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

Versions: (draft-liu-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 RFC 7429

DMM                                                          D. Liu, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                              China Mobile
Intended status: Informational                           JC. Zuniga, Ed.
Expires: April 23, 2014                                     InterDigital
                                                                P. Seite
                                                                  Orange
                                                                 H. Chan
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                           CJ. Bernardos
                                                                    UC3M
                                                        October 20, 2013


  Distributed Mobility Management: Current practices and gap analysis
             draft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-02

Abstract

   The present document analyses deplyment practices of existing
   mobility protocols in a distributed mobility management environment.
   It also identifies some limitations compared to the expected
   functionality of a fully distributed mobility management system.  The
   comparison is made taking into account the identified DMM
   requirements.

Status of this Memo

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

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

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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 23, 2014.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 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



Liu, et al.              Expires April 23, 2014                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft       DMM-best-practices-gap-analysis        October 2013


   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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  Functions of existing mobility protocols . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   4.  DMM practices  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     4.1.  Assumptions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.2.  IP flat wireless network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       4.2.1.  Host-based IP DMM practices  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       4.2.2.  Network-based IP DMM practices . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     4.3.  3GPP network flattening approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   5.  Gap analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     5.1.  Distributed processing - REQ1  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     5.2.  Transparency to Upper Layers - REQ2  . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     5.3.  IPv6 deployment - REQ3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     5.4.  Existing mobility protocols - REQ4 . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     5.5.  Co-existence - REQ5  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     5.6.  Security considerations - REQ6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     5.7.  Multicast - REQ7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     5.8.  Summary  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   7.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     8.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     8.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25















Liu, et al.              Expires April 23, 2014                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft       DMM-best-practices-gap-analysis        October 2013


1.  Introduction

   The distributed mobility management (DMM) WG has studied the problems
   of centralized deployment of mobility management protocols and the
   related requirements [I-D.ietf-dmm-requirements].  In order to guide
   the deployment and before defining any new DMM protocol, the DMM WG
   is chartered to investigate first whether it is feasible to deploy
   current IP mobility protocols in a DMM scenario in a way that can
   fullfil the requirements of DMM.  This document discusses current
   deployment practices of existing mobility protocols in a distributed
   mobility management environment and identifies the limitations in
   these practices with respect to the expected functionality.

   The rest of this document is organized as follows.  Section 3
   analyzes existing IP mobility protocols by examining their functions
   and how these functions can be reconfigured to work in a DMM
   environment.  Section 4 presents the current practices of IP flat
   wireless networks and 3GPP architectures.  Both network- and host-
   based mobility protocols are considered.  Section 5 presents the gap
   analysis with respect to the current practices.


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 [RFC2119].

   All general mobility-related terms and their acronyms used in this
   document are to be interpreted as defined in the Mobile IPv6 base
   specification [RFC6275] and in the Proxy mobile IPv6 specification
   [RFC5213].  These terms include mobile node (MN), correspondent node
   (CN), home agent (HA), local mobility anchor (LMA), and mobile access
   gateway (MAG).

   In addition, this document uses the following terms:

   Mobility routing (MR)  is the logical function that intercepts
      packets to/from the IP address/prefix delegated to the mobile node
      and forwards them, based on internetwork location information,
      either directly towards their destination or to some other network
      element that knows how to forward the packets to their ultimate
      destination.








Liu, et al.              Expires April 23, 2014                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft       DMM-best-practices-gap-analysis        October 2013


   Home address allocation  is the logical function that allocates the
      IP address/prefix (e.g., home address or home network prefix) to a
      mobile node.


   Location management (LM)  is the logical function that manages and
      keeps track of the internetwork location information of a mobile
      node, which includes the mapping of the IP address/prefix
      delegated to the MN to the MN routing address or another network
      element that knows where to forward packets destined for the MN.


   Home network of an application session (or an HoA IP address)  is the
      network that has allocated the IP address used as the session
      identifier (home address) by the application being run in an MN.
      The MN may be attached to more than one home networks.


   In the document, several references to a distributed mobility
   management environment are made.  By this term, we refer to an
   scenario in which the IP mobility, access network and routing
   solutions allow for setting up IP networks so that traffic is
   distributed in an optimal way and does not rely on centrally deployed
   anchors to manage IP mobility sessions.


3.  Functions of existing mobility protocols

   The host-based Mobile IPv6 [RFC6275] and its network-based extension,
   PMIPv6 [RFC5213], are both logically centralized mobility management
   approaches addressing primarily hierarchical mobile networks.
   Although they are centralized approaches, they have important
   mobility management functions resulting from years of extensive work
   to develop and to extend these functions.  It is therefore fruitful
   to take these existing functions and examine them in a DMM scenario
   in order to understand how to deploy the existing mobility protocols
   in a distributed mobility management environment.

   The existing mobility management functions of MIPv6, PMIPv6, and
   HMIPv6 are the following:

   1.  Anchoring function (AF): allocation to a mobile node of an IP
       addres/prefix (e.g., a HoA or HNP) topologically anchored by the
       delegating node (i.e., the anchor node is able to advertise a
       connected route into the routing infrastructure for the delegated
       IP prefixes).





Liu, et al.              Expires April 23, 2014                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft       DMM-best-practices-gap-analysis        October 2013


   2.  Mobility Routing (MR) function: packets interception and
       forwarding to/from the IP address/prefix delegated to the MN,
       based on the internetwork location information, either to the
       destination or to some other network element that knows how to
       forward the packets to their destination;


   3.  Internetwork Location Management (LM) function: managing and
       keeping track of the internetwork location of an MN, which
       includes a mapping of the IP delegated address/prefix (e.g., HoA
       or HNP) to the mobility anchoring point where the MN is anchored
       to;


   4.  Location Update (LU): provisioning of MN location information to
       the LM function;


   In Mobile IPv6 [RFC6275], the home agent typically provides the
   anchoring function (AF), Mobility Routing (MR), and Internetwork
   Location Management (LM) functions, while the mobile node provides
   the Location Update (LU) function.  Proxy Mobile IPv6 [RFC5213]
   relies on the function of the Local Mobility Anchor (LMA) to provide
   mobile nodes with mobility support, without requiring the involvement
   of the mobile nodes.  The required functionality at the mobile node
   is provided in a proxy manner by the Mobile Access Gateway (MAG).
   With network-based IP mobility protocols, the local mobility anchor
   typically provides the anchoring function (AF), Mobility Routing
   (MR), and Internetwork Location Management (LM) functions, while the
   mobile access gateway provides the Location Update (LU) function.


