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

Versions: (draft-seite-dmm-rg-multihoming) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

DMM WG                                                          P. Seite
Internet-Draft                                                    Orange
Intended status: Standards Track                                A. Yegin
Expires: December 2, 2017                                       Actility
                                                           S. Gundavelli
                                                                   Cisco
                                                            May 31, 2017


                      MAG Multipath Binding Option
                 draft-ietf-dmm-mag-multihoming-03.txt

Abstract

   This specification defines extensions to the Proxy Mobile IPv6
   protocol for allowing a mobile access gateway to register more than
   one proxy care-of-address with the local mobility anchor and to
   simultaneously establish multiple IP tunnels with the local mobility
   anchor.  This capability allows the mobile access gateway to utilize
   all the available access networks for routing mobile node's IP
   traffic.

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 December 2, 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



Seite, et al.           Expires December 2, 2017                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft        MAG Multipath Binding Option              May 2017


   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.  Conventions and Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.1.  Conventions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.  Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.1.  Example Call Flow  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.2.  Traffic distribution schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   4.  Protocol Extensions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.1.  MAG Multipath-Binding Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.2.  MAG Identifier Option  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.3.  New Status Code for Proxy Binding Acknowledgement  . . . . 10
   5.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   7.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     8.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     8.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
























Seite, et al.           Expires December 2, 2017                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft        MAG Multipath Binding Option              May 2017


1.  Introduction

   Using several links, the multihoming technology can improve
   connectivity availability and quality of communications; the goals
   and benefits of multihoming are as follows:

   o  Redundancy/Fault-Recovery

   o  Load balancing

   o  Load sharing

   o  Preferences settings

   According to [RFC4908], users of Small-Scale Networks can take
   benefit of multihoming using mobile IP [RFC6275] and Network Mobility
   (NEMO) [RFC3963] architecture in a mobile and fixed networking
   environment.  This document is introducing the concept of multiple
   Care-of Addresses (CoAs) [RFC5648] that have been specified since
   then.

   In the continuation of c, a Proxy Mobile IPv6 [RFC5213] based
   multihomed achitecture could be defined to enable Multi-WAN support
   for Small-Scale Fixed Networks.  The motivation to update [RFC4908]
   with proxy Mobile IPv6 is to leverage on latest mobility working
   group achievments, namely:

   o  using GRE as mobile tuneling, possibly with its key extension
      [RFC5845] (a possible reason to use GRE is given on Section 3.2).

   o  using UDP encapsulation [RFC5844] in order to support NAT
      traversal in IPv4 networking environment.

   o  Prefix Delegation mechanism [RFC7148].

   o  Using the vendor specific mobility option [RFC5094], for example
      to allow the MAG and LMA to exchange information (e.g.  WAN
      interface QoS metrics) allowing to make appropriate traffic
      steering decision.

   Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) relies on two mobility entities: the
   mobile access gateway (MAG), which acts as the default gateway for
   the end-node and the local mobility anchor (LMA), which acts as the
   topological anchor point.  Point-to-point links are established,
   using IP-in-IP tunnels, between MAG and LMA.  Then, the MAG and LMA
   are distributing traffic over these tunnels.  All PMIPv6 operations
   are performed on behalf of the end-node and its corespondent node, it
   thus makes PMIPv6 well adapted to multihomed architecture as



Seite, et al.           Expires December 2, 2017                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft        MAG Multipath Binding Option              May 2017


   considered in [RFC4908].  Taking the LTE and WLAN networking
   environments as an example, the PMIPv6 based multihomed architecture
   is depicted on Figure 1.  Flow-1,2 and 3 are distributed either on
   Tunnel-1 (over LTE) or Tunnel-2 (over WLAN), while Flow-4 is spread
   on both Tunnel-1 and 2.




