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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09

DMM Working Group                                          CJ. Bernardos
Internet-Draft                                            A. de la Oliva
Intended status: Standards Track                                    UC3M
Expires: March 12, 2018                                         F. Giust
                                                                     NEC
                                                       September 8, 2017


      A PMIPv6-based solution for Distributed Mobility Management
                      draft-bernardos-dmm-pmip-09

Abstract

   The number of mobile users and their traffic demand is expected to be
   ever-increasing in future years, and this growth can represent a
   limitation for deploying current mobility management schemes that are
   intrinsically centralized, e.g., Mobile IPv6 and Proxy Mobile IPv6.
   For this reason it has been waved a need for distributed and dynamic
   mobility management approaches, with the objective of reducing
   operators' burdens, evolving to a cheaper and more efficient
   architecture.

   This draft describes multiple solutions for network-based distributed
   mobility management inspired by the well known Proxy Mobile IPv6.

Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

Status of This Memo

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

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

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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on March 12, 2018.




Bernardos, et al.        Expires March 12, 2018                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft          A DMM solution for PMIPv6         September 2017


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

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

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Partially distributed solution  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Initial registration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.2.  The CMD as PBU/PBA relay  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.3.  The CMD as MAAR locator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     3.4.  The CMD as MAAR proxy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     3.5.  De-registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     3.6.  Message Format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       3.6.1.  Previous MAAR Option  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       3.6.2.  Serving MAAR Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   4.  Fully distributed solution  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   7.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   Appendix A.  Comparison with Requirement document . . . . . . . .  15
     A.1.  Distributed mobility management . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     A.2.  Bypassable network-layer mobility support for each
           application           session . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     A.3.  IPv6 deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     A.4.  Existing mobility protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     A.5.  Coexistence with deployed networks/hosts and operability
           across different networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     A.6.  Operation and management considerations . . . . . . . . .  17
     A.7.  Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     A.8.  Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   Appendix B.  Implementation experience  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19



Bernardos, et al.        Expires March 12, 2018                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft          A DMM solution for PMIPv6         September 2017


1.  Introduction

   Current IP mobility solutions, standardized with the names of Mobile
   IPv6 [RFC6275], or Proxy Mobile IPv6 [RFC5213], just to cite the two
   most relevant examples, offer mobility support at the cost of
   handling operations at a cardinal point, the mobility anchor, and
   burdening it with data forwarding and control mechanisms for a great
   amount of users.  As stated in [RFC7333], centralized mobility
   solutions are prone to several problems and limitations: longer (sub-
   optimal) routing paths, scalability problems, signaling overhead (and
   most likely a longer associated handover latency), more complex
   network deployment, higher vulnerability due to the existence of a
   potential single point of failure, and lack of granularity on the
   mobility management service (i.e., mobility is offered on a per-node
   basis, not being possible to define finer granularity policies, as
   for example per-application).

   The purpose of Distributed Mobility Management is to overcome the
   limitations of the traditional centralized mobility management
   [RFC7333] [RFC7429]; the main concept behind DMM solutions is indeed
   bringing the mobility anchor closer to the MN.  Following this idea,
   in our proposal, the central anchor is moved to the edge of the
   network, being deployed in the default gateway of the mobile node.
   That is, the first elements that provide IP connectivity to a set of
   MNs are also the mobility managers for those MNs.  In the following,
   we will call these entities Mobility Anchor and Access Routers
   (MAARs).

   This document focuses on network-based DMM, hence the starting point
   is making PMIPv6 working in a distributed manner [RFC7429].  In our
   proposal, as in PMIPv6, mobility is handled by the network without
   the MNs involvement, but, differently from PMIP, when the MN moves
   from one access network to another, it also changes anchor router,
   hence requiring signaling between the anchors to retrieve the MN's
   previous location(s).  Also, a key-aspect of network-based DMM, is
   that a prefix pool belongs exclusively to each MAAR, in the sense
   that those prefixes are assigned by the MAAR to the MNs attached to
   it, and they are routable at that MAAR.

   In the following, we consider two main approaches to design our DMM
   solutions:

   o  Partially distributed schemes, where the data plane only is
      distributed among access routers similar to MAGs, whereas the
      control plane is kept centralized towards a cardinal node used as
      information store, but relieved from any route management and MN's
      data forwarding task.




Bernardos, et al.        Expires March 12, 2018                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft          A DMM solution for PMIPv6         September 2017


   o  Fully distributed schemes, where both data and control planes are
      distributed among the access routers.

