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

Versions: (draft-kempf-netlmm-nohost-req) 00 01 02 03 04 05 RFC 4831

                                                                  J. Kempf,
                                                                     Editor
  Internet Draft                                                   K. Leung
  Document: draft-ietf-netlmm-nohost-req-00.txt                  P. Roberts
                                                                 K. Nishida
                                                                G. Giaretta
                                                                 M. Liebsch
  
  Expires: August, 2006                                         Feburary, 2006
  
  
                  Requirements and Gap Analysis for IP Local Mobility
                         (draft-ietf-netlmm-nohost-req-00.txt)
  
  Status of this Memo
  
     By  submitting  this  Internet-Draft,  each  author  represents  that  any
     applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been
     or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be
     disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
  
     Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force
     (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also
     distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
  
     Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and
     may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is
     inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them
     other than as "work in progress."
  
     The   list   of   current   Internet-Drafts   can   be   accessed   at
     http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
  
     The  list  of  Internet-Draft  Shadow  Directories  can  be  accessed  at
     http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
  
  Abstract
  
     In draft-kempf-netlmm-nohost-ps, the problems with using global IP mobility
     management protocols for local mobility and some problems with existing
     localized mobility management protocols are described. In this document, we
     explore requirements for localized mobility management in more detail. An
     extensive gap analysis against the protocols illustrates where existing
     protocols are able to fulfill the requirements and where they are lacking.
  
  Table of Contents
  
     1.0  Introduction.....................................................2
     2.0  Requirements for Localized Mobility Management...................3
     3.0  Gap Analysis.....................................................8
     4.0  Security Considerations.........................................18
     5.0  Recommendation..................................................18
     6.0  Author Information..............................................19
  
     Kempf, et. al.               Expires August, 2006               [Page 1]
  

     Internet Draft          LMM Requirements and Gap Analysis    Feburary, 2006
  
  
     7.0  Informative References..........................................20
     8.0  IPR Statements..................................................21
     9.0  Disclaimer of Validity..........................................22
     10.0 Copyright Notice................................................22
     11.0 Changes in 01 (remove before publication).......................22
  
   1.0 Introduction
  
     In draft-kempf-netlmm-nohost-ps [1], the basic problems that occur when a
     global mobility protocol is used for managing local mobility are described,
     and two basic approaches to localized mobility management - the host-based
     approach that is used by most IETF protocols and the WLAN switch approach -
     are examined. The conclusion from the problem statement document is that
     neither approach has a complete solution to the problem. While the WLAN
     switch approach is most convenient for network operators and users because
     it  requires  no  mobile  node  support,  the  proprietary  nature  limits
     interoperability and the restriction to a single wireless link type and
     wired backhaul link type restricts scalablity. The IETF host-based protocols
     require host software stack changes that may not be compatible with all
     global mobility protocols, and also require specialized and complex security
     transactions with the network that may limit deployability.
  
     This document develops more detailed requirements for a localized mobility
     management  protocol  and  analyzes  existing  protocols  against  those
     requirements. In Section 2.0, we review a list of requirements that are
     desirable in a localized mobility management solution. Section 3.0 performs
     a gap analysis against the requirements of proposed solutions to localized
     mobility management. Section 4.0 briefly outlines security considerations.
     Finally, in Section 5.0, a recommendation is made for the development of a
     network-based approach to localized mobility management.
  
  1.1 Terminology
  
     Mobility terminology in this draft follows that in RFC 3753 [2] and in [2].
     In addition, the following terms are used here:
  
        Node
          A node can be either an end host or router that is served by the
          localized mobility management domain.  Such a node may perform global
          mobility management (e.g. NEMO [3] or MIPv6[5]). In this case, the IP
          address obtained by the node from the localized mobility management
          domain is the care-of address.
  
        Host-Based Approach
          A host-based approach to localized mobility management requires binding
          between a local care-of address and a regional care-of address at a
          mobility anchor within the localized mobility management domain. The
          binding is maintained by the mobile node and requires software in the
          mobile node's stack to perform the binding. The localized mobility
          service is authorized with the mobility anchor point separately from
          network access. An example is HMIPv6 [20]. A mobility anchor is a kind
  
     Kempf, et. al.                  Expires August 2006              [Page 2]
  

     Internet Draft          LMM Requirements and Gap Analysis     Feburary, 2006
  
  
          of localized mobility management domain gateway. The regional care-of
          address is fixed at the mobility anchor while the local care-of address
          on the access router changes when the mobile node moves to a new IP
          link.
  
        Micromobility Approach
          A micromobility approach to localized mobility management requires host
          route propagation from the mobile node to a collection of specialized
          routers in the localized mobility management domain along a path back
          to a boundary router at the edge of the localized mobility management
          domain. A boundary router is a kind of localized mobility management
          domain gateway. Localized mobility management is authorized with the
          access router, but reauthorization with each new access router is
          necessary on IP link movement, in addition to any reauthorization for
          basic network access. The host routes allow the mobile node to maintain
          the same IP address when it moves to a new IP link, and still continue
          to receive packets on the new IP link.
  
        Edge Mobility Approach
          In the edge mobility approach to localized mobility management, the
          access routers update bindings between the mobile node's care-of
          address and the mobile node's current IP link. The bindings are
          maintained at an edge mobility anchor point. The mobile node is not
          involved in localized mobility management beyond movement detection.
          The mobile node requires no special authorization for localized
          mobility management service beyond the authorization required for basic
          network access. A mobile node's IP address does not change when the
          mobile node moves from one access router to another within the coverage
          area of the edge mobility anchor point, because the mobility anchor and
          access routers take care of changing the routing.
  
   2.0 Requirements for Localized Mobility Management
  
     Any localized mobility solution must naturally address the three problems
     described in [1]. In addition, the side effects of introducing such a
     solution into the network need to be limited. In this section, we address
     requirements on a localized mobility solution including both solving the
     basic problems and limiting the side effects.
  
     Some basic requirements of all IETF protocols are not discussed in detail
     here, but any solution is expected to satisfy them. These requirements are
     interoperability,  scalability,  and  minimal  requirement  for  specialized
     network  equipment.  A  good  discussion  of  their  applicability  to  IETF
     protocols can be found in [4].
  
     Out of scope for the initial requirements discussion are QoS, multicast, and
     dormant mode/paging. While these are important functions for mobile nodes,
     they are not part of the base localized mobility management problem. In
     addition, mobility between localized mobility management domains is not
     covered here. It is assumed that this is covered by the global mobility
     management protocols.
  
