2|              |MAG3|
             +----+           +----+              +----+
               |                |                   |
                                                   [MN]

                                (b)


         Figure 4 - Scenario C with visited PMIPv6 domain


   Note that some of the scenarios can be combined.  For instance,
   scenario B can be combined with scenario A or scenario C.

   The following sections describe some possible issues for each



Giaretta                Expires November 2, 2009                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft          PMIPv6-MIPv6 Interactions               May 2009


   scenario.  Respective recommendations are described in Section 4.3.
   The specifications considered as a baseline for the analysis are the
   following: [RFC3775], [RFC4877] and [RFC5213].

3.1.  Issues related to scenario A

   This scenario is very similar to other hierarchical mobility schemes,
   including a HMIPv6-MIPv6 scheme.  This is the scenario referenced in
   [RFC4830].  No issues have been identified in this scenario.  Note
   that a race condition where the MN registers the CoA at the HA before
   the CoA is actually bound to the MAG at the LMA is not possible.  The
   reason is that per PMIPv6 specification the MAG does not forward any
   packets sent by the MN until the PMIPv6 tunnel is up, regardless the
   mechanism used for address allocation.

   Section 4.1 describes one message flow in case PMIPv6 is used as a
   local mobility protocol and MIPv6 is used as a global mobility
   protocol.

3.2.  Issues related to scenario B

   In this scenario there are two types of nodes in the access network:
   some nodes support Mobile IPv6 while some others do not.  The
   rationale behind such a scenario is that the nodes implementing
   Mobile IPv6 manage their own mobility to achieve better performance,
   e.g. for inter-technology handovers.  Obviously, nodes that do not
   implement MIPv6 must rely on the network to manage their mobility:
   therefore Proxy MIPv6 is used for those nodes.

   Based on the current PMIPv6 solution described in [RFC5213], in any
   link of the PMIPv6 domain the MAG emulates the mobile node's home
   link, advertising the home link prefix to the MN in a unicast Router
   Advertisement message.  This ensures that the IP address of the MN is
   still considered valid by the MN itself.  The home network prefix
   (and any other information needed to emulate the home link) is
   included in the mobile node's profile that is obtained by the MAG via
   context transfer or via a policy store.

   However, in case there are nodes that implement Mobile IPv6 and want
   to use this protocol, the network must offer MIPv6 service to them.
   In such case the MAG should not emulate the home link.  Instead of
   advertising the HNP, the MAG should advertise the topologically
   correct local IP prefix, i.e. the prefix belonging to the MAG, so
   that the MN detects an IP movement, configures a new CoA and sends a
   MIPv6 Binding Update based on [RFC3775].






Giaretta                Expires November 2, 2009                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft          PMIPv6-MIPv6 Interactions               May 2009


3.3.  Issues related to scenario C

   This section highlights some considerations that are applicable to
   scenario C where the LMA and HA are logically collocated and need to
   be evaluated when selecting the technical approach to be chosen.

   1.  HoA management and lookup key in the binding cache

       *  In MIPv6 [RFC3775] the lookup key in the Binding Cache is the
          Home Address of the MN.  In particular, based on the base
          specification [RFC3775], the MN does not include any
          identifier, such as the MN-ID [RFC4283], in the Binding Update
          message other than its Home Address.  As described in
          [RFC4877], the identifier of the MN is known by the Home Agent
          after the IKEv2 exchange, but this is not used in the MIPv6
          signaling, nor as a lookup key for the binding cache.  On the
          other hand, as specified in [RFC5213], a Proxy Binding Update
          contains the Home Prefix of the MN, the MN-ID and does not
          include the Home Address of the MN (since it may not be known
          by the MAG and consequently by the HA/LMA).  The lookup key in
          the binding cache of the LMA is either the home prefix or the
          MN-ID.  This implies that lookup keys for MIPv6 and PMIPv6
          registrations are different.  Because of that, when the MN
          moves from its home network (i.e. from the PMIPv6 domain) to
          the foreign link, the Binding Update sent by the MN is not
          identified by the HA as an update of the Proxy Binding Cache
          Entry containing the home prefix of the MN, but a new binding
          cache entry is created.  Therefore PMIPv6 and MIPv6 will
          always create two different binding cache entries in the HA/
          LMA which implies that the HA and LMA are logically separated.
          How to handle the presence of the two binding cache entries
          for the same MN is described in Section 4.3.