     Flow-1
      |
      |Flow-2              _----_
      | |         CoA-1  _(      )_   Tunnel-1
      | |    .---=======(   LTE    )========\ Flow-1
      | |    |           (_      _)          \Flow-4
      | |    |             '----'             \
      | | +=====+                              \  +=====+    _----_
      | '-|     |                               \ |     |  _(      )_
      '---| MAG |                                 | LMA |-( Internet )--
      .---|     |                                 |     |  (_      _)
      | .-|     |                               / |     |    '----'
      | | +=====+                              /  +=====+
      | |    |             _----_             /
      | |    |    CoA-2  _(      )_ Tunnel-2 /
      | |    .---=======(   WLAN  )========/ Flow-2
      | |                (_     _)           Flow-3
      | |                  '----'            Flow-4
      |Flow-3
      |
     Flow0-4



             Figure 1: Multihomed MAG using Proxy Mobile IPv6

   The current version of Proxy Mobile IPv6 does not allow a MAG to
   register more than one proxy Care-of-Adresse to the LMA.  In other
   words, only one MAG/LMA link, i.e.  IP-in-IP tunnel, can be used at
   the same time.  This document overcomes this limitation by defining
   the multiple proxy Care-of Addresses (pCoAs) extension for Proxy
   Mobile IPv6.


2.  Conventions and Terminology







Seite, et al.           Expires December 2, 2017                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft        MAG Multipath Binding Option              May 2017


2.1.  Conventions

   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].

2.2.  Terminology

   All mobility related terms used in this document are to be
   interpreted as defined in [RFC5213], [RFC5844] and [RFC7148].
   Additionally, this document uses the following terms:

   IP-in-IP

      IP-within-IP encapsulation [RFC2473], [RFC4213]


3.  Overview

3.1.  Example Call Flow

   Figure 2 is the callflow detailing multi-access support with PMIPv6.
   The MAG in this example scenario is equipped with both WLAN and LTE
   interfaces and is also configured with the multihoming functionality.
   The steps of the callflow are as follows:

   Steps (1) and (2): the MAG attaches to both WLAN and LTE networks;
   the MAG obtains respectively two different proxy care-of-addresses
   (pCoA).

   Step (3): The MAG sends, over the WLAN access, a Proxy Binding Update
   (PBU) message, with the new MAG Multipath Binding (MMB) and MAG
   Identifier (MAG-NAI) options to the LMA.  A logical-NAI (MAG-NAI)
   with ALWAYS-ON configuration is enabled on the MAG.  The mobility
   session that is created (i.e. create a Binding Cache Entry) on the
   LMA is for the logical-NAI.  The LMA and allocates a Home Network
   Prefix (HNP), that shall be delegated to mobile nodes, to the MAG.

   Step (4): the LMA sends back a Proxy Binding Acknowledgement (PBA)
   including the HNP allocated to the MAG.

   Step (5): IP tunnel (IP-in-IP, GRE ...) is created over the WLAN
   access.

   Steps (6) to (8): The MAG repeats steps (3) to (5) on the LTE access.
   The MAG includes the HNP, received on step (4) in the PBU.  The LMA
   update its binding cache by creating a new mobility session for this
   MAG.



Seite, et al.           Expires December 2, 2017                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft        MAG Multipath Binding Option              May 2017


   Steps (9) and (10): The IP hosts MN_1 and MN_2 are assigned IP
   addresses from the mobile network prefix delegated by the MAG.



   +=====+ +=====+     +=====+      +=====+      +=====+         +=====+
   | MN_1| | MN_2|     | MAG |      | WLAN|      | LTE |         | LMA |
   +=====+ +=====+     +=====+      +=====+      +=====+         +=====+
      |       |           |            |            |               |
      |       |           |            |            |               |
      |       |           | (1) ATTACH |            |               |
      |       |           | <--------> |            |               |
      |       |           | (2) ATTACH              |               |
      |       |           | <---------------------->|               |
      |       |           | (3) PBU (MAG-NAI, MMB)                  |
      |       |           | ------------------------*-------------->|
      |       |           |                                         |
      |       |           |                                   Accept PBU
      |       |           |                               (allocate HNP,
      |       |           |                                  create BCE)
      |       |           | (4) PBA (MAG-NAI, HNP)                  |
      |       |           | <-----------------------*---------------|
      |       |           | (5) TUNNEL INTERFACE CREATION over WLAN |
      |       |           |-============== TUNNEL ==*==============-|
      |       |           |                                         |
      |       |           | (6) PBU (MAG-NAI, HNP, MMB)             |
      |       |           | -----------*--------------------------->|
      |       |           |                                         |
      |       |           |                                   Accept PBU
      |       |           |                                 (update BCE)
      |       |           | (7) PBA (MAG-NAI, HNP)                  |
      |       |           | <----------*--------------------------- |
      |       |           | (8) TUNNEL INTERFACE CREATION over LTE  |
      |       |           |-===========*== TUNNEL =================-|
      |   (9) ATTACH      |                                         |
      | <---------------> |                                         |
      |       |(10) ATTACH|                                         |
      |       |<--------> |                                         |