  
     Kempf, et. al.                  Expires July 2006              [Page 3]
  

     Internet Draft          LMM Requirements and Gap Analysis     Feburary, 2006
  
  
  2.1     Handover Performance Improvement (Requirement #1)
  
     Handover packet loss occurs because there is usually latency between when
     the wireless link handover starts and when the IP link handover completes.
     During this time the mobile node is unreachable at its former topological
     location on the old IP link where correspondents are sending packets and to
     which the routing system is routing them. Such misrouted packets are
     dropped. This aspect of handover performance optimization has been the
     subject of an enormous amount of work, both in other SDOs, to reduce the
     latency of wireless link handover, and in the IETF and elsewhere, to reduce
     the latency in IP link handover. Many solutions to this problem have been
     proposed at the wireless link layer and at the IP layer. One aspect of this
     requirement for localized mobility management is that the processing delay
     for changing the routing after handover must be minimal, in order to avoid
     excessive packet loss. Ideally, if network-side link layer support is
     available  for  handling  movement  detection,  the  routing  update  should
     complete within the time required for wireless link handover.
  
     Note that a related problem occurs when traffic packets are not routed
     through a global mobility anchor such as a Mobile IP home agent. Route
     optimized Mobile IPv6 [5] and HIP [6] are examples. A loss of connectivity
     can occur when both sides of the IP conversation are mobile and they both
     hand over at the same time. The two sides must use a global mobility anchor
     point,  like  a  home  agent  or  rendezvous  server,  to  re-establish  the
     connection, but there may be substantial packet loss until the problem is
     discovered. Another aspect of this requirement is that the solution must
     ensure that connectivity is not lost when both ends are mobile and move at
     the same time.
  
     In both cases, the loss of accurate routing caused the connection to
     experience an interruption which may cause service degradation for real time
     traffic such as voice
  
  2.2     Reduction in Handover-related Signaling Volume (Requirement #2)
  
     Considering Mobile IPv6 as the global mobility protocol (other mobility
     protocols require about the same or somewhat less), if a mobile node is
     required to reconfigure on every move between IP links, the following set of
     signaling messages must be done:
  
     1) Movement detection using DNA [7] or possibly a link specific protocol,
     2) Any link layer or IP layer AAA signaling, such as 802.1x [8] or PANA [9].
        The mobile node may also or instead have to obtain a router certificate
        using SEND [10], if the certificate is not already cached,
     3) Router discovery which may be part of movement detection,
     4) If stateless address autoconfiguration is used, address configuration and
        Duplicate  Address  Detection  (unless  optimistic  Duplicate  Address
        Detection [11] is used). If stateful address configuration is used, then
        DHCP is used for address configuration,
     5) Binding Update to the home agent,
     6) If route optimization is in effect, return routability to establish the
        binding key,
  
     Kempf, et. al.                  Expires July 2006              [Page 4]
  

     Internet Draft          LMM Requirements and Gap Analysis     Feburary, 2006
  
  
     7) Binding Update to correspondent nodes for route optimization.
  
     Note that Steps 1-2 will always be necessary, even for intra-link mobility,
     and Step 3 will be necessary even if the mobile node's care-of address can
     remain the same when it moves to a new access router.
  
     This is a lot of signaling just to get up on a new IP link. Furthermore, in
     some cases, the mobile node may need to engage in "heartbeat signaling" to
     keep the connection with the correspondent or global mobility anchor fresh,
     for example, return routability in Mobile IPv6 must be done at a maximum
     every 7 minutes even if the mobile node is standing still. The requirement
     is that handover signaling volume from the localized mobility management
     protocol should be no more than what is needed to securely redirect a mobile
     node's traffic within the localized mobility management domain.
  
  2.3     Location privacy (Requirement #3)
  
     Location privacy in the context of IP mobility refers to hiding the
     geographic location of mobile users. Although general location privacy
     issues have been discussed in [13], the location privacy referred to here
     focuses on the IP layer and involves the basic property of the IP address
     that may change due to the mobility. The location information should not be
     revealed to nor deduced by the correspondent node without the authorization
     of the mobile node's owner. Since the localized mobility management protocol
     is responsible for the mobile node's mobility within the local mobility management
     domain,  it  should  conceal  geographical  movement  of  the  mobile  node.
  
     The threats to location privacy come in a variety of forms. Perhaps least
     likely  is  a  man  in  the  middle  attack  in  which  traffic  between  a
     correspondent and the mobile node is intercepted and the mobile node's
     location is deduced from that, since man in the middle attacks in the
     Internet tend to be fairly rare. More likely are attacks in which the
     correspondent is the attacker or the correspondent or even mobile node
     itself are relaying information on the care-of address change to someone.
     The owner of the correspondent or mobile node might not even be aware of the
     problem if an attacker has installed spyware or some other kind of exploit
     on the mobile node and the malware is relaying the change in care-of address
     to an attacker.
  
     Note that the location privacy referred to here is different from the
     location privacy discussed in [15][16][17]. The location privacy discussed
     in these drafts primarily concerns modifications to the Mobile IPv6 protocol
     to eliminate places where an eavesdropper could track the mobile node's
     movement by correlating home address and care of address.
  
     The requirement is that the location information should not be revealed to
     nor deduced by the correspondent node without the authorization of the
     mobile node's owner as long as the mobile node remains within the localized
     mobility management domain. Since the localized mobility management protocol
     is responsible for the mobile node mobility within the localized mobility
     management domain, it should conceal the geographical movement of the mobile
     node.
  
     Kempf, et. al.                  Expires July 2006              [Page 5]
  

     Internet Draft          LMM Requirements and Gap Analysis     Feburary, 2006
  
  
  
  2.4     Efficient Use of Wireless Resources (Requirement #4)
  
     Advances in wireless PHY and MAC technology continue to increase the
     bandwidth available from limited wireless spectrum, but even with technology
     increases, wireless spectrum remains a limited resource. Unlike wired
     network links, wireless links are constrained in the number of bits/Hertz by
     their coding technology and use of physical spectrum, which is fixed by the
     PHY. It is not possible to lay an extra cable if the link becomes
     increasingly congested as is the case with wired links.
  
     Some existing localized mobility management solutions increase packet size
     over the wireless link by adding tunneling or other per packet overhead.
     While header compression technology can remove header overhead, header
     compression does not come without cost. Requiring header compression on the
     wireless access points increases the cost and complexity of the access
     points, and increases the amount of processing required for traffic across
     the wireless link. Since the access points tend to be a critical bottleneck
     in wireless access networks for real time traffic (especially on the
     downlink), reducing the amount of per-packet processing is important. While
     header compression probably cannot be completely eliminated, especially for
     real time media traffic, simplifying compression to reduce processing cost
     is an important requirement.
  
     The requirement is that the localized mobility management protocol should
     not introduce any new signaling or increase existing signaling over the air.
  
  2.5 Reduction of Signaling Overhead in the Network (Requirement #5)
  
     While bandwidth and router processing resources are typically not as
     constrained in the wired network, wired networks tend to have higher
     bandwidth  and  router  processing  constraints  than  the  backbone.  These
     constraints are a function of the cost of laying fiber or wiring to the
     wireless access points in a widely dispersed geographic area. Therefore, any
     solutions for localized mobility management should minimize signaling within
     the wired network as well.
  