4.  DMM practices

   This section documents deployment practices of existing mobility
   protocols in a distributed mobility management environment.  This
   description is divided into two main families of network
   architectures: i) IP flat wireless networks (e.g., evolved WiFi
   hotspots) and, ii) 3GPP network flattening approaches.

   While describing the current DMM practices, references to the generic
   mobility management functions described in Section 3 will be
   provided, as well as some initial hints on the identified gaps with
   respect to the DMM requirement documented in
   [I-D.ietf-dmm-requirements].






Liu, et al.              Expires April 23, 2014                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft       DMM-best-practices-gap-analysis        October 2013


4.1.  Assumptions

   There are many different approaches that can be considered to
   implement and deploy a distributed anchoring and mobility solution.
   Since this document cannot be too exhaustive, the focus is on current
   mobile network architectures and standardized IP mobility solutions.
   In order to limit the scope of our analysis of current DMM practices,
   we consider the following list of technical assumptions:

   1.  Both host- and network-based solutions should be covered.

   2.  Solution should allow selecting and using the most appropriate IP
       anchor among a set of distributed ones.

   3.  Mobility management should be realized by the preservation of the
       IP address across the different points of attachment during the
       mobility (i.e., provision of IP address continuity).  IP flows of
       applications which do not need a constant IP address should not
       be handled by DMM.  Typically, the a connection manager together
       with the operating system configure the source address selection
       mechanism of the IP stack.  This might involve identifying
       application capabilities and triggering the mobility support
       accordingly.  Further considerations on application management
       and source address selection are out of the scope of this
       document.

   4.  Mobility management and traffic redirection should only be
       triggered due to IP mobility reasons, that is when the MN moves
       from the point of attachment where the IP flow was originally
       initiated.

4.2.  IP flat wireless network

   This section focuses on common IP wireless network architectures and
   how they can be flattened from an IP mobility and anchoring point of
   view using common and standardized protocols.  We take WiFi an
   exemplary wireless technology, as it is widely known and deployed
   nowadays.  Some representative examples of WiFi deployed
   architectures are depicted on Figure 1.












Liu, et al.              Expires April 23, 2014                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft       DMM-best-practices-gap-analysis        October 2013


                     +-------------+             _----_
    +---+            |   Access    |           _(      )_
    |AAA|. . . . . . | Aggregation |----------( Internet )
    +---+            |   Gateway   |           (_      _)
                     +-------------+             '----'
                        |  |   |
                        |  |   +-------------+
                        |  |                 |
                        |  |              +-----+
        +---------------+  |              | AR  |
        |                  |              +--+--+
     +-----+            +-----+         *----+----*
     | RG  |            | WLC |        (    LAN    )
     +-----+            +-----+         *---------*
        .               /    \             /    \
       / \          +----+  +----+     +----+  +----+
      MN MN         |WiFi|  |WiFi|     |WiFi|  |WiFi|
                    | AP |  | AP |     | AP |  | AP |
                    +----+  +----+     +----+  +----+
                       .                  .
                      / \                / \
                     MN MN              MN MN

                  Figure 1: IP WiFi network architectures

   In the figure, three typical deployment options are shown
   [I-D.gundavelli-v6ops-community-wifi-svcs].  On the left hand side of
   the figure, mobile nodes directly connect to a Residential Gateway
   (RG) which is a network device that is located in the customer
   premises and provides both wireless layer-2 access connectivity
   (i.e., it hosts the 802.11 Access Point function) with layer-3
   routing functions.  In the middle, mobile nodes connect to WiFi
   Access Points (APs) that are managed by a WLAN Controller (WLC),
   which performs radio resource management on the APs, system-wide
   mobility policy enforcement and centralized forwarding function for
   the user traffic.  The WLC could also implement layer-3 routing
   functions, or attach to an access router (AR).  Last, on the right-
   hand side of the figure, access points are directly connected to an
   access router, which can also be used a generic connectivity model.

   In some network architectures, such as the evolved Wi-Fi hotspot,
   operators might make use of IP mobility protocols to provide mobility
   support to users, for example to allow connecting the IP WiFi network
   to a mobile operator core and support roaming between WLAN and 3GPP
   accesses.  Two main protocols can be used: Proxy Mobile IPv6
   [RFC5213] or Mobile IPv6 [RFC6275], [RFC5555], with the anchor role
   (e.g., local mobility anchor or home agent) typically being played by
   the Access Aggregation Gateway or even by an entity placed on the



Liu, et al.              Expires April 23, 2014                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft       DMM-best-practices-gap-analysis        October 2013


   mobile operator's core network.

   Although we have adopted in this section the example of WiFi
   networks, there are other IP flat wireless network architectures
   specified, such as WiMAX [IEEE.802-16.2009], which integrates both
   host and network-based IP mobility functionality.

   Existing IP mobility protocols can also be deployed in a "flatter"
   way, so the anchoring and access aggregation functions are
   distributed.  We next describe several practices for the deployment
   of existing mobility protocols in a distributed mobility management
   environment.  We limit our analysis in this section to protocol
   solutions based on existing IP mobility protocols, either host- or
   network-based, such as Mobile IPv6 [RFC6275], [RFC5555], Proxy Mobile
   IPv6 [RFC5213], [RFC5844] and NEMO [RFC3963].  Extensions to these
   base protocol solutions are also considered.  We pay special
   attention to the management of the use of care-of-addresses versus
   home addresses in an efficient manner for different types of
   communications.  Finally, and in order to simplify the analysis, we
   divide it into two parts: host- and network-based practices.

4.2.1.  Host-based IP DMM practices

   Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6) [RFC6275] and its extension to support mobile
   networks, the NEMO Basic Support protocol (hereafter, simply NEMO)
   [RFC3963] are well-known host-based IP mobility protocols.  They
   heavily rely on the function of the Home Agent (HA), a centralized
   anchor, to provide mobile nodes (hosts and routers) with mobility
   support.  In these approaches, the home agent typically provides the
   anchoring function (AF), Mobility Routing (MR), and Internetwork
   Location Management (LM) functions, while the mobile node provides
   the Location Update (LU) function.  We next describe some practices
   on how Mobile IPv6/NEMO and several additional protocol extensions
   can be deployed in a distributed mobility management environment.