2.  Terminology

   The following terms used in this document are defined in the Proxy
   Mobile IPv6 specification [RFC5213]:

      Local Mobility Anchor (LMA)

      Mobile Access Gateway (MAG)

      Mobile Node (MN)

      Binding Cache Entry (BCE)

      Proxy Care-of Address (P-CoA)

      Proxy Binding Update (PBU)

      Proxy Binding Acknowledgement (PBA)

   The following terms are defined and used in this document:

   MAAR (Mobility Anchor and Access Router).  First hop router where the
      mobile nodes attach to.  It also plays the role of mobility
      manager for the IPv6 prefixes it anchors, running the
      functionalities of PMIP's MAG and LMA.

   CMD (Central Mobility Database).  Node that stores the BCEs allocated
      for the MNs in the mobility domain.

   P-MAAR (Previous MAAR).  MAAR which was previously visited by the MN
      and is still involved in an active flow using an IPv6 prefix it
      has advertised to the MN (i.e., MAAR where that IPv6 prefix is
      anchored).  There might be multiple P-MAARs for an MN's mobility
      session.

   S-MAAR (Serving MAAR).  MAAR which the MN is currently attached to.

3.  Partially distributed solution

   The following solution consists in de-coupling the entities that
   participates in the data and the control planes: the data plane
   becomes distributed and managed by the MAARs near the edge of the
   network, while the control plane, besides on the MAARs, relies on a
   central entity called Central Mobility Database (CMD).  In the




Bernardos, et al.        Expires March 12, 2018                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft          A DMM solution for PMIPv6         September 2017


   proposed architecture, the hierarchy present in PMIP between LMA and
   MAG is preserved, but with the following substantial variations:

   o  The LMA is relieved from the data forwarding role, only the
      Binding Cache and its management operations are maintained.  Hence
      the LMA is renamed into Central Mobility Database (CMD).  Also,
      the CMD is able to send and parse both PBU and PBA messages.

   o  The MAG is enriched with the LMA functionalities, hence the name
      Mobility Anchor and Access Router (MAAR).  It maintains a local
      Binding Cache for the MNs that are attached to it and it is able
      to send and parse PBU and PBA messages.

   o  The binding cache will have to be extended to include information
      regarding previous MAARs where the mobile node was anchored and
      still retains active data sessions, see Appendix B for further
      details.

   o  Each MAAR has a unique set of global prefixes (which are
      configurable), that can be allocated by the MAAR to the MNs, but
      must be exclusive to that MAAR, i.e. no other MAAR can allocate
      the same prefixes.

   The MAARs leverage on the Central Mobility Database (CMD) to access
   and update information related to the MNs, stored as mobility
   sessions; hence, a centralized node maintains a global view on the
   status of the network.  The CMD is queried whenever a MN is detected
   to join/leave the mobility domain.  It might be a fresh attachment, a
   detachment or a handover, but as MAARs are not aware of past
   information related to a mobility session, they contact the CMD to
   retrieve the data of interest and eventually take the appropriate
   action.  The procedure adopted for the query and the messages
   exchange sequence might vary to optimize the update latency and/or
   the signaling overhead.  Here is presented one method for the initial
   registration, and three different approaches to update the mobility
   sessions using PBUs and PBAs.  Each approach assigns a different role
   to the CMD:

   o  The CMD is a PBU/PBA relay;

   o  The CMD is only a MAAR locator;

   o  The CMD is a PBU/PBA proxy.








Bernardos, et al.        Expires March 12, 2018                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft          A DMM solution for PMIPv6         September 2017


3.1.  Initial registration

   Upon the MN's attachment to a MAAR, say MAAR1, if the MN is
   authorized for the service, an IPv6 global prefix belonging to the
   MAAR's prefix pool is reserved for it (Pref1) into a temporal Binding
   Cache Entry (BCE) allocated locally.  The prefix is sent in a
   [RFC5213] PBU with the MN's Identifier (MN-ID) to the CMD, which,
   since the session is new, stores a permanent BCE containing as main
   fields the MN-ID, the MN's prefix and MAAR1's address as Proxy-CoA.
   The CMD replies to MAAR1 with a PBA including the usual options
   defined in PMIP/RFC5213, meaning that the MN's registration is fresh
   and no past status is available.  MAAR1 definitely stores the
   temporal BCE previously allocated and unicasts a Router Advertisement
   (RA) to the MN including the prefix reserved before, that can be used
   by the MN to configure an IPv6 address (e.g., with stateless auto-
   configuration).  The address is routable at the MAAR, in the sense
   that it is on the path of packets addressed to the MN.  Moreover, the
   MAAR acts as plain router for those packets, as no encapsulation nor
   special handling takes place.  Figure 1 illustrates this scenario.

