[Docs] [txt|pdf] [draft-ietf-mipsho...] [Diff1] [Diff2] [IPR] [Errata]

Obsoleted by: 5380 EXPERIMENTAL
Errata Exist
Network Working Group                                         H. Soliman
Request for Comments: 4140                                       Flarion
Category: Experimental                                   C. Castelluccia
                                                                   INRIA
                                                             K. El Malki
                                                                Ericsson
                                                              L. Bellier
                                                                   INRIA
                                                             August 2005


         Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 Mobility Management (HMIPv6)

Status of This Memo

   This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
   community.  It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.
   Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested.
   Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).

Abstract

   This document introduces extensions to Mobile IPv6 and IPv6 Neighbour
   Discovery to allow for local mobility handling.  Hierarchical
   mobility management for Mobile IPv6 is designed to reduce the amount
   of signalling between the Mobile Node, its Correspondent Nodes, and
   its Home Agent.  The Mobility Anchor Point (MAP) described in this
   document can also be used to improve the performance of Mobile IPv6
   in terms of handover speed.


















Soliman, et al.               Experimental                      [Page 1]

RFC 4140                         HMIPv6                      August 2005


Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ....................................................3
   2. Terminology .....................................................4
   3. Overview of HMIPv6 ..............................................5
      3.1. HMIPv6 Operation ...........................................6
   4. Mobile IPv6 Extensions ..........................................8
      4.1. Local Binding Update .......................................8
   5. Neighbour Discovery Extension: The MAP Option Message Format ....9
   6. Protocol Operation .............................................10
      6.1. Mobile Node Operation .....................................10
           6.1.1. Sending Packets to Correspondent Nodes .............12
      6.2. MAP Operations ............................................12
      6.3. Home Agent Operations .....................................13
      6.4. Correspondent Node Operations .............................13
      6.5. Local Mobility Management Optimisation within a
           MAP Domain ................................................13
      6.6. Location Privacy ..........................................14
   7. MAP Discovery ..................................................14
      7.1. Dynamic MAP Discovery .....................................14
           7.1.1. Router Operation for Dynamic MAP Discovery .........15
           7.1.2. MAP Operation for Dynamic MAP Discovery ............15
      7.2. Mobile Node Operation .....................................16
   8. Updating Previous MAPs .........................................16
   9. Notes on MAP Selection by the Mobile Node ......................17
      9.1. MAP Selection in a Distributed-MAP Environment ............17
      9.2. MAP Selection in a Flat Mobility Management Architecture ..19
   10. Detection and Recovery from MAP Failures ......................19
   11. IANA Considerations ...........................................20
   12. Security Considerations .......................................20
       12.1. Mobile Node-MAP Security ................................20
       12.2. Mobile Node-Correspondent Node Security .................22
       12.3. Mobile Node-Home Agent Security .........................22
   13. Acknowledgments ...............................................22
   14. References ....................................................23
       14.1. Normative References ....................................23
       14.2. Informative References ..................................23
   Appendix A: Fast Mobile IPv6 Handovers and HMIPv6 .................24













Soliman, et al.               Experimental                      [Page 2]

RFC 4140                         HMIPv6                      August 2005


1.  Introduction

   This memo introduces the concept of a Hierarchical Mobile IPv6
   network, utilising a new node called the Mobility Anchor Point (MAP).

   Mobile IPv6 [1] allows nodes to move within the Internet topology
   while maintaining reachability and on-going connections between
   mobile and correspondent nodes.  To do this a mobile node sends
   Binding Updates (BUs) to its Home Agent (HA) and all Correspondent
   Nodes (CNs) it communicates with, every time it moves.
   Authenticating binding updates requires approximately 1.5 round-trip
   times between the mobile node and each correspondent node (for the
   entire return routability procedure in a best case scenario, i.e., no
   packet loss).  In addition, one round-trip time is needed to update
   the Home Agent; this can be done simultaneously while updating
   correspondent nodes.  The re-use of the home cookie (i.e.,
   eliminating HOTI/HOT) will not reduce the number of round trip times
   needed to update correspondent nodes.  These round trip delays will
   disrupt active connections every time a handoff to a new AR is
   performed.  Eliminating this additional delay element from the time-
   critical handover period will significantly improve the performance
   of Mobile IPv6.  Moreover, in the case of wireless links, such a
   solution reduces the number of messages sent over the air interface
   to all correspondent nodes and the Home Agent.  A local anchor point
   will also allow Mobile IPv6 to benefit from reduced mobility
   signalling with external networks.

   For these reasons a new Mobile IPv6 node, called the Mobility Anchor
   Point, is used and can be located at any level in a hierarchical
   network of routers, including the Access Router (AR).  Unlike Foreign
   Agents in IPv4, a MAP is not required on each subnet.  The MAP will
   limit the amount of Mobile IPv6 signalling outside the local domain.
   The introduction of the MAP provides a solution to the issues
   outlined earlier in the following way:

   - The mobile node sends Binding Updates to the local MAP rather than
     the HA (which is typically further away) and CNs

   - Only one Binding Update message needs to be transmitted by the MN
     before traffic from the HA and all CNs is re-routed to its new
     location.  This is independent of the number of CNs that the MN is
     communicating with.

   A MAP is essentially a local Home Agent.  The aim of introducing the
   hierarchical mobility management model in Mobile IPv6 is to enhance
   the performance of Mobile IPv6 while minimising the impact on Mobile
   IPv6 or other IPv6 protocols.  It also supports Fast Mobile IPv6
   Handovers to help Mobile Nodes achieve seamless mobility (see



Soliman, et al.               Experimental                      [Page 3]

RFC 4140                         HMIPv6                      August 2005


   Appendix A).  Furthermore, HMIPv6 allows mobile nodes to hide their
   location from correspondent nodes and Home Agents while using Mobile
   IPv6 route optimisation.

2.  Terminology

   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 [3].

   In addition, new terms are defined below:

   Access Router (AR)     The AR is the Mobile Node's default router.
                          The AR aggregates the outbound traffic of
                          mobile nodes.

   Mobility Anchor Point  A Mobility Anchor Point is a router located
   (MAP)                  in a network visited by the mobile node.  The
                          MAP is used by the MN as a local HA.  One or
                          more MAPs can exist within a visited network.

   Regional Care-of       An RCoA is an address obtained by the
   Address (RCoA)         mobile node from the visited network.  An RCoA
                          is an address on the MAP's subnet.  It is
                          auto-configured by the mobile node when
                          receiving the MAP option.

   HMIPv6-aware           An HMIPv6-aware mobile node is a mobile
   Mobile Node            node that can receive and process the MAP
                          option received from its default router.  An
                          HMIPv6-aware Mobile Node must also be able to
                          send local binding updates (Binding Update
                          with the M flag set).

   On-link Care-of        The LCoA is the on-link CoA configured on
   Address (LCoA)        a mobile node's interface based on the prefix
                          advertised by its default router.  In [1],
                          this is simply referred to as the Care-of-
                          address.  However, in this memo LCoA is used
                          to distinguish it from the RCoA.