   One approach to distribute the anchors can be to deploy several HAs
   (as shown in Figure 2), and assign to each MN the one closest to its
   topological location [RFC4640], [RFC5026], [RFC6611].  In the example
   shown in Figure 2, MN1 is assigned HA1 (and a home address anchored
   by HA1), while MN2 is assigned HA2.  Note that Mobile IPv6 / NEMO
   specifications do not prevent the simultaneous use of multiple home
   agents by a single mobile node.  This deployment model could be
   exploited by a mobile node to meet assumption #4 and use several
   anchors at the same time, each of them anchoring IP flows initiated
   at different point of attachment.  However there is no mechanism
   specified by the IETF to enable an efficient dynamic discovery of
   available anchors and the selection of the most suitable one.  Note
   that some of these mechanisms have been defined outside the IETF



Liu, et al.              Expires April 23, 2014                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft       DMM-best-practices-gap-analysis        October 2013


   (e.g., 3GPP).

    <- INTERNET -> <- HOME NETWORK -> <---- ACCESS NETWORK ---->
       -------                          -------
       | CN1 |         -------          | AR1 |-(o) zzzz (o)
       -------         | HA1 |          -------           |
                       -------   (MN1 anchored at HA1) -------
                                        -------        | MN1 |
                                        | AR2 |-(o)    -------
                                        -------
                       -------
                       | HA2 |          -------
                       -------          | AR3 |-(o) zzzz (o)
                                        -------           |
       -------                   (MN2 anchored at HA2) -------
       | CN2 |                          -------        | MN2 |
       -------                          | AR4 |-(o)    -------
                                        -------

      CN1    CN2     HA1    HA2         AR1    MN1     AR3    MN2
       |      |       |      |           |      |       |      |
       |<------------>|<=================+=====>|       |      | BT mode
       |      |       |      |           |      |       |      |
       |      |<----------------------------------------+----->| RO mode
       |      |       |      |           |      |       |      |

     Figure 2: Distributed operation of Mobile IPv6 (BT and RO) / NEMO

   Since one of the goals of the deployment of mobility protocols in a
   distributed mobility management environment is to avoid the
   suboptimal routing caused by centralized anchoring, the Route
   Optimization (RO) support provided by Mobile IPv6 can also be used to
   achieve a flatter IP data forwarding.  By default, Mobile IPv6 and
   NEMO use the so-called Bidirectional Tunnel (BT) mode, in which data
   traffic is always encapsulated between the MN and its HA before being
   directed to any other destination.  The Route Optimization (RO) mode
   allows the MN to update its current location on the CNs, and then use
   the direct path between them.  Using the example shown in Figure 2,
   MN1 is using BT mode with CN2 and MN2 is in RO mode with CN1.
   However, the RO mode has several drawbacks:

   o  The RO mode is only supported by Mobile IPv6.  There is no route
      optimization support standardized for the NEMO protocol because of
      the security problems posed by extending return routability tests
      for prefixes, although many different solutions have been
      proposed.





Liu, et al.              Expires April 23, 2014                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft       DMM-best-practices-gap-analysis        October 2013


   o  The RO mode requires additional signaling, which adds some
      protocol overhead.

   o  The signaling required to enable RO involves the home agent, and
      it is repeated periodically because of security reasons [RFC4225].
      This basically means that the HA remains as single point of
      failure, because the Mobile IPv6 RO mode does not mean HA-less
      operation.

   o  The RO mode requires additional support on the correspondent node
      (CN).

   Notwithstanding these considerations, the RO mode does offer the
   possibility of substantially reducing traffic through the Home Agent,
   in cases when it can be supported on the relevant correspondent
   nodes.  Note that a mobile node can also use its CoA directly
   [RFC5014] when communicating with CNs on the same link or anywhere in
   the Internet, although no session continuity support would be
   provided by the IP stack in this case.
































Liu, et al.              Expires April 23, 2014                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft       DMM-best-practices-gap-analysis        October 2013


     <- INTERNET -> <- HOME NETWORK -> <------- ACCESS NETWORK ------->
                                                    -----
                                                   /|AR1|-(o) zz (o)
                                         -------- / -----         |
                                         | MAP1 |<             -------
                                         -------- \ -----      | MN1 |
        -------                                    \|AR2|      -------
        | CN1 |                                     -----  HoA anchored
        -------                                     -----     at HA1
                        -------                    /|AR3|  RCoA anchored
                        | HA1 |          -------- / -----     at MAP1
                        -------          | MAP2 |<         LCoA anchored
                                         -------- \ -----     at AR1
                                                   \|AR4|
        -------                                     -----
        | CN2 |                                     -----
        -------                                    /|AR5|
                                         -------- / -----
                                         | MAP3 |<
                                         -------- \ -----
                                                   \|AR6|
                                                    -----

     CN1      CN2         HA1              MAP1      AR1         MN1
      |        |           |                | ________|__________ |
      |<------------------>|<==============>|<________+__________>| HoA
      |        |           |                |         |           |
      |        |<-------------------------->|<===================>| RCoA
      |        |           |                |         |           |

                    Figure 3: Hierarchical Mobile IPv6

   Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 (HMIPv6) [RFC5380] is another host-based IP
   mobility extension that can be considered as a complement to provide
   a less centralized mobility deployment.  It allows reducing the
   amount of mobility signaling as well as improving the overall
   handover performance of Mobile IPv6 by introducing a new hierarchy
   level to handle local mobility.  The Mobility Anchor Point (MAP)
   entity is introduced as a local mobility handling node deployed
   closer to the mobile node.

   When HMIPv6 is used, the MN has two different temporal addresses: the
   Regional Care-of Address (RCoA) and the Local Care-of Address (LCoA).
   The RCoA is anchored at one MAP, that plays the role of local home
   agent, while the LCoA is anchored at the access router level.  The
   mobile node uses the RCoA as the CoA signaled to its home agent.
   Therefore, while roaming within a local domain handled by the same
   MAP, the mobile node does not need to update its home agent (i.e.,



Liu, et al.              Expires April 23, 2014                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft       DMM-best-practices-gap-analysis        October 2013


   the mobile node does not change RCoA).