     +-----+      +---+                +--+
     |MAAR1|      |CMD|                |CN|
     +-----+      +---+                +*-+
        |           |                   *
       MN           |                   *     +---+
     attach.        |               *****    _|CMD|_
   detection        |         flow1 *       / +-+-+ \
        |           |               *      /    |    \
    local BCE       |               *     /     |     \
    allocation      |               *    /      |      \
        |--- PBU -->|           +---*-+-'    +--+--+    `+-----+
        |          BCE          |   * |      |     |     |     |
        |        creation       |MAAR1+------+MAAR2+-----+MAAR3|
        |<-- PBA ---|           |   * |      |     |     |     |
    local BCE       |           +---*-+      +-----+     +-----+
    finalized       |               *
        |           |         Pref1 *
        |           |              +*-+
        |           |              |MN|
        |           |              +--+

     Operations sequence                  Packets flow

                 Figure 1: First attachment to the network







Bernardos, et al.        Expires March 12, 2018                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft          A DMM solution for PMIPv6         September 2017


3.2.  The CMD as PBU/PBA relay

   When the MN moves from its current access and associates to MAAR2
   (now the S-MAAR), MAAR2 reserves another IPv6 prefix (Pref2), it
   stores a temporal BCE, and it sends a plain PBU to the CMD for
   registration.  Upon PBU reception and BC lookup, the CMD retrieves an
   already existing entry for the MN, binding the MN-ID to its former
   location; thus, the CMD forwards the PBU to the MAAR indicated as
   Proxy CoA (MAAR1), including a new mobility option to communicate the
   S-MAAR's global address to MAAR1, defined as Serving MAAR Option in
   Section 3.6.2.  The CMD updates the P-CoA field in the BCE related to
   the MN with the S-MAAR's address.

   Upon PBU reception, MAAR1 can install a tunnel on its side towards
   MAAR2 and the related routes for Pref1.  Then MAAR1 replies to the
   CMD with a PBA (including the option mentioned before) to ensure that
   the new location has successfully changed, containing the prefix
   anchored at MAAR1 in the Home Network Prefix option.  The CMD, after
   receiving the PBA, updates the BCE populating an instance of the
   P-MAAR list.  The P-MAAR list is an additional field on the BCE that
   contains an element for each P-MAAR involved in the MN's mobility
   session.  The list element contains the P-MAAR's global address and
   the prefix it has delegated (see Appendix B for further details).
   Also, the CMD send a PBA to the new S-MAAR, containing the previous
   Proxy-CoA and the prefix anchored to it embedded into a new mobility
   option called Previous MAAR Option (defined in Section 3.6.1), so
   that, upon PBA arrival, a bi-directional tunnel can be established
   between the two MAARs and new routes are set appropriately to recover
   the IP flow(s) carrying Pref1.

   Now packets destined to Pref1 are first received by MAAR1,
   encapsulated into the tunnel and forwarded to MAAR2, which finally
   delivers them to their destination.  In uplink, when the MN transmits
   packets using Pref1 as source address, they are sent to MAAR2, as it
   is MN's new default gateway, then tunneled to MAAR1 which routes them
   towards the next hop to destination.  Conversely, packets carrying
   Pref2 are routed by MAAR2 without any special packet handling both
   for uplink and downlink.  The procedure is depicted in Figure 2.













Bernardos, et al.        Expires March 12, 2018                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft          A DMM solution for PMIPv6         September 2017


   +-----+      +---+      +-----+           +--+            +--+
   |MAAR1|      |CMD|      |MAAR2|           |CN|            |CN|
   +-----+      +---+      +-----+           +*-+            +*-+
      |           |           |               *               *
      |           |          MN               *     +---+     *
      |           |        attach.        *****    _|CMD|_    *
      |           |          det.   flow1 *       / +-+-+ \   *flow2
      |           |<-- PBU ---|           *      /    |    \  *
      |          BCE          |           *     /     | *******
      |        check+         |           *    /      | *    \
      |        update         |       +---*-+-?    +--+-*+    `+-----+
      |<-- PBU*---|           |       |   * |      |    *|     |     |
   route          |           |       |MAAR1|______|MAAR2+-----+MAAR3|
   update         |           |       |   **(______)**  *|     |     |
      |--- PBA*-->|           |       +-----+      +-*--*+     +-----+
      |         BCE           |                      *  *
      |        update         |                Pref1 *  *Pref2
      |           |--- PBA*-->|                     +*--*+
      |           |         route         ---move-->|*MN*|
      |           |         update                  +----+