   2.  MIPv6 de-registration Binding Update deletes PMIPv6 binding cache
       entry

       *  When the mobile node moves from a MIPv6 foreign network to the
          PMIPv6 home domain, the MAG registers the mobile node at the
          LMA by sending a Proxy Binding Update.  Subsequently, the LMA
          updates the mobile node's binding cache entry with the MAG
          address and the MAG emulates the mobile node's home link.
          Upon detection of the home link, the mobile node will send a
          de-registration Binding Update to its home agent.  It is
          necessary to make sure that the de-registration of the MIPv6
          BU does not change the PMIPv6 binding cache entry just created
          by the MAG.





Giaretta                Expires November 2, 2009               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft          PMIPv6-MIPv6 Interactions               May 2009


   3.  Race condition between Binding Update and Proxy Binding Update
       messages (Sequence Numbers and Timestamps)

       *  MIPv6 and PMIPv6 use different mechanisms for handling re-
          ordering of registration messages and they are sent by
          different entities.  In MIPv6, Binding Update messages that
          are sent by the mobile node to the home agent are ordered by
          the sequence numbers.  The other side, in PMIP, Proxy Binding
          Update messages that are sent by the MAG to the LMA are
          ordered by a timestamp option. .

   4.  Use of wrong home agent or LMA after handover

       *  This issues can arise if multiple LMAs are deployed in the
          PMIPv6 home domain.  If the mobile node moves from a MIPv6
          foreign network to the PMIPv6 home domain, the MAG must send
          the Proxy Binding Update to the particular LMA that is co-
          located with the home agent which maintains the active binding
          cache entry of the mobile node.  If a different LMA is
          assigned to the MAG, the mobile node will not be on the home
          link but will still have an active MIPv6 binding cache entry
          and this may be not desirable in some deployments..

       *  Similarly, if the mobile node moves from the PMIPv6 home
          domain to a MIPv6 foreign network, the mobile node must send
          the Binding Update to the particular home agent that is co-
          located with the LMA which maintains the active proxy binding
          cache entry of the mobile node.  If the mobile node selects a
          different home agent, packets addressed to the mobile node's
          home address do not reach the mobile node.

   5.  Threat of compromised MAG

       *  In MIPv6 base specification [RFC3775] there is a strong
          binding between the Home Address registered by the mobile node
          and the Security Association used to modify the corresponding
          binding cache entry.

       *  In PMIPv6 specification, the MAG sends proxy binding updates
          on behalf of a mobile node to update the binding cache entry
          that corresponds to the mobile node's home address.  Since the
          MAG sends the binding updates, PMIPv6 requires security
          associations between each MAG and the LMA.

       *  As described in [RFC4832], in PMIPv6 the MAG compromise or
          impersonation is an issue.  RFC4832, section 2.2, describes
          how a compromised MAG can harm the functionality of LMA, e.g.
          manipulating LMA's routing table (or binging cache).



Giaretta                Expires November 2, 2009               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft          PMIPv6-MIPv6 Interactions               May 2009


       *  In this mixed scenario, both host-based and network-based
          security associations are used to update the same binding
          cache entry at the HA/LMA (but see the first bullet of this
          list, as the entry may not be the same).  Based on this
          consideration, the threat described in [RFC4832] is worse as
          it affects also hosts that are using the LMA/HA as MIPv6 HA
          and are not using PMIPv6


4.  Analysis of possible solutions

4.1.  Solutions related to scenario A

   As mentioned in Section 3.1, there are no significant issues in this
   scenario.

   Figures 5 and 6 show a scenario where a mobile node is moving from
   one PMIPv6 domain to another, based on the scenario of Figure 1.  In
   Figure 5, the mobile node moves from an old MAG to MAG2 in the same
   PMIPv6 domain: this movement triggers a PBU to LMA1 and the updating
   of the binding cache at the LMA1; there is no MIPv6 signaling as the
   CoA_1 registered at the HA is the Home Address for the PMIPv6
   session.  In Figure 6, the mobile node moves from MAG2 in the LMA1
   PMIPv6 domain to MAG3 in a different PMIPv6 domain: this triggers the
   PMIPv6 signaling and the creation of a binding at the LMA2.  On the
   other hand, the local address of the mobile node is changed, as the
   LMA hss changed, and therefore the mobile node sends a MIPv6 Binding
   Update to the HA with the new CoA_2.