   The use of HMIPv6 allows some route optimization, as a mobile node
   may decide to directly use the RCoA as source address for a
   communication with a given correspondent node, notably if the MN does
   not expect to move outside the local domain during the lifetime of
   the communication.  This can be seen as a potential DMM mode of
   operation.  In the example shown in Figure 3, MN1 is using its global
   HoA to communicate with CN1, while it is using its RCoA to
   communicate with CN2.

   Additionally, a local domain might have several MAPs deployed,
   enabling hence different kind of HMIPv6 deployments (e.g., flat and
   distributed).  The HMIPv6 specification supports a flexible selection
   of the MAP (e.g., based on the distance between the MN and the MAP,
   taking into consideration the expected mobility pattern of the MN,
   etc.).

   An additional extension that can be used to help deploying a mobility
   protocol in a distributed mobility management environment is the the
   Home Agent switch specification [RFC5142], which defines a new
   mobility header for signaling a mobile node that it should acquire a
   new home agent.  Even though the purposes of this specification do
   not include the case of changing the mobile node's home address, as
   that might imply loss of connectivity for ongoing persistent
   connections, it could be used to force the change of home agent in
   those situations where there are no active persistent data sessions
   that cannot cope with a change of home address.

   There other host-based approaches standardized within the IETF that
   can be used to provide mobility support.  For example MOBIKE
   [RFC4555] allows a mobile node encrypting traffic through IKEv2
   [RFC5996] to change its point of attachment while maintaining a
   Virtual Private Network (VPN) session.  The MOBIKE protocol allows
   updating the VPN Security Associations (SAs) in cases where the base
   connection initially used is lost and needs to be re-established.
   The use of the MOBIKE protocol avoids having to perform an IKEv2 re-
   negotiation.  Similar considerations to those made for Mobile IPv6
   can be applied to MOBIKE; though MOBIKE is best suited for situations
   where the address of at least one endpoint is relatively stable and
   can be discovered using existing mechanisms such as DNS.

4.2.2.  Network-based IP DMM practices

   Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) [RFC5213] is the main network-based IP
   mobility protocol specified for IPv6 ([RFC5844] defines some IPv4
   extensions).  Architecturally, PMIPv6 is similar to MIPv6, as it
   relies on the function of the Local Mobility Anchor (LMA) to provide



Liu, et al.              Expires April 23, 2014                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft       DMM-best-practices-gap-analysis        October 2013


   mobile nodes with mobility support, without requiring the involvement
   of the mobile nodes.  The required functionality at the mobile node
   is provided in a proxy manner by the Mobile Access Gateway (MAG).
   With network-based IP mobility protocols, the local mobility anchor
   typically provides the anchoring function (AF), Mobility Routing
   (MR), and Internetwork Location Management (LM) functions, while the
   mobile access gateway provides the Location Update (LU) function.  We
   next describe some practices on how network-based mobility protocols
   and several additional protocol extensions can be deployed in a
   distributed mobility management environment.

   <- INTERNET -><- HOME NET -><----------- ACCESS NETWORK ------------>
       -------
       | CN1 |                      --------      --------      --------
       -------      --------        | MAG1 |      | MAG2 |      | MAG3 |
                    | LMA1 |        ---+----      ---+----      ---+----
       -------      --------           |             |             |
       | CN2 |                        (o)           (o)           (o)
       -------      --------          x                           x
                    | LMA2 |         x                           x
       -------      --------       (o)                          (o)
       | CN3 |                      |                            |
       -------                   ---+---                      ---+---
                      Anchored   | MN1 |          Anchored    | MN2 |
                      at LMA1 -> -------          at LMA2 ->  -------

     CN1    CN2     LMA1   LMA2        MAG1   MN1     MAG3    MN2
      |      |       |      |           |      |       |       |
      |<------------>|<================>|<---->|       |       |
      |      |       |      |           |      |       |       |
      |      |<------------>|<========================>|<----->|
      |      |       |      |           |      |       |       |

           Figure 4: Distributed operation of Proxy Mobile IPv6

   As with Mobile IPv6, plain Proxy Mobile IPv6 operation cannot be
   easily decentralized, as in this case there also exists a single
   network anchor point.  One simple but still suboptimal approach, can
   be to deploy several local mobility anchors and use some selection
   criteria to assign LMAs to attaching mobile nodes (an example of this
   type of assignment is shown in Figure 4).  As per the client based
   approach, a mobile node may use several anchors at the same time,
   each of them anchoring IP flows initiated at different point of
   attachment.  This assignment can be static or dynamic (as described
   later in this document).  The main advantage of this simple approach
   is that the IP address anchor (i.e., the LMA) could be placed closer
   to the mobile node, and therefore resulting paths are close-to-
   optimal.  On the other hand, as soon as the mobile node moves, the



Liu, et al.              Expires April 23, 2014                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft       DMM-best-practices-gap-analysis        October 2013


   resulting path would start to deviate from the optimal one.

   As for host-based IP mobility, there are some extensions defined to
   mitigate the sub-optimal routing issues that might arise due to the
   use of a centralized anchor.  The Local Routing extensions [RFC6705]
   enable optimal routing in Proxy Mobile IPv6 in three cases: i) when
   two communicating MNs are attached to the same MAG and LMA, ii) when
   two communicating MNs are attached to different MAGs but to the same
   LMA, and iii) when two communicating MNs are attached to the same MAG
   but have different LMAs.  In these three cases, data traffic between
   the two mobile nodes does not traverse the LMA(s), thus providing
   some form of path optimization since the traffic is locally routed at
   the edge.  The main disadvantage of this approach is that it only
   tackles the MN-to-MN communication scenario, and only under certain
   circumstances.

   An interesting extension that can also be used to facilitate the
   deployment of network-based mobility protocols in a distributes
   mobility management environment is the LMA runtime assignment
   [RFC6463].  This extension specifies a runtime local mobility anchor
   assignment functionality and corresponding mobility options for Proxy
   Mobile IPv6.  This runtime local mobility anchor assignment takes
   place during the Proxy Binding Update / Proxy Binding Acknowledgment
   message exchange between a mobile access gateway and a local mobility
   anchor.  While this mechanism is mainly aimed for load-balancing
   purposes, it can also be used to select an optimal LMA from the
   routing point of view.  A runtime LMA assignment can be used to
   change the assigned LMA of an MN, for example in case when the mobile
   node does not have any session active, or when running sessions can
   survive an IP address change.  Note that several possible dynamic
   local mobility anchor discovery solutions can be used, as described
   in [RFC6097].