         Operations sequence                  Data Packets flow
   PBU/PBA Messages with * contain
           a new mobility option

             Figure 2: Scenario after a handover, CMD as relay

   For next MN's movements the process is repeated except for the number
   of P-MAARs involved, that rises accordingly to the number of prefixes
   that the MN wishes to maintain.  Indeed, once the CMD receives the
   first PBU from the new S-MAAR, it forwards copies of the PBU to all
   the P-MAARs indicated in the BCE as current P-CoA (i.e., the MAAR
   prior to handover) and in the P-MAARs list.  They reply with a PBA to
   the CMD, which aggregates them into a single one to notify the
   S-MAAR, that finally can establish the tunnels with the P-MAARs.

   It should be noted that this design separates the mobility management
   at the prefix granularity, and it can be tuned in order to erase old
   mobility sessions when not required, while the MN is reachable
   through the latest prefix acquired.  Moreover, the latency associated
   to the mobility update is bound to the PBA sent by the furthest
   P-MAAR, in terms of RTT, that takes the longest time to reach the
   CMD.  The drawback can be mitigated introducing a timeout at the CMD,
   by which, after its expiration, all the PBAs so far collected are
   transmitted, and the remaining are sent later upon their arrival.






Bernardos, et al.        Expires March 12, 2018                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft          A DMM solution for PMIPv6         September 2017


3.3.  The CMD as MAAR locator

   The handover latency experienced in the approach shown before can be
   reduced if the P-MAARs are allowed to signal directly their
   information to the new S-MAAR.  This procedure reflect what was
   described in Section 3.2 up to the moment the P-MAAR receives the PBU
   with the P-MAAR option.  At that point a P-MAAR is aware of the new
   MN's location (because of the S-MAAR's address in the S-MAAR option),
   and, besides sending a PBA to the CMD, it also sends a PBA to the
   S-MAAR including the prefix it is anchoring.  This latter PBA does
   not need to include new options, as the prefix is embedded in the HNP
   option and the P-MAAR's address OS taken from the message's source
   address.  The CMD is relieved from forwarding the PBA to the S-MAAR,
   as the latter receives a copy directly from the P-MAAR with the
   necessary information to build the tunnels and set the appropriate
   routes.  In Figure 3 is illustrated the new messages sequence, while
   the data forwarding is unaltered.

   +-----+      +---+      +-----+           +--+            +--+
   |MAAR1|      |CMD|      |MAAR2|           |CN|            |CN|
   +-----+      +---+      +-----+           +*-+            +*-+
      |           |           |               *               *
      |           |          MN               *     +---+     *
      |           |        attach.        *****    _|CMD|_    *
      |           |          det.   flow1 *       / +-+-+ \   *flow2
      |           |<-- PBU ---|           *      /    |    \  *
      |          BCE          |           *     /     | *******
      |        check+         |           *    /      | *    \
      |        update         |       +---*-+-?    +--+-*+    `+-----+
      |<-- PBU*---|           |       |   * |      |    *|     |     |
   route          |           |       |MAAR1|______|MAAR2+-----+MAAR3|
   update         |           |       |   **(______)**  *|     |     |
      |--------- PBA -------->|       +-----+      +-*--*+     +-----+
      |--- PBA*-->|         route                    *  *
      |          BCE        update             Pref1 *  *Pref2
      |         update        |                     +*--*+
      |           |           |           ---move-->|*MN*|
      |           |           |                     +----+

          Operations sequence                  Data Packets flow
   PBU/PBA Messages with * contain
           a new mobility option

            Figure 3: Scenario after a handover, CMD as locator







Bernardos, et al.        Expires March 12, 2018                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft          A DMM solution for PMIPv6         September 2017


3.4.  The CMD as MAAR proxy

   A further enhancement of previous solutions can be achieved when the
   CMD sends the PBA to the new S-MAAR before notifying the P-MAARs of
   the location change.  Indeed, when the CMD receives the PBU for the
   new registration, it is already in possess of all the information
   that the new S-MAAR requires to set up the tunnels and the routes.
   Thus the PBA is sent to the S-MAAR immediately after a PBU is
   received, including also in this case the P-MAAR option.  In
   parallel, a PBU is sent by the CMD to the P-MAARs containing the
   S-MAAR option, to notify them about the new MN's location, so they
   receive the information to establish the tunnels and routes on their
   side.  When P-MAARs complete the update, they send a PBA to the CMD
   to indicate that the operation is concluded and the information are
   updated in all network nodes.  This procedure is obtained from the
   first one re-arranging the order of the messages, but the parameters
   communicated are the same.  This scheme is depicted in Figure 4,
   where, again, the data forwarding is kept untouched.