Giaretta                Expires November 2, 2009               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft          PMIPv6-MIPv6 Interactions               May 2009


    +----+            +------+            +------+       +----+
    | MN |            | MAG2 |            | LMA1 |       | HA |
    +----+            +------+            +------+       +----+
      |                  |                    |            |
      |                  |                    |   +-----------------+
      |                  |                    |   |  HoA -> CoA_1   |
      |                  |                    |   | binding present |
      |                  |                    |   +-----------------+
      |                  |                    |            |
      | CoA conf/confirm |  PBU(CoA_1,MAG_2)  |            |
      | <--------------->|  ----------------->|            |
      |                  |              +-----------------+|
      |                  |              | CoA_1 -> MAG_2  ||
      |                  |              | binding updated ||
      |                  |              +-----------------+|
      |                  |          PBA       |            |
      |                  |   <----------------|            |
      |                  |                    |            |

       Figure 5 - Local Mobility Message Flow


    +----+            +------+            +------+       +----+
    | MN |            | MAG3 |            | LMA2 |       | HA |
    +----+            +------+            +------+       +----+

      |   CoA config     |  PBU(CoA_2,MAG_3)  |             |
      |<---------------->|------------------->|             |
      |                  |              +-----------------+ |
      |                  |              | CoA_2 -> MAG_3  | |
      |                  |              | binding created | |
      |                  |              +-----------------+ |
      |                  |          PBA       |             |
      |                  |<-------------------|             |
      |                  |                    |             |
      |                  |  BU (HoA, CoA_2)   |             |
      |---------------------------------------------------->|
      |                  |                    |             |
      |                  |                    |     +-----------------+
      |                  |                    |     |  HoA -> CoA_2   |
      |                  |                    |     | binding updated |
      |                  |                    |     +-----------------+
      |                  | BA                 |             |
      |<----------------------------------------------------|

        Figure 6 - Global Mobility Message Flow





Giaretta                Expires November 2, 2009               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft          PMIPv6-MIPv6 Interactions               May 2009


4.2.  Solutions related to scenario B

   The solution for this scenario may depend on the access network being
   able to determine that a particular mobile node wants to use Mobile
   IPv6.  This requires a solution at the system level for the access
   network and is out of scope of this document.  Solutions that do not
   depend on the access network are out of the scope of this document.

4.3.  Solutions related to scenario C

   As described in Section 3.3, in this scenario the mobile node relies
   on Proxy Mobile IPv6 as long as it is in the Proxy Mobile IPv6
   domain.  The mobile node then uses Mobile IPv6 whenever it moves out
   of the PMIPv6 domain which basically implies that the MIPv6 home link
   is a PMIPv6 domain.

   Analyzing the issues described in Section 3.3, it is clear that most
   of them are applicable only to the case where there is a common
   binding cache entry for the PMIPv6 registration and the MIPv6
   registration.  The issue 1 on how the two protocols identify the
   binding cache entry is valid only in case we assume that a PMIPv6
   message has any value for a MIPv6 BCE.  Also the issues 2 and 3 are
   not applicable in case different logical BCEs are used by the LMA and
   the HA.  For this reason, it is recommended that when the MIPv6 home
   link is implemented as a PMIPv6 domain, the HA/LMA implementation
   treats the two protocol as independent.

   More in details the following principles should be followed by the
   HA/LMA implementation:

   o  PMIPv6 signaling does not overwrite any MIPv6 BCE.  In particular,
      when a PMIPv6 binding cache entry is created for a mobile node
      which has previously created a MIPv6 BCE, the MIPv6 binding cache
      entry of the MN is not overwritten and a new PMIPv6 binding cache
      entry is created.

   o  The downlink packets in the case where both the MIPv6 binding
      cache entry and PMIPv6 binding cache entry exist are processed as
      follows:

   o

      1.  The MIPv6 binding cache entry is processed first.  If the
          destination address of the received downlink packet matches
          the the binding cache entry of the HA, the packet is forwarded
          by encapsulating it with the care-of-address contained in the
          BCE.




Giaretta                Expires November 2, 2009               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft          PMIPv6-MIPv6 Interactions               May 2009


      2.  If the destination address does not match the MIPv6 BCE, the
          binding cache entry created by PMIPv6 is applied and the
          packet are encapsualted to the registered MAG.

   The following subsections provide a description of the procedures
   which will be followed by the mobile node and HA/LMA based on the
   above principles.  The analysis is performed in two different
   subsections, depending if the mobile node moves from a PMIPv6 domain
   to a non-PMIPv6 domain or vice versa.