  2.6 No Extra Security Between Mobile Node and Network (Requirement #6)
  
     Localized mobility management protocols that have signaling between the
     mobile node and network require a security association between the mobile
     node  and  the  network  entity  that  is  the  target  of  the  signaling.
     Establishing a security association specifically for localized mobility
     service in a roaming situation may prove difficult, because provisioning a
     mobile node with security credentials for authenticating and authorizing
     localized  mobility  service  in  each  roaming  partner's  network  may  be
     unrealistic from a deployment perspective. Reducing the complexity of mobile
     node to network security for localized mobility management can therefore
     reduce barriers to deployment.
  
     Removing mobile node involvement in localized mobility management also
     limits the possibility of DoS attacks on network infrastructural elements.
  
     Kempf, et. al.                  Expires July 2006              [Page 6]
  

     Internet Draft          LMM Requirements and Gap Analysis     Feburary, 2006
  
  
     In a host based approach, the mobile node is required to have a global or
     restricted routing local IP address for a network infrastructure element,
     the mobility anchor point. The network infrastructural element therefore
     becomes a possible target for DoS attacks, even if mobile nodes are properly
     authenticated. A properly authenticated mobile node can either willfully or
     inadvertently  give  the  network  infrastructural  element  address  to  an
     attacker.
  
     In summary, ruling out mobile node involvement in local mobility management
     simplifies security by removing the need for service-specific credentials to
     authenticate and authorize the mobile node for localized mobility management
     in the network and by limiting the possibility of DoS attacks on network
     infrastructural elements. The requirement is that support for localized
     mobility management should not require additional security between the
     mobile node and the network.
  
  2.7 Support for Heterogeneous Wireless Link Technologies (Requirement #7)
  
     The number of wireless link technologies available is growing, and the
     growth seems unlikely to slow down. Since the standardization of a wireless
     link PHY and MAC is a time consuming process, reducing the amount of work
     necessary to interface a particular wireless link technology to an IP
     network is necessary. A localized mobility management solution should
     ideally  require  minimal  work  to  interface  with  a  new  wireless  link
     technology.
  
     In addition, an edge mobility solution should provide support for multiple
     wireless link technologies within the network in separate subnets. It is not
     required that the localized mobility management solution support handover
     from one wireless link technology to another without change in IP address.
     The reason is because a change in network interface typically requires that
     the hardware interface associated with one wireless link technology be
     brought up and configured, and this process typically requires that the IP
     stack for the new interface card be configured on the mobile node from the
     driver up. Requiring that the mobile node IP stack circumvent this process
     to keep the IP address constant would be a major change in the way the IP
     stack software is implemented.
  
     The requirement is that the localized mobility management protocol should
     not use any wireless link specific information for basic routing management,
     though it may be used for other purposes, such as identifying a mobile node.
  
  
  2.8 Support for Unmodified Mobile Nodes (Requirement #8)
  
     In the wireless LAN switching market, no modification of the software on the
     mobile node is required to achieve "IP mobility" (which means localized
     mobility management). Being able to accommodate unmodified mobile nodes
     enables a service provider to offer service to as many customers as
     possible, the only constraint being that the customer is authorized for
     network access.
  
  
     Kempf, et. al.                  Expires July 2006              [Page 7]
  

     Internet Draft          LMM Requirements and Gap Analysis     Feburary, 2006
  
  
     Another advantage of minimizing mobile node software for localized mobility
     management is that multiple global mobility management protocols can be
     supported with a localized mobility management solution that does not have
     mobile node involvement. While Mobile IPv6 is clearly the global mobility
     management protocol of primary interest going forward, there are a variety
     of global mobility management protocols that might also need support,
     including proprietary protocols needing support for backward compatibility
     reasons. Within IETF, both HIP and Mobike are likely to need support in
     addition to Mobile IPv6, and Mobile IPv4 support may also be necessary.
  
     Note that this requirement does NOT mean that the mobile node has no
     software at all associated with mobility or wireless. The mobile node must
     have some kind of global mobility protocol if it is to move from one domain
     of edge mobility support to another, although no global mobility protocol is
     required if the mobile node only moves within the coverage area of the
     localized mobility management protocol. Also, every wireless link protocol
     requires handover support on the mobile node in the physical and MAC layers,
     typically in the wireless interface driver. Information passed from the MAC
     layer to the IP layer on the mobile nodenode may be necessary to trigger IP
     signaling for IP link handover. Such movement detection support at the IP
     level may be required in order to determine whether the mobile node's
     default router is still reachable after the move to a new access point has
     occurred at the MAC layer. Whether or not such support is required depends
     on whether the MAC layer can completely hide link movement from the IP
     layer. For a wireless link protocol such as the 3G protocols, the mobile
     node and network undergo an extensive negotiation at the MAC layer prior to
     handover, so it may be possible to trigger routing update without any IP
     protocol involvement. However, for a wireless link protocol such as IEEE
     802.11 in which there is no network involvement in handover, IP layer
     movement detection signaling from the mobile node may be required to trigger
     routing update.
  
     The requirement is that the localized mobility management solution should be
     able to support any mobile node that walks up to the link and has a wireless
     interface that can communicate with the network, without requiring localized
     mobility management software on the mobile node.
  
  2.9 Support for IPv4 and IPv6 (Requirement #9)
  
     While most of this document is written with IPv6 in mind, localized mobility
     management is a problem in IPv4 networks as well. A solution for localized
     mobility that works for both versions of IP is desirable, though the actual
     protocol may be slightly different due to the technical details of how each
     IP version works. From Requirement #8 (Section 2.8), minimizing mobile node
     support for localized mobility means that ideally no IP version-specific
     changes would be required on the mobile node for localized mobility, and
     that global mobility protocols for both IPv4 and IPv6 should be supported.
     Any IP version-specific features would be confined to the network protocol.
  
   3.0 Gap Analysis
  
  
  
     Kempf, et. al.                  Expires July 2006              [Page 8]
  

     Internet Draft          LMM Requirements and Gap Analysis     Feburary, 2006
  
  
     This section discusses a gap analysis between existing proposals for solving
     localized mobility management and the requirements in Section. 2.0.
  
  3.1 Mobile IPv6 with Local Home Agent
  
     One option is to deploy Mobile IPv6 with a locally assigned home agent in
     the local network. This solution requires the mobile node to somehow be
     assigned a home agent in the local network when it boots up. This home agent
     is used instead of the home agent in the home network. The advantage of this
     option is that the no special solution is required for edge mobility - the
     mobile node reuses the global mobility management protocol for that purpose
     - if the mobile node is using Mobile IPv6. One disadvantage is that Mobile
     IP has no provision for handover between home agents. Although such handover
     should be infrequent, it could be quite lengthy and complex.
  
     The analysis of this approach against the requirements above is the
     following.
  
     Requirement #1: If the mobile node does not perform route optimization, this
     solution  reduces,  but  does  not  eliminate,  IP  link  handover  related
     performance problems.
  
     Requirement #2: Similarly to Requirement #1, signaling volume is reduced if
     no route optimization signaling is done on handover.
  
     Requirement #3: Location privacy is preserved for external correspondents,
     but the mobile node itself still maintains a local care-of address which a
     worm or other exploit could misuse. If the mobile node does perform route
     optimization, location privacy may be compromised, and this solution is no
     better than having a remote home agent.
  