   +-----+      +---+      +-----+           +--+            +--+
   |MAAR1|      |CMD|      |MAAR2|           |CN|            |CN|
   +-----+      +---+      +-----+           +*-+            +*-+
      |           |           |               *               *
      |           |          MN               *     +---+     *
      |           |        attach.        *****    _|CMD|_    *
      |           |          det.   flow1 *       / +-+-+ \   *flow2
      |           |<-- PBU ---|           *      /    |    \  *
      |          BCE          |           *     /     | *******
      |        check+         |           *    /      | *    \
      |        update         |       +---*-+-?    +--+-*+    `+-----+
      |<-- PBU*---x--- PBA*-->|       |   * |      |    *|     |     |
   route          |         route     |MAAR1|______|MAAR2+-----+MAAR3|
   update         |         update    |   **(______)**  *|     |     |
      |--- PBA*-->|           |       +-----+      +-*--*+     +-----+
      |          BCE          |                      *  *
      |         update        |                Pref1 *  *Pref2
      |           |           |                     +*--*+
      |           |           |           ---move-->|*MN*|
      |           |           |                     +----+

          Operations sequence                 Data Packets flow
   PBU/PBA Messages with * contain
           a new mobility option

             Figure 4: Scenario after a handover, CMD as proxy






Bernardos, et al.        Expires March 12, 2018                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft          A DMM solution for PMIPv6         September 2017


3.5.  De-registration

   The de-registration mechanism devised for PMIPv6 is no longer valid
   in the Partial DMM architecture.  This is motivated by the fact that
   each MAAR handles an independent mobility session (i.e., a single or
   a set of prefixes) for a given MN, whereas the aggregated session is
   stored at the CMD.  Indeed, when a previous MAAR initiates a de-
   registration procedure, because the MN is no longer present on the
   MAAR's access link, it removes the routing state for that (those)
   prefix(es), that would be deleted by the CMD as well, hence defeating
   any prefix continuity attempt.  The simplest approach to overcome
   this limitation is to deny an old MAAR to de-register a prefix, that
   is, allowing only a serving MAAR to de-register the whole MN session.
   This can be achieved by first removing any layer-2 detachment event,
   so that de-registration is triggered only when the session lifetime
   expires, hence providing a guard interval for the MN to connect to a
   new MAAR.  Then, a change in the MAAR operations is required, and at
   this stage two possible solutions can be deployed:

   o  A previous MAAR stops the BCE timer upon receiving a PBU from the
      CMD containing a "Serving MAAR" option.  In this way only the
      Serving MAAR is allowed to de-register the mobility session,
      arguing that the MN left definitely the domain.

   o  Previous MAARs can, upon BCE expiry, send de-registration messages
      to the CMD, which, instead of acknowledging the message with a 0
      lifetime, send back a PBA with a non-zero lifetime, hence re-
      newing the session, if the MN is still connected to the domain.

   The evaluation of these methods is left for future work.

3.6.  Message Format

   This section defines two Mobility Options to be used in the PBU and
   PBA messages:

      Previous MAAR Option;

      Serving MAAR Option.

   In the current draft the messages reflect IPv6 format only.  IPv4
   compatibility will be added in next release.

3.6.1.  Previous MAAR Option

   This new option is defined for use with the Proxy Binding
   Acknowledgement messages exchanged by the CMD to a MAAR.  This option
   is used to notify the S-MAAR about the previous MAAR's global address



Bernardos, et al.        Expires March 12, 2018                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft          A DMM solution for PMIPv6         September 2017


   and the prefix anchored to it.  There can be multiple Previous MAAR
   options present in the message.  Its format is as follows:

    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    | Prefix Length |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +                     P-MAAR's address                          +
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +                    Home Network Prefix                        +
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Type

      To be assigned by IANA.

   Length

      8-bit unsigned integer indicating the length of the option in
      octets, excluding the type and length fields.  This field MUST be
      set to 34.

   Prefix Length

      8-bit unsigned integer indicating the prefix length of the IPv6
      prefix contained in the option.

   Previous MAAR's address

      A sixteen-byte field containing the P-MAAR's IPv6 global address.