   Local Binding Update   The MN sends a Local Binding Update to the MAP
                          in order to establish a binding between the
                          RCoA and LCoA.







Soliman, et al.               Experimental                      [Page 4]

RFC 4140                         HMIPv6                      August 2005


3.  Overview of HMIPv6

   This Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 scheme introduces a new function, the
   MAP, and minor extensions to the mobile node operation.  The
   correspondent node and Home Agent operation will not be affected.

   Just like Mobile IPv6, this solution is independent of the underlying
   access technology, allowing mobility within or between different
   types of access networks.

   A mobile node entering a MAP domain will receive Router
   Advertisements containing information on one or more local MAPs.  The
   MN can bind its current location (on-link CoA) with an address on the
   MAP's subnet (RCoA).  Acting as a local HA, the MAP will receive all
   packets on behalf of the mobile node it is serving and will
   encapsulate and forward them directly to the mobile node's current
   address.  If the mobile node changes its current address within a
   local MAP domain (LCoA), it only needs to register the new address
   with the MAP.  Hence, only the Regional CoA (RCoA) needs to be
   registered with correspondent nodes and the HA.  The RCoA does not
   change as long as the MN moves within a MAP domain (see below for
   definition).  This makes the mobile node's mobility transparent to
   the correspondent nodes it is communicating with.

   A MAP domain's boundaries are defined by the Access Routers (ARs)
   advertising the MAP information to the attached Mobile Nodes.  The
   detailed extensions to Mobile IPv6 and operations of the different
   nodes will be explained later in this document.

   It should be noted that the HMIPv6 concept is simply an extension to
   the Mobile IPv6 protocol.  An HMIPv6-aware mobile node with an
   implementation of Mobile IPv6 SHOULD choose to use the MAP when
   discovering such capability in a visited network.  However, in some
   cases the mobile node may prefer to simply use the standard Mobile
   IPv6 implementation.  For instance, the mobile node may be located in
   a visited network within its home site.  In this case, the HA is
   located near the visited network and could be used instead of a MAP.
   In this scenario, the mobile node would only update the HA whenever
   it moves.  The method to determine whether the HA is in the vicinity
   of the MN (e.g., same site) is outside the scope of this document.











Soliman, et al.               Experimental                      [Page 5]

RFC 4140                         HMIPv6                      August 2005


3.1.  HMIPv6 Operation

   The network architecture shown in Figure 1 illustrates an example of
   the use of the MAP in a visited network.

   In Figure 1, the MAP can help in providing seamless mobility for the
   mobile node as it moves from Access Router 1 (AR1) to Access Router 2
   (AR2), while communicating with the correspondent node.  A multi-
   level hierarchy is not required for a higher handover performance.
   Hence, it is sufficient to locate one or more MAPs (possibly covering
   the same domain) at any position in the operator's network.

                +-------+
                |  HA   |
                +-------+       +----+
                    |           | CN |
                    |           +----+
                    |             |
                    +-------+-----+
                            |
                            |RCoA
                        +-------+
                        |  MAP  |
                        +-------+
                         |     |
                         |     +--------+
                         |              |
                         |              |
                     +-----+         +-----+
                     | AR1 |         | AR2 |
                     +-----+         +-----+
                        LCoA1         LCoA2

                    +----+
                    | MN |
                    +----+   ------------>
                               Movement

             Figure 1: Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 domain

   Upon arrival in a visited network, the mobile node will discover the
   global address of the MAP.  This address is stored in the Access
   Routers and communicated to the mobile node via Router Advertisements
   (RAs).  A new option for RAs is defined later in this specification.
   This is needed to inform mobile nodes about the presence of the MAP
   (MAP discovery).  The discovery phase will also inform the mobile
   node of the distance of the MAP from the mobile node.  For example,
   the MAP function could be implemented as shown in Figure 1, and, at



Soliman, et al.               Experimental                      [Page 6]

RFC 4140                         HMIPv6                      August 2005


   the same time, also be implemented in AR1 and AR2.  In this case the
   mobile node can choose the first hop MAP or one further up in the
   hierarchy of routers.  The details on how to choose a MAP are
   provided in section 10.

   The process of MAP discovery continues as the mobile node moves from
   one subnet to the next.  Every time the mobile node detects movement,
   it will also detect whether it is still in the same MAP domain.  The
   router advertisement used to detect movement will also inform the
   mobile node, through the MAP option, whether it is still in the same
   MAP domain.  As the mobile node roams within a MAP domain, it will
   continue to receive the same MAP option included in router
   advertisements from its AR.  If a change in the advertised MAP's
   address is received, the mobile node MUST act on the change by
   sending Binding Updates to its HA and correspondent nodes.

   If the mobile node is not HMIPv6-aware, then no MAP Discovery will be
   performed, resulting in the mobile node using the Mobile IPv6 [1]
   protocol for its mobility management.  On the other hand, if the
   mobile node is HMIPv6-aware it SHOULD choose to use its HMIPv6
   implementation.  If so, the mobile node will first need to register
   with a MAP by sending it a BU containing its Home Address and on-link
   address (LCoA).  The Home address used in the BU is the RCoA.  The
   MAP MUST store this information in its Binding Cache to be able to
   forward packets to their final destination when received from the
   different correspondent nodes or HAs.

   The mobile node will always need to know the original sender of any
   received packets to determine if route optimisation is required.
   This information will be available to the mobile node because the MAP
   does not modify the contents of the original packet.  Normal
   processing of the received packets (as described in [1]) will give
   the mobile node the necessary information.

   To use the network bandwidth in a more efficient manner, a mobile
   node may decide to register with more than one MAP simultaneously and
   to use each MAP address for a specific group of correspondent nodes.
   For example, in Fig 1, if the correspondent node happens to exist on
   the same link as the mobile node, it would be more efficient to use
   the first hop MAP (in this case assume it is AR1) for communication
   between them.  This will avoid sending all packets via the "highest"
   MAP in the hierarchy and thus will result in more efficient usage of
   network bandwidth.  The mobile node can also use its current on-link
   address (LCoA) as a CoA, as specified in [1].  Note that the mobile
   node MUST NOT present an RCoA from a MAP's subnet as an LCoA in a
   binding update sent to another MAP.  The LCoA included in the binding
   update MUST be the mobile node's address derived from the prefix
   advertised on its link.



Soliman, et al.               Experimental                      [Page 7]

RFC 4140                         HMIPv6                      August 2005


   If a router advertisement is used for MAP discovery, as described in
   this document, all ARs belonging to the MAP domain MUST advertise the
   MAP's IP address.  The same concept (advertising the MAP's presence
   within its domain) should be used if other methods of MAP discovery
   are introduced in future.

4.  Mobile IPv6 Extensions

   This section outlines the extensions proposed to the binding update
   specified in [1].

4.1.  Local Binding Update

   A new flag is added: the M flag, which indicates MAP registration.
   When a mobile node registers with the MAP, the M and A flags MUST be
   set to distinguish this registration from a BU being sent to the HA
   or a correspondent node.