4.3.  3GPP network flattening approaches

   The 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) is the standard
   development organization that specifies the 3rd generation mobile
   network and LTE (Long Term Evolution).

   Architecturally, the 3GPP Evolved Packet Core (EPC) network is
   similar to an IP wireless network running PMIPv6 or MIPv6, as it
   relies on the Packet Data Gateway (PGW) anchoring services to provide
   mobile nodes with mobility support (see Figure 5).  There are client-
   based and network-based mobility solutions in 3GPP, which for
   simplicity we will analyze together.  We next describe how 3GPP
   mobility protocols and several additional completed or on-going
   extensions can be deployed to meet some of the DMM requirements
   [I-D.ietf-dmm-requirements].



Liu, et al.              Expires April 23, 2014                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft       DMM-best-practices-gap-analysis        October 2013


            +---------------------------------------------------------+
            |                           PCRF                          |
            +-----------+--------------------------+----------------+-+
                        |                          |                |
   +----+   +-----------+------------+    +--------+-----------+  +-+-+
   |    |   |          +-+           |    |  Core Network      |  |   |
   |    |   | +------+ |S|__         |    | +--------+  +---+  |  |   |
   |    |   | |GERAN/|_|G|  \        |    | |  HSS   |  |   |  |  |   |
   |    +-----+ UTRAN| |S|   \       |    | +---+----+  |   |  |  | E |
   |    |   | +------+ |N|  +-+-+    |    |     |       |   |  |  | x |
   |    |   |          +-+ /|MME|    |    | +---+----+  |   |  |  | t |
   |    |   | +---------+ / +---+    |    | |  3GPP  |  |   |  |  | e |
   |    +-----+ E-UTRAN |/           |    | |  AAA   |  |   |  |  | r |
   |    |   | +---------+\           |    | | SERVER |  |   |  |  | n |
   |    |   |             \ +---+    |    | +--------+  |   |  |  | a |
   |    |   |   3GPP AN    \|SGW+----- S5---------------+ P |  |  | l |
   |    |   |               +---+    |    |             | G |  |  |   |
   |    |   +------------------------+    |             | W |  |  | I |
   | UE |                                 |             |   |  |  | P |
   |    |   +------------------------+    |             |   +-----+   |
   |    |   |+-------------+ +------+|    |             |   |  |  | n |
   |    |   || Untrusted   +-+ ePDG +-S2b---------------+   |  |  | e |
   |    +---+| non-3GPP AN | +------+|    |             |   |  |  | t |
   |    |   |+-------------+         |    |             |   |  |  | w |
   |    |   +------------------------+    |             |   |  |  | o |
   |    |                                 |             |   |  |  | r |
   |    |   +------------------------+    |             |   |  |  | k |
   |    +---+  Trusted non-3GPP AN   +-S2a--------------+   |  |  | s |
   |    |   +------------------------+    |             |   |  |  |   |
   |    |                                 |             +-+-+  |  |   |
   |    +--------------------------S2c--------------------|    |  |   |
   |    |                                 |                    |  |   |
   +----+                                 +--------------------+  +---+

             Figure 5: EPS (non-roaming) architecture overview

   GPRS Tunnelling Protocol (GTP) [3GPP.29.060] [3GPP.29.281]
   [3GPP.29.274] is a network-based mobility protocol specified for 3GPP
   networks (S2a, S2b, S5 and S8 interfaces).  Similar to PMIPv6, it can
   handle mobility without requiring the involvement of the mobile
   nodes.  In this case, the mobile node functionality is provided in a
   proxy manner by the Serving Data Gateway (SGW), Evolved Packet Data
   Gateway (ePDG), or Trusted Wireless Access Gateway (TWAG).

   3GPP specifications also include client-based mobility support, based
   on adopting the use of Dual-Stack Mobile IPv6 (DSMIPv6) [RFC5555] for
   the S2c interface.  In this case, the UE implements the mobile node
   functionality, while the home agent role is played by the PGW.



Liu, et al.              Expires April 23, 2014                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft       DMM-best-practices-gap-analysis        October 2013


   A Local IP Access (LIPA) and Selected IP Traffic Offload (SIPTO)
   enabled network [3GPP.23.401] allows offloading some IP services at
   the local access network, above the Radio Access Network (RAN) or at
   the macro, without the need to traverse back to the PGW (see
   Figure 6.

     +---------+ IP traffic to mobile operator's CN
     |  User   |....................................(Operator's CN)
     | Equipm. |..................
     +---------+                 . Local IP traffic
                                 .
                           +-----------+
                           |Residential|
                           |enterprise |
                           |IP network |
                           +-----------+

                          Figure 6: LIPA scenario

   SIPTO enables an operator to offload certain types of traffic at a
   network node close to the UE's point of attachment to the access
   network, by selecting a set of GWs (SGW and PGW) that is
   geographically/topologically close to the UE's point of attachment.

                             SIPTO Traffic
                                 |
                                 .
                                 .
                             +------+        +------+
                             |L-PGW |   ---- | MME  |
                             +------+  /     +------+
                                 |    /
   +-------+     +------+    +------+/       +------+
   |  UE   |.....|eNB   |....| S-GW |........| P-GW |...> CN Traffic
   +-------+     +------+    +------+        +------+

                       Figure 7: SIPTO architecture

   LIPA, on the other hand, enables an IP capable UE connected via a
   Home eNB (HeNB) to access other IP capable entities in the same
   residential/enterprise IP network without the user plane traversing
   the mobile operator's network core.  In order to achieve this, a
   Local GW (L-GW) collocated with the HeNB is used.  LIPA is
   established by the UE requesting a new PDN connection to an access
   point name for which LIPA is permitted, and the network selecting the
   Local GW associated with the HeNB and enabling a direct user plane
   path between the Local GW and the HeNB.




Liu, et al.              Expires April 23, 2014                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft       DMM-best-practices-gap-analysis        October 2013


   +---------------+-------+  +----------+  +-------------+    =====
   |Residential |  |H(e)NB |  | Backhaul |  |Mobile       |   ( IP  )
   |Enterprise  |..|-------|..|          |..|Operator     |..(Network)
   |Network     |  |L-GW   |  |          |  |Core network |   =======
   +---------------+-------+  +----------+  +-------------+
                       /
                       |
                       /
                    +-----+
                    | UE  |
                    +-----+

                        Figure 8: LIPA architecture

   The 3GPP architecture specifications also provide mechanisms to allow
   discovery and selection of gateways [3GPP.29.303].  These mechanisms
   enable taking decisions taking into consideration topological
   location and gateway collocation aspects, using heavily the DNS as a
   "location database".