   Home Network Prefix

      A sixteen-byte field containing the mobile node's IPv6 Home
      Network Prefix.



Bernardos, et al.        Expires March 12, 2018                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft          A DMM solution for PMIPv6         September 2017


3.6.2.  Serving MAAR Option

   This new option is defined for use with the Proxy Binding Update and
   Proxy Binding Acknowledgement messages exchanged between the CMD and
   a Previous MAAR.  This option is used to notify the P-MAAR about the
   current Serving MAAR's global address.  Its format is as follows:


    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    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +                     S-MAAR's address                          +
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Type

      To be assigned by IANA.

   Length

      8-bit unsigned integer indicating the length of the option in
      octets, excluding the type and length fields.  This field MUST be
      set to 16.

   Serving MAAR's address

      A sixteen-byte field containing the S-MAAR's IPv6 global address.

4.  Fully distributed solution

   In this section we introduce the guidelines to evolve our partially
   DMM solution into a fully distributed one.  We list the key concepts
   in the following (some of the points are already enforced in previous
   sections of this document):

   o  All MAARs have a pool of global routable IPv6 prefixes to be
      assigned to MNs on the access link.






Bernardos, et al.        Expires March 12, 2018                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft          A DMM solution for PMIPv6         September 2017


   o  Any central control entity is removed from the architecture and
      each MAAR will retain it's own cache for the mobile nodes directly
      anchored to it.

   o  Both control and data planes are now entirely handled by the
      MAARs.

   Because we aim for a fully distributed approach, the lack of
   knowledge of other MAARs and their advertised prefixes becomes a
   serious obstacle.  In this particular case, when a MN attaches to a
   MAAR, there are two main pieces ofi nformation that this MAAR
   requires to know, to properly assure a mobile node's mobility and
   continuity of its data flows: i) if the node has any P-MAARs and
   their addresses; ii) if it has P-MAARs, which prefixes were
   advertised by which MAAR.

   There are several methods to achieve this:

   o  Make before approaches, employing Layer 2 or Layer 3 mechanisms.
      The target MAAR is known in advance by the current MAAR before
      handover, hence the mobility context can be transferred.

   o  Distributed schemes for MAAR discovery: it can based on a peer-to-
      peer approach; or it can employ a unicast, multicast or broadcast
      query system.

   o  Explicit notification by the MN.  For example, extending the layer
      three IP address configuration mechanisms (e.g., ND).

   o  Other MN to MAAR communication protocol (e.g., IEEE 802.21).

5.  IANA Considerations

   TBD.

6.  Security Considerations

   The solution assumes that the nodes are trusted and secure MAAR-to-
   MAAR communications are in place, for instance re-using the security
   mechanisms defined for PMIPv6.  Thus, the solution does not introduce
   any new security vulnerability.

7.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Marco Liebsch for his comments and
   discussion on this document.





Bernardos, et al.        Expires March 12, 2018                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft          A DMM solution for PMIPv6         September 2017


8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <https://www.rfc-
              editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC5213]  Gundavelli, S., Ed., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V.,
              Chowdhury, K., and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6",
              RFC 5213, DOI 10.17487/RFC5213, August 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5213>.

   [RFC6275]  Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility
              Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, DOI 10.17487/RFC6275, July
              2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6275>.

8.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.bernardos-dmm-distributed-anchoring]
              Bernardos, C. and J. Zuniga, "PMIPv6-based distributed
              anchoring", draft-bernardos-dmm-distributed-anchoring-09
              (work in progress), May 2017.

   [RFC7333]  Chan, H., Ed., Liu, D., Seite, P., Yokota, H., and J.
              Korhonen, "Requirements for Distributed Mobility
              Management", RFC 7333, DOI 10.17487/RFC7333, August 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7333>.

   [RFC7429]  Liu, D., Ed., Zuniga, JC., Ed., Seite, P., Chan, H., and
              CJ. Bernardos, "Distributed Mobility Management: Current
              Practices and Gap Analysis", RFC 7429,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7429, January 2015, <https://www.rfc-
              editor.org/info/rfc7429>.

Appendix A.  Comparison with Requirement document

   In this section we descrbe how our solution addresses the DMM
   requirements listed in [RFC7333].

A.1.  Distributed mobility management

   "IP mobility, network access solutions, and forwarding solutions
   provided by DMM MUST enable traffic to avoid traversing a single
   mobility anchor far from the optimal route."