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
                                   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                   |            Sequence #         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |A|H|L|K|M|      Reserved       |            Lifetime           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Description of extensions to the binding update:

       M              If set to 1 it indicates a MAP registration.

   It should be noted that this is an extension to the Binding update
   specified in [1].
















Soliman, et al.               Experimental                      [Page 8]

RFC 4140                         HMIPv6                      August 2005


5.  Neighbour Discovery Extension: The MAP Option Message Format

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Type      |    Length     |  Dist |  Pref |R|  Reserved   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                      Valid Lifetime                           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +                  Global IP Address for MAP                    +
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Fields:

      Type            IPv6 Neighbor Discovery option.  23.

      Length          8-bit unsigned integer.  The length of the option
                      and MUST be set to 3.

      Dist            A 4-bit unsigned integer identifying the Distance
                      Between MAP and the receiver of the advertisement.
                      Its default value SHOULD be set to 1 if Dynamic
                      MAP discovery is used.  The Distance MUST be set
                      to 1 if the MAP is on the same link as the mobile
                      node.  This field need not be interpreted as the
                      number of hops between MAP and the mobile node.
                      The only requirement is that the meaning of the
                      Distance field is consistently interpreted within
                      one Domain.  A Distance value of Zero MUST NOT be
                      used.

      Pref            The preference of a MAP.  A 4-bit unsigned
                      integer.  A decimal value of 15 indicates the
                      highest availability.

      R               When set to 1, it indicates that the mobile node
                      MUST form an RCoA based on the prefix in the MAP
                      option.







Soliman, et al.               Experimental                      [Page 9]

RFC 4140                         HMIPv6                      August 2005


      Valid Lifetime  The minimum value (in seconds) of both the
                      preferred and valid lifetimes of the prefix
                      assigned to the MAP's subnet.  This value
                      indicates the validity of the MAP's address and
                      consequently the time for which the RCoA is valid.

      Global Address  One of the MAP's global addresses.  The 64-bit
                      prefix extracted from this address MUST be
                      configured in the MAP to be used for RCoA
                      construction by the mobile node.

   Although not explicitly included in the MAP option, the prefix length
   of the MAP's Global IP address MUST be 64.  This prefix is the one
   used by the mobile node to form an RCoA, by appending a 64-bit
   identifier to the prefix.  Thus, it necessitates a static prefix
   length for the MAP's subnet.

6.  Protocol Operation

   This section describes the HMIPv6 protocol.  In HMIPv6, the mobile
   node has two addresses, an RCoA on the MAP's link and an on-link CoA
   (LCoA).  This RCoA is formed in a stateless manner by combining the
   mobile node's interface identifier and the subnet prefix received in
   the MAP option.

   As illustrated in this section, this protocol requires updating the
   mobile nodes' implementation only.  The HA and correspondent node are
   unchanged.  The MAP performs the function of a "local" HA that binds
   the mobile node's RCoA to an LCoA.

6.1.  Mobile Node Operation

   When a mobile node moves into a new MAP domain (i.e., its MAP
   changes), it needs to configure two CoAs: an RCoA on the MAP's link
   and an on-link CoA (LCoA).  The RCoA is formed in a stateless manner.
   After forming the RCoA based on the prefix received in the MAP
   option, the mobile node sends a local BU to the MAP with the A and M
   flags set.  The local BU is a BU defined in [1] and includes the
   mobile node's RCoA in the Home Address Option.  No alternate-CoA
   option is needed in this message.  The LCoA is used as the source
   address of the BU.  This BU will bind the mobile node's RCoA (similar
   to a Home Address) to its LCoA.  The MAP (acting as a HA) will then
   perform DAD (when a new binding is being created) for the mobile
   node's RCoA on its link and return a Binding Acknowledgement to the
   MN.  This acknowledgement identifies the binding as successful or
   contains the appropriate fault code.  No new error codes need to be





Soliman, et al.               Experimental                     [Page 10]

RFC 4140                         HMIPv6                      August 2005


   supported by the mobile node for this operation.  The mobile node
   MUST silently ignore binding acknowledgements that do not contain a
   routing header type 2, which includes the mobile node's RCoA.

   Following a successful registration with the MAP, a bi-directional
   tunnel between the mobile node and the MAP is established.  All
   packets sent by the mobile node are tunnelled to the MAP.  The outer
   header contains the mobile node's LCoA in the source address field
   and the MAP's address in the destination address field.  The inner
   header contains the mobile node's RCoA in the source address field
   and the peer's address in the destination address field.  Similarly,
   all packets addressed to the mobile node's RCoA are intercepted by
   the MAP and tunnelled to the mobile node's LCoA.

   This specification allows a mobile node to use more than one RCoA if
   it received more than one MAP option.  In this case, the mobile node
   MUST perform the binding update procedure for each RCoA.  In
   addition, the mobile node MUST NOT use one RCoA (e.g., RCoA1) derived
   from a MAP's prefix (e.g., MAP1) as a care-of address in its binding
   update to another MAP (e.g., MAP2).  This would force packets to be
   encapsulated several times (twice in this example) on their path to
   the mobile node.  This form of multi-level hierarchy will reduce the
   protocol's efficiency and performance.

   After registering with the MAP, the mobile node MUST register its new
   RCoA with its HA by sending a BU that specifies the binding (RCoA,
   Home Address) as in Mobile IPv6.  The mobile node's Home Address is
   used in the home address option and the RCoA is used as the care-of
   address in the source address field.  The mobile node may also send a
   similar BU (i.e., that specifies the binding between the Home Address
   and the RCoA) to its current correspondent nodes.

   The mobile node SHOULD wait for the binding acknowledgement from the
   MAP before registering with its HA.  It should be noted that when
   binding the RCoA with the HA and correspondent nodes, the binding
   lifetime MUST NOT be larger than the mobile node's binding lifetime
   with the MAP, which is received in the Binding Acknowledgement.

   In order to speed up the handover between MAPs and reduce packet
   loss, a mobile node SHOULD send a local BU to its previous MAP,
   specifying its new LCoA.  Packets in transit that reach the previous
   MAP are then forwarded to the new LCoA.

   The MAP will receive packets addressed to the mobile node's RCoA
   (from the HA or correspondent nodes).  Packets will be tunnelled from
   the MAP to the mobile node's LCoA.  The mobile node will de-capsulate
   the packets and process them in the normal manner.




Soliman, et al.               Experimental                     [Page 11]

RFC 4140                         HMIPv6                      August 2005


   When the mobile node moves within the same MAP domain, it should only
   register its new LCoA with its MAP.  In this case, the RCoA remains
   unchanged.

   Note that a mobile node may send a BU containing its LCoA (instead of
   its RCoA) to correspondent nodes, which are connected to its same
   link.  Packets will then be routed directly without going through the
   MAP.

6.1.1.  Sending Packets to Correspondent Nodes

   The mobile node can communicate with a correspondent node through the
   HA, or in a route-optimised manner, as described in [1].  When
   communicating through the HA, the message formats in [1] can be re-
   used.