     Requirement #4: If traffic is not route optimized, the mobile node still
     pays for an over-the-air tunnel to the locally assigned home agent. The
     overhead here is exactly the same as if the mobile node's home agent in the
     home network is used and route optimization is not done.
  
     Requirement #5: If the localized mobility management domain is large, the
     mobile node may suffer from unoptimzed routes since handover and mobility
     between home agents is not supported.
  
     Requirement #6: A local home agent in a roaming situation requires the guest
     mobile node to have the proper credentials to authenticate with the local
     home agent in the serving network. In addition, as in Requirement #3, the
     local home agent's address could become the target of a DoS attack if
     revealed to an attacker. So a local home agent would provide no benefit for
     this requirement.
  
     Requirement #7: This solution supports multiple wireless technologies in
     separate IP link subnets. No special work is required to interface a local
     home agent to different wireless technologies.
  
  
  
     Kempf, et. al.                  Expires July 2006              [Page 9]
  

     Internet Draft          LMM Requirements and Gap Analysis     Feburary, 2006
  
  
     Requirement #8: The mobile node must support Mobile IPv6 in order for this
     option to work. So mobile node changes are required and other IP mobility
     protocols are not supported.
  
     Requirement #9: This solution requires separate locally assigned home agents
     for Mobile IPv4 and Mobile IPv6 since the local home agent should have MIP
     functions or IPv4 or IPv6 in conjunction with IP version of global mobility
     protocol, or some way to register an IPv4 care of address to home address
     mapping in an Mobile IPv6 home agent. While there are a couple of proposals
     currently active in the IETF for this (see [18] for one), it is not clear at
     this point whether they will be adopted for standards track development.
  
  3.2     Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 (HMIPv6)
  
     HMIPv6  [20]  provides  the  most  complete  localized  mobility  management
     solution available today as an Internet RFC. In HMIPv6, a localized mobility
     anchor called a MAP serves as a routing anchor for a regional care-of
     address. When a mobile node moves from one access router to another, the
     mobile node changes the binding between its regional care-of address and
     local care-of address at the MAP. No global mobility management signaling is
     required, since the care-of address seen by correspondents does not change.
     This part of HMIPv6 is similar to the solution outlined in Section 3.1;
     however, HMIPv6 also allows a mobile node to hand over between MAPs.
  
     Handover between MAPs and MAP discovery requires configuration on the
     routers. MAP addresses are advertised by access routers. Handover happens by
     overlapping MAP coverage areas so that, for some number of access routers,
     more than one MAP may be advertised. Mobile nodes need to switch MAPs in the
     transition area, and then must perform global mobility management update and
     route optimization to the new regional care-of address, if appropriate.
  
     The analysis of this approach against the requirements above is the
     following.
  
     Requirement #1 This solution shortens, but does not eliminate, the latency
     associated with IP link handover, since it reduces the amount of signaling
     and the length of the signaling paths.
  
     Requirement  #2  Signaling  volume  is  reduced  simply  because  no  route
     optimization signaling is done on handover within the coverage area of the
     MAP.
  
     Requirement #3 Location privacy is preserved for external correspondents,
     but the mobile node itself still maintains a local care-of address which a
     worm or other exploit could access by sending the local care-of address to
     third malicious node to enable it to track the mobile node's location.
  
     Requirement #4 The mobile node always pays for an over-the-air tunnel to the
     MAP. If the mobile node is tunneling through a global home agent or VPN
     gateway, the wired link experiences double tunneling. Over-the-air tunnel
     overhead can be removed by header compression, however.
  
  
     Kempf, et. al.                  Expires July 2006              [Page 10]
  

     Internet Draft          LMM Requirements and Gap Analysis     Feburary, 2006
  
  
     Requirement #5 From Requirement #1 and Requirement #4, the signaling
     overhead is no more or less than for mobile nodes whose global mobility
     management anchor is local. However, because MAP handover is possible,
     routes across large localized mobility management domains can be improved
     thereby improving wired network resource utilization by using multiple MAPs
     and handing over, at the expense of the configuration and management
     overhead involved in maintaining multiple MAP coverage areas.
  
     Requirement #6 In a roaming situation, the guest mobile node must have the
     proper credentials to authenticate with the MAP in the serving network. In
     addition, since the mobile node is required to have a unicast address for
     the MAP that is either globally routed or routing restricted to the local
     administrative domain, the MAP is potentially a target for DoS attacks
     across a wide swath of network topology.
  
     Requirement #7 This solution supports multiple wireless technologies in
     separate IP link subnets.
  
     Requirement #8 This solution requires modification to the mobile nodes. In
     addition, the HMIPv6 design has been optimized for Mobile IPv6 mobile nodes,
     and is not a good match for other global mobility management protocols.
  
     Requirement #9 Currently, there is no IPv4 version of this protocol;
     although there is an expired Internet draft with a design for a regional
     registration protocol for Mobile IPv4 that has similar functionality.
  
  3.3 Combinations of Mobile IPv6 with Optimizations
  
     One approach to local mobility that has received much attention in the past
     and has been thought to provide a solution is combinations of protocols. The
     general approach is to try to cover gaps in the solution provided by MIPv6
     by using other protocols. In this section, gap analyses for MIPv6 + FMIPv6
     and HMIPv6 + FMIPv6 are discussed.
  
  3.3.1 MIPv6 + FMIPv6
  
     As discussed in Section 3.1, the use of MIPv6 with a dynamically assigned,
     local home agent cannot fulfill the requirements. A fundamental limitation
     is that Mobile IPv6 cannot provide seamless handover (i.e. Requirement #1).
     FMIPv6 has been defined with the intent to improve the handover performance
     of MIPv6. For this reason, the combined usage of FMIPv6 and MIPv6 with a
     dynamically assigned local home agent has been proposed to handle local
     mobility.
  
     Note that this gap analysis only applies to localized mobility management,
     and it is possible that MIPv6 and FMIPv6 might still be acceptable for
     global mobility management.
  
     The analysis of this combined approach against the requirements follows.
  
     Requirement  #1  FMIPv6  provides  a  solution  for  handover  performance
     improvement  that  should  fulfill  the  requirements  raised  by  real-time
  
     Kempf, et. al.                  Expires July 2006              [Page 11]
  

     Internet Draft          LMM Requirements and Gap Analysis     Feburary, 2006
  
  
     applications in terms of jitter, delay and packet loss. The location of the
     home agent (in local or home domain) does not affect the handover latency.
  
     Requirement #2 FMIPv6 requires the mobile node to perform extra signaling with the
     access router (i.e. exchange of RtSolPr/PrRtAdv and FBU/FBA). Moreover, as
     in standard MIPv6, whenever the mobile node moves to another IP link, it
     must send a Binding Update to the home agent. If route optimization is used,
     the mobile node also performs return routability and sends a Binding Update
     to each correspondent node. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that FMIPv6
     should result in a reduction of the amount of IPv6 Neighbor Discovery
     signaling on the new link.
  