Bernardos, et al.        Expires March 12, 2018                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft          A DMM solution for PMIPv6         September 2017


   In our solution, a MAAR is responsible to handle the mobility for
   those IP flows started when the MN is attached to it.  As long as the
   MN remains connected to the MAAR's access links, the IP packets of
   such flows can benefit from the optimal path.  When the MN moves to
   another MAAR, the path becomes non-optimal for ongoing flows, as they
   are anchored to the previous MAAR, but newly started IP sessions are
   forwarded by the new MAAR through the optimal path.

A.2.  Bypassable network-layer mobility support for each application
      session

   "DMM solutions MUST enable network-layer mobility, but it MUST be
   possible for any individual active application session (flow) to not
   use it.  Mobility support is needed, for example, when a mobile host
   moves and an application cannot cope with a change in the IP address.
   Mobility support is also needed when a mobile router changes its IP
   address as it moves together with a host and, in the presence of
   ingress filtering, an application in the host is interrupted.
   However, mobility support at the network layer is not always needed;
   a mobile node can often be stationary, and mobility support can also
   be provided at other layers.  It is then not always necessary to
   maintain a stable IP address or prefix for an active application
   session."

   Our DMM solution operates at the IP layer, hence upper layers are
   totally transparent to the mobility operations.  In particular,
   ongoing IP sessions are not disrupted after a change of access
   network.  The routability of the old address is ensured by the IP
   tunnel with the old MAAR.  New IP sessions are started with the new
   address.  From the application's perspective, those processes which
   sockets are bound to a unique IP address do not suffer any impact.
   For the other applications, the sockets bound to the old address are
   preserved, whereas next sockets use the new address.

A.3.  IPv6 deployment

   "DMM solutions SHOULD target IPv6 as the primary deployment
   environment and SHOULD NOT be tailored specifically to support IPv4,
   particularly in situations where private IPv4 addresses and/or NATs
   are used."

   The DMM solution we propose targets IPv6 only.

A.4.  Existing mobility protocols

   "A DMM solution MUST first consider reusing and extending IETF
   standard protocols before specifying new protocols."




Bernardos, et al.        Expires March 12, 2018                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft          A DMM solution for PMIPv6         September 2017


   This DMM solution is derived from the operations and messages
   specified in [RFC5213].

A.5.  Coexistence with deployed networks/hosts and operability across
      different networks

   "A DMM solution may require loose, tight, or no integration into
   existing mobility protocols and host IP stacks.  Regardless of the
   integration level, DMM implementations MUST be able to coexist with
   existing network deployments, end hosts, and routers that may or may
   not implement existing mobility protocols.  Furthermore, a DMM
   solution SHOULD work across different networks, possibly operated as
   separate administrative domains, when the needed mobility management
   signaling, forwarding, and network access are allowed by the trust
   relationship between them"

   The partially DMM solution can be extended to provide a fallback
   mechanism to operate as legacy Proxy Mobile IPv6.  It is necessary to
   instruct MAARs to always establish a tunnel with the same MAAR,
   working as LMA.  The fully DMM solution can be extended as well, but
   it requires more intervention.  The partially DMM solution can be
   deployed across different domains with trust agreements if the CMDs
   ot the operators are enabled to transfer context from one node to
   another.  The fully DMM solution works across multiple domains if
   both solution apply the same signalling scheme.

A.6.  Operation and management considerations

   "A DMM solution needs to consider configuring a device, monitoring
   the current operational state of a device, and responding to events
   that impact the device, possibly by modifying the configuration and
   storing the data in a format that can be analyzed later.

   The proposed solution can re-use existing mechanisms defined for the
   operation and management of Proxy Mobile IPv6.

A.7.  Security considerations

   "A DMM solution MUST support any security protocols and mechanisms
   needed to secure the network and to make continuous security
   improvements.  In addition, with security taken into consideration
   early in the design, a DMM solution MUST NOT introduce new security
   risks or amplify existing security risks that cannot be mitigated by
   existing security protocols and mechanisms."

   The proposed solution does not specify a security mechanism, given
   that the same mechanism for PMIPv6 can be used.




Bernardos, et al.        Expires March 12, 2018                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft          A DMM solution for PMIPv6         September 2017


A.8.  Multicast

   "DMM SHOULD enable multicast solutions to be developed to avoid
   network inefficiency in multicast traffic delivery."

   This solution in its current version does not specify any support for
   multicast traffic, which is left for study in future versions.

Appendix B.  Implementation experience

   The network-based DMM solution described in section Section 3.4 is
   now available at the Open Distributed Mobility Management (ODMM)
   project (http://www.odmm.net/), under the name of Mobility Anchors
   Distribution for PMIPv6 (MAD-PMIPv6).  The ODMM platform is intended
   to foster DMM development and deployment, by serving as a framework
   to host open source implementations.