   If the mobile node communicates directly with the correspondent node
   (i.e., the CN has a binding cache entry for the mobile node), the
   mobile node MUST use the same care-of address used to create a
   binding cache entry in the correspondent node (RCoA) as a source
   address.  According to [1], the mobile node MUST also include a Home
   Address option in outgoing packets.  The Home address option MUST
   contain the mobile node's home address.

6.2.  MAP Operations

   The MAP acts like a HA; it intercepts all packets addressed to
   registered mobile nodes and tunnels them to the corresponding LCoA,
   which is stored in its binding cache.

   A MAP has no knowledge of the mobile node's Home address.  The mobile
   node will send a local BU to the MAP with the M and A flags set.  The
   aim of this BU is to inform the MAP that the mobile node has formed
   an RCoA (contained in the BU as a Home address).  If successful, the
   MAP MUST return a binding acknowledgement to the mobile node,
   indicating a successful registration.  This is identical to the HA
   operation in [1].  No new error codes are introduced for HMIPv6.  The
   binding acknowledgement MUST include a routing header type 2 that
   contains the mobile node's RCoA.

   The MAP MUST be able to accept packets tunnelled from the mobile
   node, with the mobile node being the tunnel entry point and the MAP
   being the tunnel exit point.

   The MAP acts as a HA for the RCoA.  Packets addressed to the RCOA are
   intercepted by the MAP, using proxy Neighbour Advertisement, and then
   encapsulated and routed to the mobile node's LCoA.  This operation is
   identical to that of the HA described in [1].



Soliman, et al.               Experimental                     [Page 12]

RFC 4140                         HMIPv6                      August 2005


   A MAP MAY be configured with the list of valid on-link prefixes that
   mobile nodes can use to derive LCoAs.  This is useful for network
   operators to stop mobile nodes from continuing to use the MAP after
   moving to a different administrative domain.  If a mobile node sent a
   binding update containing an LCoA that is not in the MAP's "valid
   on-link prefixes" list, the MAP could reject the binding update using
   existing error code 129 (administratively prohibited).

6.3.  Home Agent Operations

   The support of HMIPv6 is completely transparent to the HA's
   operation.  Packets addressed to a mobile node's Home Address will be
   forwarded by the HA to its RCoA, as described in [1].

6.4.  Correspondent Node Operations

   HMIPv6 is completely transparent to correspondent nodes.

6.5.  Local Mobility Management Optimisation within a MAP Domain

   In [1], it is stated that for short-term communication, particularly
   communication that may easily be retried upon failure, the mobile
   node MAY choose to directly use one of its care-of addresses as the
   source of the packet, thus not requiring the use of a Home Address
   option in the packet.  Such use of the CoA will reduce the overhead
   of sending each packet due to the absence of additional options.  In
   addition, it will provide an optimal route between the mobile node
   and correspondent node.

   In HMIPv6, a mobile node can use its RCoA as the source address
   without using a Home Address option.  In other words, the RCoA can be
   used as a potential source address for upper layers.  Using this
   feature, the mobile node will be seen by the correspondent node as a
   fixed node while moving within a MAP domain.

   This usage of the RCoA does not have the cost of Mobile IPv6 (i.e.,
   no bindings or home address options are sent over the Internet), but
   still provides local mobility management to the mobile nodes.
   Although such use of RCoA does not provide global mobility (i.e.,
   communication is broken when a mobile host moves to a new MAP), it
   would be useful for several applications (e.g., web browsing).  The
   validity of the RCoA as a source address used by applications will
   depend on the size of a MAP domain and the speed of the mobile node.
   Furthermore, because the support for BU processing in correspondent
   nodes is not mandated in [1], this mechanism can provide a way of
   obtaining route optimisation without sending BUs to the correspondent
   nodes.




Soliman, et al.               Experimental                     [Page 13]

RFC 4140                         HMIPv6                      August 2005


   Enabling this mechanism can be done by presenting the RCoA as a
   temporary home address for the mobile node.  This may require an
   implementation to augment its source address selection algorithm with
   the knowledge of the RCoA in order to use it for the appropriate
   applications.

6.6.  Location Privacy

   In HMIPv6, a mobile node hides its LCoA from its corresponding nodes
   and its home agent by using its RCoA in the source field of the
   packets that it sends.  As a result, the location tracking of a
   mobile node by its corresponding nodes or its home agent is difficult
   because they only know its RCoA and not its LCoA.

7.  MAP Discovery

   This section describes how a mobile node obtains the MAP address and
   subnet prefix, and how ARs in a domain discover MAPs.  Two different
   methods for MAP discovery are defined below.

   Dynamic MAP Discovery is based on propagating the MAP option in
   Router Advertisements from the MAP to the mobile node through certain
   (configured) router interfaces within the routers in an operator's
   network.  This requires manual configuration of the MAP and also that
   the routers receiving the MAP option allow them to propagate the
   option on certain interfaces.  To ensure a secure communication
   between routers, router advertisements that are sent between routers
   for Dynamic MAP discovery SHOULD be authenticated (e.g., using AH,
   ESP, or SEND).  In the case where this authentication is not possible
   (e.g., third party routers exist between the MAP and ARs), a network
   operator may prefer to manually configure all the ARs to send the MAP
   option, as described in this document.

   Manual configuration of the MAP option information in ARs and other
   MAPs in the same domain is the default mechanism.  It should also be
   possible to configure ARs and MAPs to enable dynamic mechanisms for
   MAP Discovery.

7.1.  Dynamic MAP Discovery

   The process of MAP discovery can be performed in different ways.
   Router advertisements are used for Dynamic MAP Discovery by
   introducing a new option.  The access router is required to send the
   MAP option in its router advertisements.  This option includes the
   distance vector from the mobile node (which may not imply the real
   distance in terms of the number of hops), the preference for this
   particular MAP, the MAP's global IP address and subnet prefix




Soliman, et al.               Experimental                     [Page 14]

RFC 4140                         HMIPv6                      August 2005


7.1.1.  Router Operation for Dynamic MAP Discovery

   The ARs within a MAP domain may be configured dynamically with the
   information related to the MAP options.  ARs may obtain this
   information by listening for RAs with MAP options.  Each MAP in the
   network needs to be configured with a default preference, the right
   interfaces to send this option on, and the IP address to be sent.
   The initial value of the "Distance" field MAY be set to a default
   value of 1 and MUST NOT be set to zero.  Routers in the MAP domain
   should be configured to re-send the MAP option on certain interfaces.

   Upon reception of a router advertisement with the MAP option, the
   receiving router MUST copy the option and re-send it after
   incrementing the Distance field by one.  If the receiving router was
   also a MAP, it MUST send its own option, together with the received
   option, in the same advertisement.  If a router receives more than
   one MAP option for the same MAP (i.e., the same IP address in the MAP
   option), from two different interfaces, it MUST choose the option
   with the smallest distance field.