     Requirement #3 The mobile node mantains a local care-of address. If route
     optimization is not used, location privacy can be achieved using bi-
     directional tunneling. However, as mentioned in Section 3.1, a worm or other
     malware can exploit this care of address by sending it to a third malicious
     node.
  
     Requirement #4 As stated for Requirement #2, the combination of MIPv6 and
     FMIPv6 generates extra signaling overhead. For data packets, in addition to
     the Mobile IPv6 over-the-air tunnel, there is a further level of tunneling
     between the mobile node and the previous access router during handover. This
     tunnel is needed to forward incoming packets to the mobile node addressed to
     the previous care-of address. Another reason is that, even if the mobile
     node has a valid new care-of address, the mobile node cannot use the new
     care of address directly with its correspondents without performing route
     optimization to the new care of address. This implies that the transient
     tunnel overhead is in place even for route optimized traffic.
  
     Requirement #5 FMIPv6 generates extra signaling overhead between previous
     the access router and the new access router for the HI/HAck exchange.
     Concerning  data  packets,  the  use  of  FMIPv6  for  handover  performance
     improvement implies a tunnel between the previous access router and the
     mobile node that adds some overhead in the wired network. This overhead has
     more impact on star topology deployments, since packets are routed down to
     the old access router, then back up to the aggregation router and then back
     down to the new access router.
  
     Requirement #6 In addition to the analysis for Mobile IPv6 with local home
     agent in Section 3.1, FMIPv6 requires the mobile node and the previous
     access router to share a security association in order to secure FBU/FBA
     exchange. So far, only a SEND-based solution has been proposed and this
     requires the mobile node to use autoconfigured Cryptographically Generated Addresses
     (CGAs)[21]. This precludes stateful address allocation using DHCP, which
     might be a necessary deployment in certain circumstances. Another solution
     based on AAA is under study but it could require extra signaling overhead
     over the air and in the wired network and it could raise performance issues.
  
     Requirement #7 MIPv6 and FMIPv6 support multiple wireless technologies, so
     this requirement is fufilled.
  
  
  
     Kempf, et. al.                  Expires July 2006              [Page 12]
  

     Internet Draft          LMM Requirements and Gap Analysis     Feburary, 2006
  
  
     Requirement #8 The mobile node must support both MIPv6 and FMIPv6, so it is
     not possible to satisfy this requirement.
  
     Requirement #9 Work is underway to extend MIPv6 with the capability to run
     over both IPv6-enabled and IPv4-only networks [18]. FMIPv6 only supports
     IPv6. Even though an IPv4 version of FMIP has been recently proposed, it is
     not clear how it could be used together with FMIPv6 in order to handle fast
     handovers across any wired network.
  
  3.3.2 HMIPv6 + FMIPv6
  
     HMIPv6 provides several advantages in terms of local mobility management.
     However, as seen in Section 3.2, it does not fulfill all the requirements
     identified in Section 2.0. In particular, HMIPv6 does not completely
     eliminate the IP link handover latency. For this reason, FMIPv6 could be
     used together with HMIPv6 in order to cover the gap.
  
     Note that even if this solution is used, the mobile node is likely to need
     MIPv6 for global mobility management, in contrast with the MIPv6 with
     dynamically assigned local home agent + FMIPv6 solution. Thus, this solution
     should really be considered MIPv6 + HMIPv6 + FMIPv6.
  
     The analysis of this combined approach against the requirements follows.
  
     Requirement #1 HMIPv6 and FMIPv6 both shorten the latency associated with IP
     link  handovers.  In  particular,  FMIPv6  is  expected  to  fulfill  the
     requirements  on  jitter,  delay  and  packet  loss  raised  by  real-time
     applications.
  
     Requirement #2 Both FMIPv6 and HMIPv6 require extra signaling compared with
     Mobile IPv6. As a whole the mobile node performs signaling message exchanges
     at each handover that are RtSolPr/PrRtAdv, FBU/FBA, LBU/LBA and BU/BA.
     However, as mentioned in Section 3.2, the use of HMIPv6 reduces the
     signaling overhead since no route optimization signaling is done for intra-
     MAP handovers. In addition, naïve combinations of FMIPv6 and HMIPv6 often
     result in redundant signaling. There is much work in the academic literature
     and the IETF on more refined ways of combining signaling from the two
     protocols to avoid redundant signaling.
  
     Requirement #3 HMIPv6 may preserve location privacy, depending on the
     dimension of the geographic area covered by the MAP. As discussed in Section
     3.2, the mobile node still maintains a local care-of address that can be
     exploited by worms or other malware.
  
     Requirement #4 As mentioned for Requirement #2, the combination of HMIPv6
     and FMIPv6 generates a lot of signaling overhead in the network. Concerning
     payload data, in addition to the over-the-air MIPv6 tunnel, a further level
     of tunneling is established between mobile node and MAP. Notice that this
     tunnel is in place even for route optimized traffic. Moreover, if FMIPv6 is
     directly applied to HMIPv6 networks, there is a third temporary handover-
     related tunnel between the mobile node and previous access router. Again,
  
  
     Kempf, et. al.                  Expires July 2006              [Page 13]
  

     Internet Draft          LMM Requirements and Gap Analysis     Feburary, 2006
  
  
     there is much work in the academic literature and IETF on ways to reduce the
     extra tunnel overhead on handover by combining HMIP and FMIP tunneling.
  
     Requirement #5 The signaling overhead in the network is not reduced by
     HMIPv6, as mentioned in Section 3.2. Instead, FMIPv6 generates extra
     signaling overhead between the previous access router and new access router
     for HI/HAck exchange. For payload data, the same considerations as for
     Requirement #4 are applicable.
  
     Requirement #6 FMIPv6 requires the mobile node and the previous access
     router to share a security association in order to secure the FBU/FBA
     exchange. In addition, HMIPv6 requires that the mobile node and MAP share an
     IPsec security association in order to secure LBU/LBA exchange. The only
     well understood approach to set up an IPsec security association using of
     certificates, but this may raise deployment issues. Thus, the combination of
     FMIPv6 and HMIPv6 doubles the amount of mobile node to network security
     protocol required, since security for both FMIP and HMIP must be deployed.
  
     Requirement #7 HMIPv6 and FMIPv6 support multiple wireless technologies, so
     this requirement is fufilled.
  
     Requirement  #8  The  mobile  node  must  support  both  HMIPv6  and  FMIPv6
     protocols, so this requirement is not fulfilled.
  
     Requirement #9 Currently there is no IPv4 version of HMIPv6. There is an
     IPv4 version of FMIP but it is not clear how it could be used together with
     FMIPv6 in order to handle fast handovers across any wired network.
  
  3.4 Micromobility Protocols
  
     Researchers have defined some protocols that are often characterized as
     micromobility  protocols.  Two  typical  protocols  in  this  category  are
     Cellular-IP [22] and HAWAII [23]. Researchers defined these protocols before
     local mobility optimizations for Mobile IP such as FMIP and HMIP were
     developed, in order to reduce handover latency.
  