   The MAD-PMIPv6 code is developed in ANSI C from the existing UMIP
   implementation for PMIP.  The most relevant changes with respect to
   the UMIP original version are related to how to create the CMD and
   MAAR's state machines from those of an LMA and a MAG; for this
   purpose, part of the LMA code was copied to the MAG, in order to send
   PBA messages and parse PBU.  Also, the LMA routing functions were
   removed completely, and moved to the MAG, because MAARs need to route
   through the tunnels in downlink (as an LMA) and in uplink (as a MAG).

   Tunnel management is hence a relevant technical aspect, as multiple
   tunnels are established by a single MAAR, which keeps their status
   directly into the MN's BCE.  Indeed, from the implementation
   experience it was chosen to create an ancillary data structure as
   field within a BCE: the data structure is called "MAAR list" and
   stores the previous MAARs' address and the corresponding prefix(es)
   assigned for the MN.  Only the CMD and the serving MAAR store this
   data structure, because the CMD maintains the global MN's mobility
   session formed during the MN's roaming within the domain, and the
   serving MAAR needs to know which previous MAARs were visited, the
   prefix(es) they assigned and the tunnels established with them.
   Conversely, a previous MAAR only needs to know which is the current
   Serving MAAR and establish a single tunnel with it.  For this reason,
   a MAAR that receives a PBU from the CMD (meaning that the MN attached
   to another MAAR), first sets up the routing state for the MN's
   prefix(es) it is anchoring, then stop the BCE expiry timer and
   deletes the MAAR list (if present) since it is no longer useful.

   In order to have the MN totally unaware of the changes in the access
   link, all MAARs implement the Distributed Logical Interface (DLIF)
   concept devised in [I-D.bernardos-dmm-distributed-anchoring].
   Moreover, it should be noted that the protocols designed in the



Bernardos, et al.        Expires March 12, 2018                [Page 18]


Internet-Draft          A DMM solution for PMIPv6         September 2017


   document work only at the network layer to handle the MNs joining or
   leaving the domain.  This should guarantee a certain independency to
   a particular access technology.  The implementation reflects this
   reasoning, but we argue that an interaction with lower layers
   produces a more effective attachment and detachment detection,
   therefore improving the performance, also regarding de-registration
   mechanisms.

   It was chosen to implement the "proxy" solution because it produces
   the shortest handover latency, but a slight modification on the CMD
   state machine can produce the first scenario described ("relay")
   which guarantees a more consistent request/ack scheme between the
   MAARS.  By modifying also the MAAR's state machine it can be
   implemented the second solution ("locator").

   An early MAD-PMIPv6 implementation was shown during a demo session at
   the IETF 83rd, in Paris in March 2012.  An enhancement version of the
   prototype has been presented at the 87th IETF meeting in Berlin, July
   2013.  The updated demo included a use case scenario employing a CDN
   system for video delivery.  More, MAD-PMIPv6 has been extensively
   used and evaluated within a testbed employing heterogeneous radio
   accesses within the framework of the MEDIEVAL EU project.  MAD-PMIPv6
   software is currently part of a DMM test-bed comprising 3 MAARs, one
   CMD, one MN and a CN.  All the machines used in the demos were Linux
   UBUNTU 10.04 systems with kernel 2.6.32, but the prototype has been
   tested also under newer systems.  This testbed was also used by the
   iJOIN EU project.

Authors' Addresses

   Carlos J. Bernardos
   Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
   Av. Universidad, 30
   Leganes, Madrid  28911
   Spain

   Phone: +34 91624 6236
   Email: cjbc@it.uc3m.es
   URI:   http://www.it.uc3m.es/cjbc/












Bernardos, et al.        Expires March 12, 2018                [Page 19]


Internet-Draft          A DMM solution for PMIPv6         September 2017


   Antonio de la Oliva
   Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
   Av. Universidad, 30
   Leganes, Madrid  28911
   Spain

   Phone: +34 91624 8803
   Email: aoliva@it.uc3m.es
   URI:   http://www.it.uc3m.es/aoliva/


   Fabio Giust
   NEC Laboratories Europe
   NEC Europe Ltd.
   Kurfuersten-Anlage 36
   Heidelberg  D-69115
   Germany

   Phone: +49 6221 4342216
   Email: fabio.giust@neclab.eu































Bernardos, et al.        Expires March 12, 2018                [Page 20]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.124, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/