   In this manner, information about one or more MAPs can be dynamically
   passed to a mobile node.  Furthermore, by performing the discovery
   phase in this way, different MAP nodes are able to change their
   preferences dynamically based on the local policies, node overload or
   other load-sharing protocols being used.

7.1.2.  MAP Operation for Dynamic MAP Discovery

   A MAP will be configured to send its option or relay MAP options
   belonging to other MAPs onto certain interfaces.  The choice of
   interfaces is done by the network administrator (i.e., manual
   configuration) and depends on the network topology.  A default
   preference value of 10 may be assigned to each MAP.  It should be
   noted that a MAP can change its preference value at any time due to
   various reasons (e.g., node overload or load sharing).  A preference
   value of zero means the MAP SHOULD NOT be chosen by new mobile nodes.
   This value could be reached in cases of node overload or partial node
   failures.

   The MAP option is propagated towards ARs in its domain.  Each router
   along the path to an AR will increment the Distance field by one.  If
   a router that is also a MAP receives advertisements from other MAPs,
   it MUST add its own MAP option and propagate both options to the next
   router or to the AR (if it has direct connectivity with the AR).







Soliman, et al.               Experimental                     [Page 15]

RFC 4140                         HMIPv6                      August 2005


7.2.  Mobile Node Operation

   When an HMIPv6-aware mobile node receives a router advertisement, it
   should search for the MAP option.  One or more options may be found
   for different MAP IP addresses.

   A mobile node SHOULD register with the MAP having the highest
   preference value.  A MAP with a preference value of zero SHOULD NOT
   be used for new local BUs (i.e., the mobile node can refresh existing
   bindings but cannot create new ones).  However, a mobile node MAY
   choose to register with one MAP over another, depending on the value
   received in the Distance field, provided that the preference value is
   above zero.

   A MAP option containing a valid lifetime value of zero means that
   this MAP MUST NOT be selected by the MN.  A valid lifetime of zero
   indicates a MAP failure.  When this option is received, a mobile node
   MUST choose another MAP and create new bindings.  Any existing
   bindings with this MAP can be assumed to be lost.  If no other MAP is
   available, the mobile node MUST revert to using the Mobile IPv6
   protocol, as specified in [1].

   If a multihomed mobile node has access to several ARs simultaneously
   (on different interfaces), it SHOULD use an LCoA on the link defined
   by the AR that advertises its current MAP.

   A mobile node MUST store the received option(s) in order to choose at
   least one MAP to register with.  Storing the options is essential, as
   they will be compared to other options received later for the purpose
   of the movement detection algorithm.

   If no MAP options are found in the router advertisement, the mobile
   node MUST use the Mobile IPv6 protocol, as specified in [1].

   If the R flag is set, the mobile node MUST use its RCoA as the Home
   Address when performing the MAP registration.  RCoA is then bound to
   the LCoA in the MAP's Binding Cache.

   A mobile node MAY choose to register with more than one MAP
   simultaneously, or use both the RCoA and its LCoA as care-of
   addresses simultaneously with different correspondent nodes.

8.  Updating Previous MAPs

   When a mobile node moves into a new MAP domain, the mobile node may
   send a BU to the previous MAP requesting it to forward packets
   addressed to the mobile node's new CoA.  An administrator MAY
   restrict the MAP from forwarding packets to LCoAs outside the MAP's



Soliman, et al.               Experimental                     [Page 16]

RFC 4140                         HMIPv6                      August 2005


   domain.  However, it is RECOMMENDED that MAPs be allowed to forward
   packets to LCoAs associated with some of the ARs in neighbouring MAP
   domains, provided that they are located within the same
   administrative domain.

   For instance, a MAP could be configured to forward packets to LCoAs
   associated with ARs that are geographically adjacent to ARs on the
   boundary of its domain.  This will allow for a smooth inter-MAP
   handover as it allows the mobile node to continue to receive packets
   while updating the new MAP, its HA and, potentially, correspondent
   nodes.

9.  Notes on MAP Selection by the Mobile Node

   HMIPv6 provides a flexible mechanism for local mobility management
   within a visited network.  As explained earlier, a MAP can exist
   anywhere in the operator's network (including the AR).  Several MAPs
   can be located within the same domain independently of each other.
   In addition, overlapping MAP domains are also allowed and
   recommended.  Both static and dynamic hierarchies are supported.

   When the mobile node receives a router advertisement including a MAP
   option, it should perform actions according to the following movement
   detection mechanisms.  In a Hierarchical Mobile IP network such as
   the one described in this document, the mobile node should be:

      - "Eager" to perform new bindings
      - "Lazy" in releasing existing bindings

   The above means that the mobile node should register with any "new"
   MAP advertised by the AR (Eager).  The method by which the mobile
   node determines whether the MAP is a "new" MAP is described in
   section 9.1.  The mobile node should not release existing bindings
   until it no longer receives the MAP option (or receives it with a
   lifetime of zero) or the lifetime of its existing binding expires
   (Lazy).  This Eager-Lazy approach, described above, will assist in
   providing a fallback mechanism in case of the failure of one of the
   MAP routers, as it will reduce the time it takes for a mobile node to
   inform its correspondent nodes and HA about its new care-of address.

9.1.  MAP Selection in a Distributed-MAP Environment

   The mobile node needs to consider several factors to optimally select
   one or more MAPs, where several MAPs are available in the same
   domain.






Soliman, et al.               Experimental                     [Page 17]

RFC 4140                         HMIPv6                      August 2005


   There are no benefits foreseen in selecting more than one MAP and
   forcing packets to be sent from the higher MAP down through a
   hierarchy of MAPs.  This approach may add forwarding delays and
   eliminate the robustness of IP routing between the highest MAP and
   the mobile node; therefore, it is prohibited by this specification.
   Allowing more than one MAP ("above" the AR) within a network should
   not imply that the mobile node forces packets to be routed down the
   hierarchy of MAPs.  However, placing more than one MAP "above" the AR
   can be used for redundancy and as an optimisation for the different
   mobility scenarios experienced by mobile nodes.  The MAPs are used
   independently of each other by the MN (e.g., each MAP is used for
   communication to a certain set of CNs).

   In terms of the Distance-based selection in a network with several
   MAPs, a mobile node may choose to register with the furthest MAP to
   avoid frequent re-registrations.  This is particularly important for
   fast mobile nodes that will perform frequent handoffs.  In this
   scenario, the choice of a more distant MAP would reduce the
   probability of having to change a MAP and informing all correspondent
   nodes and the HA.  This specification does not provide an algorithm
   for the distance-based MAP selection.  However, such an algorithm may
   be introduced in future extensions utilising information about the
   speed of mobility from lower layers.