4.3.1.  Mobility from a PMIPv6 domain to a non-PMIPv6 domain

   Let's assume the mobile node is attached to a PMIPv6 domain and there
   is a valid Proxy Binding Cache entry at the LMA.  Then the mobile
   node moves to a different access network and starts using MIPv6 (e.g.
   because PMIPv6 is not supported).  The mobile node needs to bootstrap
   MIPv6 parameters and send a MIPv6 Binding Update in order to have
   service continuity.  Therefore the following steps must be performed
   by the UE:

   o  HA/LMA address discovery: the mobile node needs to discover the IP
      address of the LMA which has a valid binding cache entry for its
      home network prefix.  This is described in Section 3.3 as issue 4.

   o  Security Association establishment: the mobile node needs to
      establish an IPsec Security Association with the HA/LMA as
      described in [RFC4877]

   o  HoA or home network prefix assignment: as part of the MIPv6
      bootstrapping procedure the HA assigns a MIPv6 HoA to the MN.
      This address must be the same the mobile node was using in the
      PMIPv6 domain.

   Since all these steps must be performed by the mobile node before
   sending the Binding Update, they have an impact on the handover
   latency experienced by the MN.  For this reason it is recommended
   that the mobile node establishes the IPsec security association (and
   consequently is provided by the HA/LMA with a MIPv6-HoA) when it is
   still attached to the PMIPv6 domain.  This implies that the mobile
   node has Mobile IPv6 stack active while in the PMIPv6 domain, but as
   long as it is attached to the same Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain, it will
   appear to the mobile node as if it is attached to the home link.

   In order to establish the security association with the HA/LMA, the
   mobile node needs to discover the IP address of the LMA/HA while in
   the PMIPv6 domain.  This can be done either based on DNS or based on
   DHCPv6, as described in [RFC5026] and [boot-integrated].  The network
   should be configured so that the mobile node discovers or gets



Giaretta                Expires November 2, 2009               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft          PMIPv6-MIPv6 Interactions               May 2009


   assigned the same HA/LMA that was serving as the LMA in the PMIPv6
   domain.  Details of the exact procedure are out of scope of this
   document.

   When the mobile node establishes the security association, it
   acquires a home address based on [RFC5026].  However, based on PMIPv6
   operations, the LMA knows only the Home Network Prefix used by the
   mobile node and does not know the MN-HoA.For this reason, the mobile
   node must be configured to propose MN-HoA as the home address in the
   IKEv2 INTERNAL_IP6_ADDRESS attribute during the IKEv2 exchange with
   the HA/LMA.  Alternatively the HA/LMA can be configured to provide
   the entire Home Network Prefix via the MIP6_HOME_LINK attribute to
   the mobile node as specified in [RFC5026]; based on this Home Network
   Prefix the mobile node can configure a home address.  Note that the
   security association must be bound to the MN-HoA used in the PMIPv6
   domain as per [RFC4877].  Note that the home network prefix is shared
   between the LMA and HA and this implies that there is an interaction
   between the LMA and the HA in order to assign a common home network
   prefix when triggered by PMIPv6 and MIPv6 signaling

   When the mobile node hands over to an access network which does not
   support Proxy Mobile IPv6, it sends a Binding Update to the HA.  The
   mobile node may set the R bit defined in NEMO specification (implicit
   mode) in order to indicate that the entire HNP is moved to the new
   CoA.  A MIPv6 binding cache entry is created irrespective of the
   existing PMIPv6 BCE.  Packets matching the MIPv6 binding cache entry
   are sent to the CoA present in the MIPv6 BCE.  The PMIPv6 binding
   cache entry will expire in case the MAG does not send a refresh PBU.

4.3.2.  Mobility from a non-PMIPv6 domain to a PMIPv6 domain

   In this section it is assumed that the mobile node is in a non-PMIPv6
   access network and it has bootstrapped MIPv6 operations based on
   [RFC5026]; therefore there is valid binding cache for its MIPv6-HoA
   (or HNP in case of NEMO) at the HA.  Then the mobile node moves to a
   PMIPv6 domain which is configured to be the home link for the MIPv6-
   HoA the mobile node has been assigned.