     Cellular IP and HAWAII have a few things in common.  Both are compatible
     with Mobile IP and are intended to provide a higher level of handover
     performance in local networks than was previously available with Mobile IP
     without such extensions as HMIP and FMIP.  Both use host routes installed in
     a number of routers within a restricted routing domain. Both define specific
     messaging to update those routes along the forwarding path and specify how
     the messaging is to be used to update the routing tables and forwarding
     tables along the path between the mobile and a micromobility domain boundary
     router at which point Mobile IP is to used to handle scalable global
     mobility. Unlike the FMIP and HMIP protocols, however, these protocols do
     not require the mobile node to obtain a new care of address on each access
     router as it moves; but rather, the mobile node maintains the same care of
     address across the micromobility domain. From outside the micromobility
     domain, the care of address is routed using traditional longest prefix
     matching IP routing to the domain's boundary router, so the care of address
     conceptually is within the micromobiity domain boundary router's subnet.
  
     Kempf, et. al.                  Expires July 2006              [Page 14]
  

     Internet Draft          LMM Requirements and Gap Analysis     Feburary, 2006
  
  
     Within the micromobility domain, the care of address is routed to the
     correct access router using host routes.
  
     Cellular IP and HAWAII differ in a few aspects.  Cellular IP seems to be
     restricted, based on the nature of the protocol, to tree-based network
     topologies.  HAWAII claims to be applicable in both tree-based and more
     complete network topologies.  HAWAII documents more functionality in the
     realm of reliability and QoS interworking.  Both protocols involve the
     mobile node itself in mobility operations, although this is also true of the
     Mobile IP based optimizations, so both protocols raise the same security
     concerns with respect to authorizing address update as the Mobile IP based
     optimizations.    HAWAII  provides  some  analysis  of  network  deployment
     scenarios including scale, density, and efficiency, but some of these
     assumptions seem very conservative compared to realistic cellular type
     deployments.
  
     Micromobility protocols have some potential drawbacks from a deployment and
     scalability standpoint. Both protocols involve every routing element between
     the mobile device and the micromobility domain boundary router in all packet
     forwarding decisions specific to care of addresses for mobile nodes.
     Scalability is limited because each care of address corresponding to a
     mobile node generates a routing table entry, and perhaps multiple forwarding
     table entries, in every router along the path. Since mobile nodes can have
     multiple global care of addresses in IPv6, this can result in a large
     expansion in router state throughout the micromobility routing domain.
     Although the extent of the scalability for micromobility protocols is still
     not clearly understood from a research standpoint, it seems certain that
     they will be less scalable than the Mobile IP optimization enhancements, and
     will require more specialized gear in the wired network.
  
     The following is a gap analysis of the micromobility protocols against the
     requirements in Section 2.0:
  
     Requirement #1 The micromobility protocols reduce handover latency by
     quickly fixing up routes between the boundary router and the access router.
     While some additional latency may be expected during host route propagation,
     it is typically much less than experienced with standard Mobile IP.
  
     Requirement #2 The micromobility protocols require signaling from the mobile
     node to the access router to initiate the host route propagation, but that
     is a considerable reduction over the amount of signaling required to
     configure to a new IP link.
  
     Requirement #3 No care-of address changes are exposed to correspondent nodes
     or  the  mobile  node  itself  while  the  mobile  node  is  moving  in  the
     micromobility-managed network. Because there is no local care-of address,
     there is no threat from malware that exposes the location by sending the
     care-of address to an adversary.
  
     Requirement #4 The only additional over-the-air signaling is involved in
     propagating host routes from the mobile node to the network upon movement.
  
  
     Kempf, et. al.                  Expires July 2006              [Page 15]
  

     Internet Draft          LMM Requirements and Gap Analysis     Feburary, 2006
  
  
     Since this signaling would be required for movement detection in any case,
     it is expected to be minimal. Mobile node traffic experiences no overhead.
  
     Requirement #5 Host route propagation is required throughout the wired
     network. The volume of signaling could be more or less depending on the
     speed of mobile node movement and the size of the wired network.
  
     Requirement #6 The mobile node only requires a security association of some
     type with the access router. Because the signaling is causing routes to the
     mobile  node's  care-of  address  to  change,  the  signaling  must  prove
     authorization to hold the address.
  
     Requirement  #7  The  micromobility  protocols  support  multiple  wireless
     technologies, so this requirement is satisfied.
  
     Requirement #8 The mobile node must support some way of signaling the access
     router on link handover, but this is required for movement detection anyway.
     The nature of the signaling for the micromobility protocols may mobile node
     software changes, however.
  
     Requirement #9  Most of the work on the micromobility protocols was done in
     IPv4, but little difference could be expected for IPv6.
  
  3.5 Standard Internal Gateway Route Distribution Protocols (OSPF and IS-IS)
  
      It  has  also  been  suggested  that  instead  of  using  a  specialized
     micromobility  routing  protocol  in  the  access  network,  a  standardized
     Internal Gateway route distribution Protocol (IGP) such as IS-IS [25] or
     OSPF [26] should be used to distribute host routes. Host route messages are
     formatted in the IGPs by including a subnet mask in the route information
     update, indicating that the address is a /32 for IPv4 or a /128 for IPv6
     instead  of  a  subnet  prefix.  Since  IGPs  typically  distribute  route
     information by flooding, every router in the domain obtains a copy of the
     host route eventually. Using an IGP instead of a micromobility protocol has
     the advantage that standardized routing equipment can be used for all
     routers in the access network, and, if a particular router goes down, the
     host routes maintained along alternate routes should be sufficient to
     continue routing, unlike micromobility protocols where only targeted routers
     have the host routes.
  
     Distributing host routes with an IGP has some significant disadvantages
     however. One is that flooding requires a certain amount of time to converge;
     so for some period after the link handover blackout, delivery to a mobile
     node that has moved will be disrupted until convergence along the routes
     traveled by the mobile node's traffic has occurred. Because micromobility
     protocols target host routes back to the micromobility domain border router,
     convergence can potentially be achieved more quickly. Tunnel-based solutions
     such as HMIP don't suffer from convergence latency because only the two
     endpoints need to know the routing.  As a result, the internal routing
     tables updated by the IGP remain stable when a mobile node moves. The
     movement does not affect routing of traffic to other mobile nodes due to
     intensive path computation.
  
     Kempf, et. al.                  Expires July 2006              [Page 16]
  

     Internet Draft          LMM Requirements and Gap Analysis     Feburary, 2006
  
  
  
     Another disadvantage of using an IGP is that each router in the domain must
     maintain a full host route table for all hosts. This requirement raises a
     scalability issue. For example, an experiment [24]  using OSPF to distribute
     host routes through an access network consisting of a collection of rather
     smallish enterprise routers indicated that about 25,000 routes could be
     supported in 22 Mb of memory before performance started to degrade. This
     works out to about 0.88 kb/host. Scaling this up to, say, 10 million hosts
     (what one might expect in a large metropolitan area such as Tokyo or San
     Francisco) would require about 8.8 Gb of memory per router. While memory
     costs continue to drop, the amount of processing power for searching a
     routing database of that size essentially means that each router in the
     domain must have the same processing power as a high end, border router.
     Micromobility and tunnel- based solutions don't suffer from this problem,
     because the host route is local to the tunnel endpoints. Other routers in
     the domain route based on highly scalable shortest matching network prefix
     method.
  