   In a scenario where several MAPs are discovered by the mobile node in
   one domain, the mobile node may need some sophisticated algorithms to
   be able to select the appropriate MAP.  These algorithms would have
   the mobile node speed as an input (for distance based selection)
   combined with the preference field in the MAP option.  However, this
   specification proposes that the mobile node uses the following
   algorithm as a default, where other optimised algorithms are not
   available.  The following algorithm is simply based on selecting the
   MAP that is most distant, provided that its preference value did not
   reach a value of zero.  The mobile node operation is shown below:

   1.  Receive and parse all MAP options
   2.  Arrange MAPs in a descending order, starting with the furthest
       away MAP (i.e., MAP option having largest Dist field)
   3.  Select first MAP in list
   4.  If either the preference value or the valid lifetime fields are
       set to zero, select the following MAP in the list.
   5.  Repeat step (4) while new MAP options still exist, until a MAP is
       found with a non-zero preference value and a non-zero valid
       lifetime.







Soliman, et al.               Experimental                     [Page 18]

RFC 4140                         HMIPv6                      August 2005


   Implementing the steps above would result in mobile nodes selecting,
   by default, the most distant or furthest available MAP.  This will
   continue until the preference value reduces to zero.  Following this,
   mobile nodes will start selecting another MAP.

9.2.  MAP Selection in a Flat Mobility Management Architecture

   Network operators may choose a flat architecture in some cases where
   a Mobile IPv6 handover may be considered a rare event.  In these
   scenarios, operators may choose to include the MAP function in ARs
   only.  The inclusion of the MAP function in ARs can still be useful
   to reduce the time required to update all correspondent nodes and the
   HA.  In this scenario, a mobile node may choose a MAP (in the AR) as
   an anchor point when performing a handoff.  This kind of dynamic
   hierarchy (or anchoring) is only recommended for cases where inter-AR
   u0movement is not frequent.

10.  Detection and Recovery from MAP Failures

   This specification introduces a MAP that can be seen as a local Home
   Agent in a visited network.  A MAP, like a Home Agent, is a single
   point of failure.  If a MAP fails, its binding cache content will be
   lost, resulting in loss of communication between mobile and
   correspondent nodes.  This situation may be avoided by using more
   than one MAP on the same link and by utilising some form of context
   transfer protocol between them.  Alternatively, future versions of
   the Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol [4] or HA redundancy protocols
   may allow networks to recover from MAP failures.

   In cases where such protocols are not supported, the mobile node
   would need to detect MAP failures.  The mobile node can detect this
   situation when it receives a router advertisement containing a MAP
   option with a lifetime of zero.  The mobile node should start the MAP
   discovery process and attempt to register with another MAP.  After it
   has selected and registered with another MAP, it will also need to
   inform correspondent nodes and the Home Agent if its RCoA has
   changed.  Note that in the presence of a protocol that transfers
   binding cache entries between MAPs for redundancy purposes, a new MAP
   may be able to provide the same RCoA to the mobile node (e.g., if
   both MAPs advertise the same prefix in the MAP option).  This would
   save the mobile node from updating correspondent nodes and the Home
   Agent.

   Access routers can be triggered to advertise a MAP option with a
   lifetime of zero (indicating MAP failure) in different ways:

      - By manual intervention.
      - In a dynamic manner.



Soliman, et al.               Experimental                     [Page 19]

RFC 4140                         HMIPv6                      August 2005


   ARs can perform Dynamic detection of MAP failure by sending ICMP Echo
   request messages to the MAP regularly (e.g., every ten seconds).  If
   no response is received, an AR may try to aggressively send echo
   requests to the MAP for a short period of time (e.g., once every 5
   seconds for 15 seconds); if no reply is received, a MAP option may be
   sent with a valid lifetime value of zero.

   This specification does not mandate a particular recovery mechanism.
   However, any similar mechanism between the MAP and an AR SHOULD be
   secure to allow for message authentication, integrity protection, and
   protection against replay attacks.

11.  IANA Considerations

   Section 4 introduces a new flag (M) to the Binding Update specified
   in RFC 3775.

   Section 5 introduces a new IPv6 Neighbour Discovery Option called the
   MAP Option.  IANA has assigned the Option Type value 23 for the MAP
   Option within the option numbering space for IPv6 Neighbour Discovery
   messages.

12.  Security Considerations

   This specification introduces a new concept to Mobile IPv6, namely, a
   Mobility Anchor Point that acts as a local Home Agent.  It is crucial
   that the security relationship between the mobile node and the MAP is
   strong; it MUST involve mutual authentication, integrity protection,
   and protection against replay attacks.  Confidentiality may be needed
   for payload traffic, but is not required for binding updates to the
   MAP.  The absence of any of these protections may lead to malicious
   mobile nodes impersonating other legitimate ones or impersonating a
   MAP.  Any of these attacks will undoubtedly cause undesirable impacts
   to the mobile node's communication with all correspondent nodes
   having knowledge of the mobile node's RCoA.

   Three different relationships (related to securing binding updates)
   need to be considered:

      1) The mobile node - MAP
      2) The mobile node - Home Agent
      3) The mobile node - correspondent node

12.1.  Mobile Node-MAP Security

   In order to allow a mobile node to use the MAP's forwarding service,
   initial authorisation (specifically for the service, not for the
   RCoA) MAY be needed.  Authorising a mobile node to use the MAP



Soliman, et al.               Experimental                     [Page 20]

RFC 4140                         HMIPv6                      August 2005


   service can be done based on the identity of the mobile node
   exchanged during the SA negotiation process.  The authorisation may
   be granted based on the mobile node's identity, or based on the
   identity of a Certificate Authority (CA) that the MAP trusts.  For
   instance, if the mobile node presents a certificate signed by a
   trusted entity (e.g., a CA that belongs to the same administrative
   domain, or another trusted roaming partner), it would be sufficient
   for the MAP to authorise the use of its service.  Note that this
   level of authorisation is independent of authorising the use of a
   particular RCoA.  Similarly, the mobile node would trust the MAP if
   it presents a certificate signed by the same CA or by another CA that
   the mobile node is configured to trust (e.g., a roaming partner).

   HMIPv6 uses an additional registration between the mobile node and
   its current MAP.  As explained in this document, when a mobile node
   moves into a new domain (i.e., served by a new MAP), it obtains an
   RCoA, an LCoA and registers the binding between these two addresses
   with the new MAP.  The MAP then verifies whether the RCoA has not
   been registered yet and, if so, it creates a binding cache entry with
   the RCoA and LCoA.  Whenever the mobile node gets a new LCoA, it
   needs to send a new BU that specifies the binding between RCoA and
   its new LCoA.  This BU needs to be authenticated, otherwise any host
   could send a BU for the mobile node's RCoA and hijack the mobile
   node's packets.  However, because the RCoA is temporary and is not
   bound to a particular node, a mobile node does not have to initially
   (before the first binding update) prove that it owns its RCoA (unlike
   the requirement on home addresses in Mobile IPv6) when it establishes
   a Security Association with its MAP.  A MAP only needs to ensure that
   a BU for a particular RCoA was issued by the same mobile node that
   established the Security Association for that RCoA.

   The MAP does not need to have prior knowledge of the identity of the
   mobile node nor its Home Address.  As a result the SA between the
   mobile node and the MAP can be established using any key
   establishment protocols such as IKE.  A return routability test is
   not necessary.