   Both SIPTO and LIPA have a very limited mobility support, specially
   in 3GPP specifications up to Rel-10.  In Rel-11, there is currently a
   work item on LIPA Mobility and SIPTO at the Local Network (LIMONET)
   [3GPP.23.859] that is studying how to provide SIPTO and LIPA
   mechanisms with some additional, but still limited, mobility support.
   In a glimpse, LIPA mobility support is limited to handovers between
   HeNBs that are managed by the same L-GW (i.e., mobility within the
   local domain), while seamless SIPTO mobility is still limited to the
   case where the SGW/PGW is at or above Radio Access Network (RAN)
   level.


5.  Gap analysis

   The goal of this section is to identify the limitations in the
   current practices, described in Section 4, with respect to the
   expected DMM requirements listed in [I-D.ietf-dmm-requirements].

5.1.  Distributed processing - REQ1

   According to requirement #1 stated in [I-D.ietf-dmm-requirements], IP
   mobility, network access and routing solutions provided by DMM MUST
   enable distributed processing for mobility management so that traffic
   does not need to traverse centrally deployed mobility anchors and
   thereby avoid non-optimal routes.

   From the analysis performed in Section 4, a DMM deployment can meet
   the requirement "REQ#1 Distributed processing" usually relying on the



Liu, et al.              Expires April 23, 2014                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft       DMM-best-practices-gap-analysis        October 2013


   following functions:

   o  Multiple (distributed) anchoring: ability to anchor different
      sessions of a single mobile node at different anchors.  In order
      to make this feature "DMM-friendly", some anchors might need to be
      placed closer to the mobile node.

   o  Dynamic anchor assignment/re-location: ability to i) optimally
      assign initial anchor, and ii) dynamically change the initially
      assigned anchor and/or assign a new one (this may also require to
      transfer mobility context between anchors).  This can be achieved
      either by changing anchor for all ongoing sessions, or by
      assigning new anchors just for new sessions.

   Both the main client- and network-based IP mobility protocols, namely
   (DS)MIPv6 and PMIPv6 allows to deploy multiple anchors (i.e., home
   agents and localized mobility anchors), therefore providing the
   multiple anchoring function.  However, existing solutions do only
   provide an optimal initial anchor assignment, a gap being the lack of
   dynamic anchor change/new anchor assignment.  Neither the HA switch
   nor the LMA runtime assignment allow changing the anchor during an
   ongoing session.  This actually comprises several gaps: ability to
   perform anchor assignment at any time (not only at the initial MN's
   attachment), ability of the current anchor to initiate/trigger the
   relocation, and ability of transferring registration context between
   anchors.

   Dynamic anchor assignment may lead the MN to manage different
   mobility sessions served by different mobility anchors.  This is not
   an issue with client based mobility management where the mobility
   client natively knows each anchor associated to each mobility
   sessions.  However, it may raise issues with network based mobility
   management.  In this case, the mobile client, located in the network
   (e.g., MAG), usually retrieves the MN's anchor from the MN's policy
   profile (e.g., Section 6.2 of [RFC5213]).  Currently, the MN's policy
   profile implicitly assumes a single serving anchor and, thus, does
   not maintain the association between home network prefix and anchor.

   The consequence of the distribution of the mobility anchors is that
   there might be more than one available anchor for a mobile node to
   use, so leading to an anchor discovery and selection issue.
   Currently, there is no efficient mechanism specified by the IETF that
   allows to dynamically discover the presence of nodes that can play
   the role of anchor, discover their capabilities and allow the
   selection of the most suitable one.  Note that there are 3GPP
   mechanisms providing this functionality defined in [3GPP.29.303].





Liu, et al.              Expires April 23, 2014                [Page 18]


Internet-Draft       DMM-best-practices-gap-analysis        October 2013


5.2.  Transparency to Upper Layers - REQ2

   The need for "transparency to upper layer", introduced in
   [I-D.ietf-dmm-requirements], requires dynamic mobility management,
   which basically leverages the two following functions:

   o  Dynamically assign/relocate anchor: a mobility anchor is assigned
      only to sessions which require IP continuity support.  The MN may
      thus manage more than one session; some of them may be associated
      with anchored IP address(es), while the others may be associated
      with local IP address(es).

   o  Multiple IP address management: this function is ensued from the
      preceding and is about the ability of the mobile node to
      simultaneously use multiple IP addresses and select the best one
      (from an anchoring point of view) to use on a per-session/
      application/service basis.

   The dynamic anchor assignment/relocation needs to ensure that IP
   address continuity is guaranteed for sessions that need it and while
   needed (in some scenarios, the provision of mobility locally within a
   limited area might be enough from the mobile node or the application
   point of view) at the relocated anchor.  This for example implies
   having the knowledge of which sessions are active at the mobile node,
   which is something typically known only by the MN e.g., by its
   connection manager).  Therefore, (part of) this knowledge might need
   to be transferred to/shared with the network.

   Multiple IP address management requires the MN to pick-up the correct
   address (with mobility support or not) depending on the application
   requirements.  When using client based mobility management, the
   mobile node is natively aware about the anchoring capabilities of its
   assigned IP addresses.  This is not the case with network based IP
   mobility management and current mechanisms does not allow the MN to
   be aware of the IP addresses properties (i.e. the MN does not know
   whether the allocated IP addresses are anchored).  However, there are
   ongoing IETF works that are proposing that the network could indicate
   the different IP addresses properties during assignment procedures
   [I-D.bhandari-dhc-class-based-prefix],
   [I-D.korhonen-6man-prefix-properties].

5.3.  IPv6 deployment - REQ3

   This requirement states that DMM solutions SHOULD primariliy target
   IPv6 as the primary deployment environment..  IPv4 support is not
   considered mandatory and SHOULD NOT be tailored specifically to
   support IPv4, in particular in situations where private IPv4
   addresses and/or NATs are used.



Liu, et al.              Expires April 23, 2014                [Page 19]


Internet-Draft       DMM-best-practices-gap-analysis        October 2013


   All analyzed DMM practices support IPv6.  Some of them, such as
   MIPv6/NEMO (including the support of dynamic HA selection), MOBIKE,
   SIPTO have also IPv4 support.  Additionally, there are also some
   solutions that have some limited IPv4 support (e.g., PMIPv6).  In
   conclusion, this requirement is met by existing DMM practices.