     The following is a gap analysis of host route distribution using a
     standardized IGP against the requirements in Section 2.0:
  
     Requirement #1 Host route distribution using an IGP is likely to suffer from
     increased handover latency due to a lag time as routes converge over the
     access network. The exact amount of latency depends on the convergence
     characteristics of the particular IGP and the topology of the access
     network, i.e. how fast convergence occurs along routes taken by the mobile
     node's traffic.
  
     Requirement #2 Host route distribution using an IGP requires signaling from
     the mobile node to the access router to initiate the host route propagation,
     but that is a considerable reduction over the amount of signaling required
     to configure to a new IP link. However, if a mobile node is moving quickly,
     the flooding traffic necessary to propagate a host route may not converge
     before the mobile node hands over again. This could result in a cacscading
     series of host route updates that never converge. Whether or not this effect
     occurs depends on the size of the localized mobility domain, and so the need
     to ensure convergence places an upper bound on the size of the domain or
     expected movement speed of the mobile nodes.
  
     Requirement #3 No care-of address changes are exposed to correspondent nodes
     or the mobile node itself while the mobile node is moving in the localized
     mobility management domain. Because there is no local care-of address, there
     is no threat from malware that exposes the location by sending the care-of
     address to an adversary.
  
     Requirement #4 The only additional over-the-air signaling involved is
     signaling from the mobile node to the access router indicating that the
     mobile node has moved. Mobile node traffic experiences no overhead.
  
     Requirement #5 Host route propagation is required throughout the wired
     network. The volume of signaling could be more or less depending on the
     speed of mobile node movement and the size of the wired network.
  
     Kempf, et. al.                  Expires July 2006              [Page 17]
  

     Internet Draft          LMM Requirements and Gap Analysis     Feburary, 2006
  
  
  
     Requirement #6 The mobile node only requires a security association of some
     type with the access router. Because the signaling is causing routes to the
     mobile  node's  care-of  address  to  change,  the  signaling  must  prove
     authorization to hold the address.
  
     Requirement #7 This requirement is satisfied by default, since the IGPs are
     used over the wired backbone.
  
     Requirement #8 The mobile node needs to perform some kind of active movement
     detection with proof of identity to trigger the host route distribution, but
     this kind of signaling is needed for movement regardless of whether
     localized mobility management is deployed. Depending on the wireless link
     type, this may be handled by the wireless link layer.
  
     Requirement #9  Since the IGPs support both IPv4 and IPv6, both are
     supported by this technique.
  
  
   4.0    Security Considerations
  
     There are two kinds of security issues involved in network-based localized
     mobility management: security between the mobile node and the network, and
     security between network elements that participate in the network-based
     localized mobility management protocol
  
     Security between the mobile node and the network itself consists of two
     parts: threats involved in localized mobility management in general, and
     threats to the network-based localized mobility management from the host.
     The first is discussed above in Sections 2.3 and 2.6. The second is
     discussed in the threat analysis document [27].
  
     For threats to network-based localized mobility management, the basic threat
     is an attempt by an unauthorized party to signal a bogus mobility event.
     Such an event must be detectable. This requires proper bidirectional
     authentication and authorization of network elements that participate in the
     network-based  localized  mobility  management  protocol,  and  data  origin
     authentication on the signaling traffic between network elements.
  
  
   5.0    Recommendation
  
     In view of the gap analysis in Section 3.0, none of the existing solutions
     provide complete coverage of the requirements. FMIPv6 provides a complete
     solution to Requirement 3.1 but to no other requirement. FMIP, HMIP and
     micromobility protocols require that the mobile node is modified to support the
     additional functionality. But as analyzed above, the functionality provided
     by each protocol is does not fully support the set of requirements discussed
     in Section 2.0.
  
     We  therefore  recommend  that  a  new,  network  based  localized  mobility
     management protocol be developed that minimizes or eliminates mobile node
  
     Kempf, et. al.                  Expires July 2006              [Page 18]
  

     Internet Draft          LMM Requirements and Gap Analysis     Feburary, 2006
  
  
     involvement in localized mobility management. Such a localized mobility
     management protocol can be treated as part of the network infrastructure.
     This kind of architecture is required to address the gaps with existing
     protocols described in Section 3.0. The new localized mobility management
     protocol can be paired with a link layer specific IP link handover
     optimization protocol, such as are provided by wireless LAN switches, or an
     IP link handover optimization protocol, such as FMIPv6, to eliminate
     handover related packet latency. The protocol should minimize the number of
     specialized routers in the localized mobility management domain to reduce
     the amount of state update needed upon movement and to allow standardized
     network equipment to be used where mobility support is not required.
  
     With the edge mobility approach, a mobile node has a single IP address that
     does not change when the mobile node moves from one access router to
     another, because the mobility anchor and access routers take care of
     changing the routing. An edge mobility approach does not require a separate
     security association with a network element, reducing the amount of overhead
     required to get a connection up on the network. In an edge mobility approach,
     mobile nodes only have link local addresses for access routers, so it is
     much more difficult to mount off-link DoS attacks, and on-link attacks are
     easier to trace and stop. With the edge mobility approach, no authentication
     and authorization is necessary beyond that necessary for initial network
     access and whatever additional authentication and authorization is required
     by the wireless link layer upon movement between access points.
  
  
   6.0 Author Information
  
        James Kempf
        DoCoMo USA Labs
        181 Metro Drive, Suite 300
        San Jose, CA 95110
        USA
        Phone: +1 408 451 4711
        Email: kempf@docomolabs-usa.com
  
        Kent Leung
        Cisco Systems, Inc.
        170 West Tasman Drive
        San Jose, CA 95134
        USA
        EMail: kleung@cisco.com
  
        Phil Roberts
        Motorola Labs
        Schaumberg, IL
        USA
        Email: phil.roberts@motorola.com
  
        Katsutoshi Nishida
        NTT DoCoMo Inc.
        3-5 Hikarino-oka, Yokosuka-shi
  
     Kempf, et. al.                  Expires July 2006              [Page 19]
  

     Internet Draft          LMM Requirements and Gap Analysis     Feburary, 2006
  
  
        Kanagawa,
        Japan
        Phone: +81 46 840 3545
        Email: nishidak@nttdocomo.co.jp
  
        Gerardo Giaretta
        Telecom Italia Lab
        via G. Reiss Romoli, 274
        10148 Torino
        Italy
        Phone: +39 011 2286904
        Email: gerardo.giaretta@tilab.com
  
        Marco Liebsch
        NEC Network Laboratories
        Kurfuersten-Anlage 36
        69115 Heidelberg
        Germany
        Phone: +49 6221-90511-46
        Email: marco.liebsch@ccrle.nec.de
  