   The MAP needs to set the SA for the RCoA (not the LCoA).  This can be
   performed with IKE [2].  The mobile node uses its LCoA as the source
   address, but specifies that the RCoA should be used in the SA.  This
   is achieved by using the RCoA as the identity in IKE Phase 2
   negotiation.  This step is identical to the use of the home address
   in IKE phase 2.

   If a binding cache entry exists for a given RCoA, the MAP's IKE
   policy check MUST point to the SA used to install the entry.  If the
   mobile node's credentials stored in the existing SA do not match the
   ones provided in the current negotiation, the MAP MUST reject the new



Soliman, et al.               Experimental                     [Page 21]

RFC 4140                         HMIPv6                      August 2005


   SA establishment request for such RCoA with an INVALID-ID-INFORMATION
   notification [2].  This is to prevent two different mobile nodes from
   registering (intentionally or not) the same RCoA.  Upon receiving
   this notification, the mobile node SHOULD generate a new RCoA and
   restart the IKE negotiation.  Alternatively, a MAP may decide that,
   if a binding cache entry already exists for a particular RCoA, no new
   security association should be established for such RCoA; this is
   independent of the mobile node credentials.  This prevents the mobile
   node from being able to re-establish a security association for the
   same RCoA (i.e., to change session keys).  However, this is not a
   major problem because the SA will typically only be used to protect
   signalling traffic when a MN moves, and not for the actual data
   traffic sent to arbitrary nodes.

   Binding updates between the MAP and the mobile node MUST be protected
   with either AH or ESP in transport mode.  When ESP is used, a non-
   null authentication algorithm MUST be used.

12.2.  Mobile Node-Correspondent Node Security

   Mobile IPv6 [1] defines a return routability procedure that allows
   mobile and correspondent nodes to authenticate binding updates and
   acknowledgements.  This specification does not impact the return
   routability test defined in [1].  However, it is important to note
   that mobile node implementers need to be careful when selecting the
   source address of the HOTI and COTI messages, defined in [1].  The
   source address used in HOTI messages MUST be the mobile node's home
   address.  The packet containing the HOTI message is encapsulated
   twice.  The inner encapsulating header contains the RCoA in the
   source address field and the home agent's address in the destination
   address field.  The outer encapsulating header contains the mobile
   node's LCoA in the source address field and the MAP's address in the
   destination field.

12.3.  Mobile Node-Home Agent Security

   The security relationship between the mobile node and its Home Agent,
   as discussed in [1], is not impacted by this specification.

13.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Conny Larsson (Ericsson) and Mattias
   Pettersson (Ericsson) for their valuable input to this document.  The
   authors would also like to thank the members of the French RNRT
   MobiSecV6 project (BULL, France Telecom and INRIA) for testing the
   first implementation and for their valuable feedback.  The INRIA
   HMIPv6 project is partially funded by the French Government.




Soliman, et al.               Experimental                     [Page 22]

RFC 4140                         HMIPv6                      August 2005


   In addition, the authors would like to thank the following members of
   the working group in alphabetical order: Samita Chakrabarti (Sun),
   Gregory Daley (Monash University), Francis Dupont (GET/Enst
   Bretagne), Gopal Dommety (Cisco), Eva Gustaffson (Ericsson), Dave
   Johnson (Rice University), Annika Jonsson (Ericsson), James Kempf
   (Docomo labs), Martti Kuparinen (Ericsson) Fergal Ladley, Gabriel
   Montenegro (Sun), Nick "Sharkey" Moore (Monash University) Erik
   Nordmark (Sun), Basavaraj Patil (Nokia), Brett Pentland (Monash
   University), and Alper Yegin (Samsung) for their comments on the
   document.

14.  References

14.1.  Normative References

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

   [2]  Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "IP Authentication Header", RFC 2402,
        November 1998.

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

14.2.  Informative References

   [4]  Koodli, R., "Fast Handovers for Mobile IPv6", RFC 4068, July
        2005.

   [5]  Ferguson, P. and D. Senie, "Network Ingress Filtering: Defeating
        Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source Address
        Spoofing", BCP 38, RFC 2827, May 2000.

   [6]  Arkko, J., Kempf, J., Zill, B., and P. Nikander, "SEcure
        Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", RFC 3971, March 2005.
















Soliman, et al.               Experimental                     [Page 23]

RFC 4140                         HMIPv6                      August 2005


Appendix A: Fast Mobile IPv6 Handovers and HMIPv6

   Fast Handovers are required to ensure that the layer 3 (Mobile IP)
   handover delay is minimised, thus also minimising, and possibly
   eliminating, the period of service disruption which normally occurs
   when a mobile node moves between two ARs.  This period of service
   disruption usually occurs due to the time required by the mobile node
   to update its HA using Binding Updates after it moves between ARs.
   During this time period the mobile node cannot resume or continue
   communications.  The mechanism to achieve Fast Handovers with Mobile
   IPv6 is described in [5] and is briefly summarised here.  This
   mechanism allows the anticipation of the layer 3 handover, such that
   data traffic can be redirected to the mobile node's new location
   before it moves there.

   While the mobile node is connected to its previous Access Router
   (PAR) and is about to move to a new Access Router (NAR), the Fast
   Handovers in Mobile IPv6 requires in sequence:

   1) The mobile node to obtain a new care-of address at the NAR while
      connected to the PAR.

   2) New CoA to be used at NAR case: the mobile node to send a F-BU
      (Fast BU) to its previous anchor point (i.e., PAR) to update its
      binding cache with the mobile node's new CoA while still attached
      to PAR.

   3) The previous anchor point (i.e., PAR) to start forwarding packets
      destined for the mobile node to the mobile node's new CoA at NAR
      (or old CoA tunnelled to NAR, if new CoA is not applicable).

   4) Old CoA to be used at NAR case: the mobile node to send a F-BU
      (Fast BU) to its previous anchor point (i.e., PAR), after it has
      moved and attached to NAR, in order to update its binding cache
      with the mobile node's new CoA.

   The mobile node or PAR may initiate the Fast Handover procedure by
   using wireless link-layer information or link-layer triggers that
   inform that the mobile node will soon be handed off between two
   wireless access points respectively attached to PAR and NAR.  If the
   "trigger" is received at the mobile node, the mobile node will
   initiate the layer-3 handover process by sending a Proxy Router
   Solicitation message to PAR.  Instead, if the "trigger" is received
   at PAR, then it will transmit a Proxy Router Advertisement to the
   appropriate mobile node, without the need for solicitations.  The
   basic Fast Handover message exchanges are illustrated in Figure A.1.