5.4.  Existing mobility protocols - REQ4

   A DMM solution SHOULD first consider reusing and extending IETF-
   standardized protocols before specifying new protocols.

   As stated in [I-D.ietf-dmm-requirements], a DMM solution could reuse
   existing IETF and standardized protocols before specifying new
   protocols.  Besides, Section 4 of this document discusses various
   ways to flatten and distribute current mobility solutions.  Actually,
   nothing prevent the distribution of mobility functions with vanilla
   IP mobility protocols.  However, as discussed in Section 5.1 and
   Section 5.2, limitations exist.  The 3GPP data plane anchoring
   function, i.e., the PGW, can be also be distributed, but with
   limitations; e.g., no anchoring relocation, no context transfer
   between anchors, centralized control plane .  The 3GPP architecture
   is also going into the direction of flattening with SIPTO and LIPA
   where IP anchoring function, however these solutions are supposed to
   be deployed do and, thus, do not provide mobility support.  In
   conclusion this requirement can be met, DMM can reuse existing
   mobility solutions, however some limitations exist.

5.5.  Co-existence - REQ5

   According to [I-D.ietf-dmm-requirements], DMM solution should be able
   to co-exist with existing network deployments and end hosts.  All of
   current mobility protocols can co-exist with existing network
   deployments and end hosts.  There is no gap between existing mobility
   protocols and this requirement.

5.6.  Security considerations - REQ6

   As stated in [I-D.ietf-dmm-requirements], a DMM solution MUST NOT
   introduce new security risks or amplify existing security risks
   against which the existing security mechanisms/protocols cannot offer
   sufficient protection.  Current mobility protocols all have security
   mechanisms.  For example, Mobile IPv6 defines security features to
   protect binding updates both to home agents and correspondent nodes.
   It also defines mechanisms to protect the data packets transmission
   for Mobile IPv6 users.  Proxy Mobile IPv6 and other variation of
   mobile IP also have similar security considerations.





Liu, et al.              Expires April 23, 2014                [Page 20]


Internet-Draft       DMM-best-practices-gap-analysis        October 2013


5.7.  Multicast - REQ7

   It is stated in [I-D.ietf-dmm-requirements] that DMM solutions SHOULD
   consider multicast traffic delivery so that network inefficiency
   issues, such as duplicate multicast subscriptions towards the
   downstream tunnel entities, can be avoided.

   Current IP mobility solutions address mainly the mobility problem for
   unicast traffic.  Solutions relying on the use of an anchor point for
   tunneling multicast traffic down to the access router, or to the MN,
   introduce the so-called "tunnel convergence problem".  This means
   that multiple instances of the same multicast traffic can converge to
   the same node, defeating hence the advantage of using multicast
   protocols.

   The MULTIMOB WG in IETF has studied the issue, for the specific case
   of PMIPv6, and has produced a baseline solution [RFC6224] as well as
   a routing optimization solution [RFC7028] to address the problem.
   The baseline solution suggests deploying an MLD proxy function at the
   MAG, and either a multicast router or another MLD proxy function at
   the LMA.  The routing optimization solution describes an architecture
   where a dedicated multicast tree mobility anchor (MTMA) or a direct
   routing option can be used to avoid the tunnel convergence problem.

   Besides the solutions proposed in MULTIMOB for PMIPv6, there are no
   solutions for other mobility protocols to address the multicast
   tunnel convergence problem.

5.8.  Summary

   We next list the main gaps identified from the analysis performed
   above.

   o  Existing solutions do only provide an optimal initial anchor
      assignment, a gap being the lack of dynamic anchor change/new
      anchor assignment.  Neither the HA switch nor the LMA runtime
      assignment allow changing the anchor during an ongoing session.

   o  The mobile node needs to simultaneously use multiple IP addresses,
      which requires additional support which might not be available on
      the mobile node's stack, especially for the case of network-based
      solutions.

   o  Currently, there is no efficient mechanism specified by the IETF
      that allows to dynamically discover the presence of nodes that can
      play the role of anchor, discover their capabilities and allow the
      selection of the most suitable one.




Liu, et al.              Expires April 23, 2014                [Page 21]


Internet-Draft       DMM-best-practices-gap-analysis        October 2013


   o  While existing network-based DMM practices may allow to deploy
      multiple LMAs and dynamically select the best one, this requires
      to still keep some centralization in the control plane, to access
      on the policy store (as defined in RFC5213).

   The following table summarizes the previous analysis, indicating the
   gaps existing DMM solutions have when compared to the requirements
   listed in [I-D.ietf-dmm-requirements].

      +------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
      |            | REQ1 | REQ2 | REQ3 | REQ4 | REQ5 | REQ6 | REQ7 |
      +------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
      | MIPv6/NEMO | X    | X    |      |      |      |      |  X   |
      | MIPv6 RO   | X    |      |      |      |      |      |  X   |
      | HMIPv6     | X    |      |      |      |      |      |  X   |
      | HA sel     | X    | X    |      |      |      |      |  X   |
      | MOBIKE     | X    | X    |      |      |      |      |  X   |
      | PMIPv6     | X    | X    |      |      |      |      |  *   |
      | LMA sel    | X    | X    |      |      |      |      |  X   |
      | LIPA       | X    | X    |      |      |      |      |  X   |
      | SIPTO      | X    | X    |      |      |      |      |  X   |
      | LIMONET    | X    | X    |      |      |      |      |  X   |
      +------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+

   * MULTIMOB optimizations for PMIPv6 can be used to handle multicast
   traffic.


6.  Security Considerations

   This document does not define any protocol, there is no security
   considerations.


7.  IANA Considerations

   None.


8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

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






Liu, et al.              Expires April 23, 2014                [Page 22]


Internet-Draft       DMM-best-practices-gap-analysis        October 2013


8.2.  Informative References

   [3GPP.23.401]
              3GPP, "General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) enhancements
              for Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network
              (E-UTRAN) access", 3GPP TS 23.401 10.10.0, March 2013.

   [3GPP.23.859]
              3GPP, "Local IP access (LIPA) mobility and Selected IP
              Traffic Offload (SIPTO) at the local network", 3GPP
              TR 23.859 12.0.1, April 2013.