   7.0 Informative References
  
       [1] Kempf, J., Leung, K., Roberts, P., Nishda, K., Giaretta, G., Liebsch,
           M., and Gwon, Y., "Problem Statement for IP Local Mobility," Internet
           Draft, work in progress.
       [2] Manner, J., and Kojo, M., "Mobility Related Terminology", RFC 3753,
           June, 2004.
       [3] Devarapalli,V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., Thubert, P., "Network
           Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol", RFC 3963, January, 2005.
       [4] Carpenter, B., "Architectural Principles of the Internet," RFC 1958,
           June, 1996.
       [5] Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and Arkko, J., "Mobility Support in IPv6",
           RFC 3775.
       [6] Moskowitz, R., Nikander, P., Jokela, P., and Henderson, T., "Host
           Identity Protocol", Internet Draft, work in progress.
       [7] Choi, J, and Daley, G., " Goals of Detecting Network Attachment in
           IPv6", Internet Draft, work in progress.
       [8] IEEE, "Port-based Access Control", IEEE LAN/MAN Standard 802.1x, June,
           2001.
       [9] Forsberg, D., Ohba, Y., Patil, B., Tschofenig, H., and Yegin, A.,
           "Protocol for Carrying Authentication for Network Access (PANA)",
           Internet Draft, work in progress.
      [10] Arkko, J., Kempf, J., Zill, B., and Nikander, P., "SEcure Neighbor
           Discovery (SEND)", RFC 3971, March, 2005.
      [11] Moore, N., "Optimistic Neighbor Discovery", Internet Draft, Work in
           Progress.
      [12] Ackerman, L., Kempf, J., and Miki, T., "Wireless Location Privacy: Law
           and Policy in the US, EU, and Japan", ISOC Member Briefing #15,
           http://www.isoc.org/briefings/015/index.shtml
  
  
  
     Kempf, et. al.                  Expires July 2006              [Page 20]
  

     Internet Draft          LMM Requirements and Gap Analysis     Feburary, 2006
  
  
      [13] Haddad, W., Nordmark, E., Dupont, F., Bagnulo, M., Park, S.D., and
           Patil, B., "Privacy for Mobile and Multi-homed Nodes: MoMiPriv Problem
           Statement", Internet Draft, work in progress.
      [14] Kivinen, T., and Tschopfening, H., "Design of the MOBIKE Protocol",
           Internet Draft, work in progress.
      [15] Koodli, R., "IP Address Location Privacy and IP Mobility", Internet
           Draft, work in progress.
      [16] Koodli, R., Devarapalli, V., Flinck, H., and Perkins, C., "Solutions
           for IP Address Location Privacy in the presence of IP Mobility",
           Internet Draft, work in progress.
      [17] Bao, F., Deng, R., Kempf, J., Qui, Y., and Zhou, J., "Protocol for
           Protecting Movement of Mobile Nodes in Mobile IPv6", Internet Draft,
           work in progress.
      [18] Soliman, H., Tsirtsis, G., Devarapalli, V., Kempf, J., Levkowetz, H.,
           Thubert, P, and Wakikawa, R. "Dual Stack Mobile IPv6 (DSMIPv6) for
           Hosts and Routers", Internet Draft, work in progress.
      [19] Koodli, R., editor, "Fast Handovers for Mobile IPv6", RFC 4068, July,
           2005.
      [20] Soliman, H., Castelluccia, C., El Malki, K., and Bellier, L.,
           "Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 Mobility Management (HMIPv6)", RFC 4140,
           August, 2005.
      [21] Kempf, J., and Koodli, R., "Bootstrapping a Symmetric IPv6 Handover Key
           from SEND", Internet Draft, work in progress.
      [22] Campbell, A., Gomez, J., Kim, S., Valko, A., and Wan, C., "Design,
           Implementation and Evaluation of Cellular IP", IEEE Personal
           Communications, June/July 2000.
      [23] Ramjee, R., La Porta, T., Thuel, S., and Varadhan, K., "HAWAII: A
           domain-based approach for supporting mobility in wide-area wireless
           networks", in Proceedings of the International Conference on Networking
           Protocols (ICNP), 1999.
      [24] "Mobile VPN Network Configuration Alternatives", IP Unplugged,
           http://www.ipunplugged.com/pdf/Network-blueprints_A.pdf.
      [25] Oran, D., "OSI IS-IS Intra-domain Routing Protocol", RFC 1142,
           Feburary, 1990.
      [26] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, April, 1998.
      [27] Threat analysis draft, TBD
  
   8.0 IPR Statements
  
     The  IETF  takes  no  position  regarding  the  validity  or  scope  of  any
     Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
     pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this
     document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might
     not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent
     effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with
     respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
  
     Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of
     licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a
     general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by
  
  
  
     Kempf, et. al.                  Expires July 2006              [Page 21]
  

     Internet Draft          LMM Requirements and Gap Analysis     Feburary, 2006
  
  
     implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF
     on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
  
     The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
     copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that
     may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard.
     Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
  
   9.0Disclaimer of Validity
  
     This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS
     IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS
     SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
     TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
     LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT
     INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS
     FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
  
   10.0   Copyright Notice
  
  
     Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).  This document is subject to the
     rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set
     forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
  
   11.0   Changes in 01 (remove before publication)
  
     - Changed wording so as not to seem to exclude mobile routers;
  
         . Changed "host" to "mobile node" when the wireless device is meant,
         . Changed "host" or "host-based" when localized mobility management is
         described to be "mobile node",
  
         . Removed definition for "host" and added a definition to Section 1.1
         for "mobile node" to indicate that the end device is meant to apply to
         mobile routers that use a global mobility management protocol such as
         NEMO in addition to terminals,
  
     - Modified Section 2.7 to indicate that support for multiple wireless link
     technologies is not meant to include keeping the same IP address when a new
     wireless interface is activated on the mobile device,
  
     - Modified Section 2.8 to indicate that unmodified mobile node support is
     meant to apply only to localized mobility management, and is not meant to
     exclude global mobility management or driver changes needed to support
     handover at the wireless link layer,
  
     - Changed the text in Section 4.0 to clarify the difference in the threat
     from host-side malware for global mobility protocols such as Mobile IPv6 and
     localized mobility management,
  
  
  
     Kempf, et. al.                  Expires July 2006              [Page 22]
  

     Internet Draft          LMM Requirements and Gap Analysis     Feburary, 2006
  
  
     - Rewrote Section 4 to remove text that duplicates discussions in Section
     2.3 and 2.6, and focused instead on the threat to the NETLMM protocol
     itself.
  
     - Added Section 3.5 discussing use of standardized IGPs for host route
        distribution.
  
     - Added text to each subsection in Section 2 that clearly and explicitly
        states  the  requirement  for  the  NETLMM  protocol.  Previously,  the
        requirements were in some cases only implicit in the discussion.
  
     - Added reference to Threat Analysis draft (TBD).
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
     Kempf, et. al.                  Expires July 2006              [Page 23]
  

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