   In order to provide session continuity, the MAG needs to send a PBU
   to the HA/LMA that was serving the MN.  The MAG needs to discover the
   HA/LMA; however the current version of [RFC5213] assumes that the LMA
   is assigned to the MAG or discovered by the MAG when the mobile node
   attaches to the MAG. the exact mechanism is not specified in
   [RFC5213].  A detailed description of the necessary procedure is out
   of the scope of this document.  Note that the MAG may also rely on
   static configuration or lower layer information provided by the
   mobile node in order to select the correct HA/LMA.




Giaretta                Expires November 2, 2009               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft          PMIPv6-MIPv6 Interactions               May 2009


   The PBU sent by the MAG creates a PMIPv6 binding cache entry for the
   mobile node which is independent of the MIPv6 BCE.  Traffic destined
   to the MIPv6-HoA (or to the HNP in case the mobile node had set the
   flag R in the last BU) is still forwarded to the CoA present in the
   MIPv6 BCE.  When the mobile node wants to use the HoA directly from
   the home link, it sends a de-registration message and at that point
   only the PMIPv6 binding cache entry is present.


5.  Security Considerations

   Scenarios A and B described in Section 3 do not introduce any
   security considerations in addition to those described in [pmipv6-
   draft] or [RFC3775].

   This document requires that the a home agent that also implements the
   PMIPv6 LMA functionality should allow both the mobile node and the
   authorized MAGs to modify the binding cache entries for the mobile
   node.  Note that the compromised MAG threat described in [RFC4832]
   applies also here.


6.  Additional Authors

   Chowdhury, Kuntal - kchowdhury@starentnetworks.com

   Hesham Soliman - Hesham@elevatemobile.com

   Vijay Devarapalli - vijay.devarapalli@azairenet.com

   Sri Gundavelli - sgundave@cisco.com

   Kilian Weniger - Kilian.Weniger@googlemail.com

   Genadi Velev - Genadi.Velev@eu.panasonic.com

   Ahmad Muhanna - amuhanna@nortel.com

   George Tsirtsis - tsirtsis@googlemail.com

   Suresh Krishnan - suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com


7.  Acknowledgements

   This document is a merge of four different Internet Drafts:
   draft-weniger-netlmm-pmipv6-mipv6-issues-00,
   draft-devarapalli-netlmm-pmipv6-mipv6-01,



Giaretta                Expires November 2, 2009               [Page 17]

Internet-Draft          PMIPv6-MIPv6 Interactions               May 2009


   draft-tsirtsis-logically-separate-lmaha-01and
   draft-giaretta-netlmm-mip-interactions-00.  Thanks to the authors and
   editors of those drafts.

   The authors would also like to thank Jonne Soininen and Vidya
   Narayanan, NETLMM WG chairs, for their support.


8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

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

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

   [RFC4832]  Vogt, C. and J. Kempf, "Security Threats to Network-Based
              Localized Mobility Management (NETLMM)", April 2007.

   [RFC4877]  Devarapalli, V. and F. Dupont, "Mobile IPv6 Operation with
              IKEv2 and the Revised IPsec Architecture", 2005.

   [RFC5026]  Giaretta, G., Kempf, J., and V. Devarapalli, "Mobile IPv6
              Bootstrapping in Split Scenario", RFC 5026, October 2007.

   [RFC5213]  Gundavelli, S., "Proxy Mobile IPv6", August 2008.

   [boot-integrated]
              Chowdhury, K., Ed., "MIP6-bootstrapping for the Integrated
              Scenario", 2007.

8.2.  Informative References

   [RFC3753]  Manner, J. and M. Kojo, "Mobility Related Terminology",
              RFC 3753, June 2004.

   [RFC4283]  Patel, A., Leung, K., Khalil, M., Akhtar, H., and K.
              Chowdhury, "Mobile Node Identifier Option for Mobile IPv6
              (MIPv6)", RFC 4283, November 2005.

   [RFC4831]  Kempf, J., "Goals for Network-Based Localized Mobility
              Management (NETLMM)", RFC 4831, April 2007.







Giaretta                Expires November 2, 2009               [Page 18]

Internet-Draft          PMIPv6-MIPv6 Interactions               May 2009


Author's Address

   Gerardo Giaretta (editor)
   Qualcomm

   Email: gerardog@qualcomm.com













































Giaretta                Expires November 2, 2009               [Page 19]

Internet-Draft          PMIPv6-MIPv6 Interactions               May 2009


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (c) 2009 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 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your
   rights and restrictions with respect to this document.













Giaretta                Expires November 2, 2009               [Page 20]


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