   [3GPP.29.060]
              3GPP, "General Packet Radio Service (GPRS); GPRS
              Tunnelling Protocol (GTP) across the Gn and Gp interface",
              3GPP TS 29.060 3.19.0, March 2004.

   [3GPP.29.274]
              3GPP, "3GPP Evolved Packet System (EPS); Evolved General
              Packet Radio Service (GPRS) Tunnelling Protocol for
              Control plane (GTPv2-C); Stage 3", 3GPP TS 29.274 10.11.0,
              June 2013.

   [3GPP.29.281]
              3GPP, "General Packet Radio System (GPRS) Tunnelling
              Protocol User Plane (GTPv1-U)", 3GPP TS 29.281 10.3.0,
              September 2011.

   [3GPP.29.303]
              3GPP, "Domain Name System Procedures; Stage 3", 3GPP
              TS 29.303 10.4.0, September 2012.

   [I-D.bhandari-dhc-class-based-prefix]
              Systems, C., Halwasia, G., Gundavelli, S., Deng, H.,
              Thiebaut, L., Korhonen, J., and I. Farrer, "DHCPv6 class
              based prefix", draft-bhandari-dhc-class-based-prefix-05
              (work in progress), July 2013.

   [I-D.gundavelli-v6ops-community-wifi-svcs]
              Gundavelli, S., Grayson, M., Seite, P., and Y. Lee,
              "Service Provider Wi-Fi Services Over Residential
              Architectures",
              draft-gundavelli-v6ops-community-wifi-svcs-06 (work in
              progress), April 2013.

   [I-D.ietf-dmm-requirements]
              Chan, A., Liu, D., Seite, P., Yokota, H., and J. Korhonen,
              "Requirements for Distributed Mobility Management",



Liu, et al.              Expires April 23, 2014                [Page 23]


Internet-Draft       DMM-best-practices-gap-analysis        October 2013


              draft-ietf-dmm-requirements-09 (work in progress),
              September 2013.

   [I-D.korhonen-6man-prefix-properties]
              Korhonen, J., Patil, B., Gundavelli, S., Seite, P., and D.
              Liu, "IPv6 Prefix Properties",
              draft-korhonen-6man-prefix-properties-02 (work in
              progress), July 2013.

   [IEEE.802-16.2009]
              "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks
              Part 16: Air Interface for Broadband Wireless Access
              Systems", IEEE Standard 802.16, 2009, <http://
              standards.ieee.org/getieee802/download/802.16-2009.pdf>.

   [RFC3963]  Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., and P.
              Thubert, "Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol",
              RFC 3963, January 2005.

   [RFC4225]  Nikander, P., Arkko, J., Aura, T., Montenegro, G., and E.
              Nordmark, "Mobile IP Version 6 Route Optimization Security
              Design Background", RFC 4225, December 2005.

   [RFC4555]  Eronen, P., "IKEv2 Mobility and Multihoming Protocol
              (MOBIKE)", RFC 4555, June 2006.

   [RFC4640]  Patel, A. and G. Giaretta, "Problem Statement for
              bootstrapping Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6)", RFC 4640,
              September 2006.

   [RFC5014]  Nordmark, E., Chakrabarti, S., and J. Laganier, "IPv6
              Socket API for Source Address Selection", RFC 5014,
              September 2007.

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

   [RFC5142]  Haley, B., Devarapalli, V., Deng, H., and J. Kempf,
              "Mobility Header Home Agent Switch Message", RFC 5142,
              January 2008.

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

   [RFC5380]  Soliman, H., Castelluccia, C., ElMalki, K., and L.
              Bellier, "Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 (HMIPv6) Mobility
              Management", RFC 5380, October 2008.




Liu, et al.              Expires April 23, 2014                [Page 24]


Internet-Draft       DMM-best-practices-gap-analysis        October 2013


   [RFC5555]  Soliman, H., "Mobile IPv6 Support for Dual Stack Hosts and
              Routers", RFC 5555, June 2009.

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

   [RFC5996]  Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., and P. Eronen,
              "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)",
              RFC 5996, September 2010.

   [RFC6097]  Korhonen, J. and V. Devarapalli, "Local Mobility Anchor
              (LMA) Discovery for Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 6097,
              February 2011.

   [RFC6224]  Schmidt, T., Waehlisch, M., and S. Krishnan, "Base
              Deployment for Multicast Listener Support in Proxy Mobile
              IPv6 (PMIPv6) Domains", RFC 6224, April 2011.

   [RFC6275]  Perkins, C., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support
              in IPv6", RFC 6275, July 2011.

   [RFC6463]  Korhonen, J., Gundavelli, S., Yokota, H., and X. Cui,
              "Runtime Local Mobility Anchor (LMA) Assignment Support
              for Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 6463, February 2012.

   [RFC6611]  Chowdhury, K. and A. Yegin, "Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6)
              Bootstrapping for the Integrated Scenario", RFC 6611,
              May 2012.

   [RFC6705]  Krishnan, S., Koodli, R., Loureiro, P., Wu, Q., and A.
              Dutta, "Localized Routing for Proxy Mobile IPv6",
              RFC 6705, September 2012.

   [RFC7028]  Zuniga, JC., Contreras, LM., Bernardos, CJ., Jeon, S., and
              Y. Kim, "Multicast Mobility Routing Optimizations for
              Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 7028, September 2013.


Authors' Addresses

   Dapeng Liu (editor)
   China Mobile
   Unit2, 28 Xuanwumenxi Ave, Xuanwu District
   Beijing  100053
   China

   Email: liudapeng@chinamobile.com




Liu, et al.              Expires April 23, 2014                [Page 25]


Internet-Draft       DMM-best-practices-gap-analysis        October 2013


   Juan Carlos Zuniga (editor)
   InterDigital Communications, LLC
   1000 Sherbrooke Street West, 10th floor
   Montreal, Quebec  H3A 3G4
   Canada

   Email: JuanCarlos.Zuniga@InterDigital.com
   URI:   http://www.InterDigital.com/


   Pierrick Seite
   Orange
   4, rue du Clos Courtel, BP 91226
   Cesson-Sevigne  35512
   France

   Email: pierrick.seite@orange.com


   H Anthony Chan
   Huawei Technologies
   5340 Legacy Dr. Building 3
   Plano, TX  75024
   USA

   Email: h.a.chan@ieee.org


   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/














Liu, et al.              Expires April 23, 2014                [Page 26]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/