Soliman, et al.               Experimental                     [Page 24]

RFC 4140                         HMIPv6                      August 2005


                        +-----------+  1a. HI          +-----+
                        |           | ---------------->| NAR |
                        |    PAR    |  1b. HAck        |     |
                        +-----------+ <--------------- +-----+
                        ^  |        ^
          (2a. RtSolPr) |  | 2b     |
                        |  | Pr     | 3. Fast BU (F-BU)
                        |  | RtAdv  | 4. Fast BA  (F-BACK)
                        |  v        v
                        +------------+
                        |    MN      |
                        +------------+    - - - - - ->
                                          Movement

             Figure A.1: Fast Mobile IPv6 Handover Protocol

   The mobile node obtains a new care-of address while connected to PAR
   by means of router advertisements containing information from the NAR
   (Proxy Router Advertisement, which may be sent due to a Proxy Router
   Solicitation).  The PAR will validate the mobile node's new CoA by
   sending a Handover Initiate (HI) message to the NAR.  The new CoA
   sent in the HI message is formed by appending the mobile node's
   current interface identifier to the NAR's prefix.  Based on the
   response generated in the Handover Acknowledge (HAck) message, the
   PAR will either generate a tunnel to the mobile node's new CoA (if
   the address was valid) or generate a tunnel to the NAR's address (if
   the address was already in use on the new subnet).  If the address
   was already in use on the new subnet, it is assumed that there will
   be no time to perform another attempt to configure the mobile node
   with a CoA on the new link.  Therefore, the NAR will generate a host
   route for the mobile node using its old CoA.  Note that message 1a
   may precede message 2b or occur at the same time.

   In [5], the ARs act as local Home Agents, which hold binding caches
   for the mobile nodes and receive Binding Updates.  This makes these
   ARs function like the MAP specified in this document.  Also, it is
   quite possible that the ARs are not directly connected, but
   communicate through an aggregation router.  Therefore, such an
   aggregation router is also an ideal position for the MAP
   functionality.  These are two ways of integrating the HMIPv6 and Fast
   Handover mechanisms.  The first involves placing MAPs in place of the
   ARs, which is a natural step.  The second scenario involves placing
   the MAP in an aggregation router "above" the ARs.  In this case, [5]
   specifies forwarding of packets between PAR and NAR.  This could be
   inefficient in terms of delay and bandwidth efficiency because
   packets will traverse the MAP-PAR link twice and packets will arrive
   out of order at the mobile node.  Using the MAP in the aggregation




Soliman, et al.               Experimental                     [Page 25]

RFC 4140                         HMIPv6                      August 2005


   router would improve the efficiency of Fast Handovers, which could
   make use of the MAP to redirect traffic, thus saving delay and
   bandwidth between the aggregation router and the PAR.

                                                 +---------+
                                                 |   MAP   |
                                 +-------------->|         |
                                 |               +---------+
                                 |                 |     ^
                                 |          1a. HI |     |
                                 |                 |     |
                                 |                 |     | 1b. HAck
                                 |                 v     |
                  +---------+    |               +---------+
                  |         |    |               |   NAR   |
                  |   PAR   |    |               |         |
                  +---------+    |               +---------+
                     ^  |        |
       (2a. RtSolPr) |  | 2b     |
                     |  | Pr     | 3. Fast BU (F-BU) from mobile node to
                     |  |             MAP
                     |  | RtAdv  | 4. Fast BA (F-BACK) from MAP to
                     |  |        |    mobile node
                     |  v        v
                    +------------+
                    |     MN     |    Movement
                    +------------+    - - - - - ->

       Figure A.2: Fast Mobile IPv6 Handover Protocol using HMIPv6

   In Figure A.2, the HI/HAck messages now occur between the MAP and NAR
   in order to check the validity of the newly requested care-of address
   and to establish a temporary tunnel should the new care-of address
   not be valid.  Therefore, the same functionality of the Fast Handover
   procedure is kept, but the anchor point is moved from the PAR to the
   MAP.

   As in the previous Fast Handover procedure, in the network-determined
   case the layer-2 "triggers" at the PAR will cause the PAR to send a
   Proxy Router Advertisement to the mobile node with the MAP option.
   In the mobile-determined case, this is preceded by a Proxy Router
   Solicitation from the mobile node.  The same layer-2 trigger at PAR
   in the network-determined case could be used to independently
   initiate Context Transfer (e.g., QoS) between PAR and NAR.  In the
   mobile-determined case, the trigger at PAR could be replaced by the
   reception of a Proxy Router Solicitation or F-BU.  Context Transfer
   is being worked on in the IETF Seamoby WG.




Soliman, et al.               Experimental                     [Page 26]

RFC 4140                         HMIPv6                      August 2005


   The combination of Fast Handover and HMIPv6 allows the anticipation
   of the layer 3 handoff, such that data traffic can be efficiently
   redirected to the mobile node's new location before it moves there.
   However, it is not easy to determine the correct time to start
   forwarding traffic from the MAP to the mobile node's new location,
   which has an impact on how smooth the handoff will be.  The same
   issues arise in [5] with respect to when to start forwarding between
   PAR and NAR.  Packet loss will occur if this is performed too late or
   too early with respect to the time in which the mobile node detaches
   from PAR and attaches to NAR.  Such packet loss is likely to occur if
   the MAP updates its binding cache upon receiving the anticipated
   F-BU, because it is not known exactly when the mobile node will
   perform or complete the layer-2 handover to NAR, relative to when the
   mobile node transmits the F-BU.  Also, some measure is needed to
   support the case in which the mobile node's layer-2 handover
   unexpectedly fails (after Fast Handover has been initiated) or when
   the mobile node moves quickly back-and-forth between ARs (ping-pong).
   Simultaneous bindings [6] provide a solution to these issues.  In
   [6], a new Simultaneous Bindings Flag is added to the Fast Binding
   Update (F-BU) message and a new Simultaneous Bindings suboption is
   defined for the Fast Binding Acknowledgement (F-BAck) message.  Using
   this enhanced mechanism, upon layer-3 handover, traffic for the
   mobile node will be sent from the MAP to both PAR and NAR for a
   certain period, thus isolating the mobile node from layer-2 effects
   such as handover timing, ping-pong, or handover failure and providing
   the mobile node with uninterrupted layer-3 connectivity.

























Soliman, et al.               Experimental                     [Page 27]

RFC 4140                         HMIPv6                      August 2005


Authors' Addresses

   Hesham Soliman
   Flarion Technologies

   EMail: h.soliman@flarion.com


   Claude Castelluccia
   INRIA Rhone-Alpes
   655 avenue de l'Europe
   38330 Montbonnot Saint-Martin
   France

   EMail: claude.castelluccia@inria.fr
   Phone: +33 4 76 61 52 15


   Karim El Malki
   Ericsson AB
   LM Ericssons Vag. 8
   126 25 Stockholm
   Sweden

   EMail: karim@elmalki.homeip.net


   Ludovic Bellier
   INRIA Rhone-Alpes
   655 avenue de l'Europe
   38330 Montbonnot Saint-Martin
   France

   EMail: ludovic.bellier@inria.fr

















Soliman, et al.               Experimental                     [Page 28]

RFC 4140                         HMIPv6                      August 2005


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).

   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.

   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.

Intellectual Property

   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 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.

Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.







Soliman, et al.               Experimental                     [Page 29]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/