       Figure 2: Functional Separation of the Control and User Plane

3.2.  Traffic distribution schemes

   When receiving packets from the MN, the MAG distributes packets over
   tunnels that have been established.  Traffic distribution can be
   managed either on a per-flow or on a per-packet basis:




Seite, et al.           Expires December 2, 2017                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft        MAG Multipath Binding Option              May 2017


   o  Per-flow traffic management: each IP flow (both upstream and
      downstream) is mapped to a given tunnel, corresponding to a given
      WAN interface.  Flow binding extension [RFC6089] is used to
      exchange, and synchronize, IP flow management policies (i.e. rules
      associating traffic selectors [RFC6088] to a tunnel).

   o  Per-packet management: the LMA and the MAG distribute packets,
      belonging to a same IP flow, over more than one bindings (i.e.
      more than one WAN interface).  Packet distribution can be done
      either at the transport level, e.g. using MPTCP or at When
      operating at the IP packet level, different packets distribution
      algorithms are possible.  For example, the algorithm may give
      precedence to one given access: the MAG overflows traffic from the
      primary access, e.g.  WLAN, to the second one, only when load on
      primary access reaches a given threshold.  The distribution
      algorithm is left to implementer but whatever the algorithm is,
      packets distribution likely introduces packet latency and out-of-
      order delivery.  LMA and MAG shall thus be able to make reordering
      before packets delivery.  Sequence number can be can be used for
      that purpose, for example using GRE with sequence number option
      [RFC5845].  However, more detailed considerations on reordering
      and IP packet distribution scheme (e.g. definition of packets
      distribution algorithm) are out the scope of this document.

   Because latency introduced by per-packet can cause injury to some
   application, per-flow and per-packet distribution schemes could be
   used in conjunction.  For example, high throughput services (e.g.
   video streaming) may benefit from per-packet distribution scheme,
   while latency sensitive applications (e.g.  VoIP) are not be spread
   over different WAN paths.  IP flow mobility extensions, [RFC6089] and
   [RFC6088], can be used to provision the MAG with such flow policies.


4.  Protocol Extensions

4.1.  MAG Multipath-Binding Option

   The MAG Multipath-Binding option is a new mobility header option
   defined for use with Proxy Binding Update and Proxy Binding
   Acknowledgement messages exchanged between the local mobility anchor
   and the mobile access gateway.

   This mobility header option is used for requesting multipath support.
   It indicates that the mobile access gateway is requesting the local
   mobility anchor to register the current care-of address associated
   with the request as one of the many care-addresses through which the
   mobile access gateway can be reached.  It is also for carrying the
   information related to the access network associated with the care-of



Seite, et al.           Expires December 2, 2017                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft        MAG Multipath Binding Option              May 2017


   address.

   The MAG Multipath-Binding option has an alignment requirement of
   8n+2.  Its format is as shown in Figure 3:

   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      |    If-ATT     |    If-Label   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Binding-Id   |B|O|             RESERVED                      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                  Figure 3: MAG Multipath Binding Option

   Type

      <IANA-1> To be assigned by IANA.

   Length

      8-bit unsigned integer indicating the length of the option in
      octets, excluding the type and length fields.

   Interface Access-Technology Type (If-ATT)

      This 8-bit field identifies the Access-Technology type of the
      interface through which the mobile node is connected.  The
      permitted values for this are from the Access Technology Type
      registry defined in [RFC5213].

   Interface Label (If-Label)

      This 8-bit field represents the interface label represented as an
      unsigned integer.  The MAG identifies the label for each of the
      interfaces through which it registers a pCoA with the LMA.  When
      using static traffic flow policies on the mobile node and the home
      agent, the label can be used for generating forwarding policies.
      For example, the operator may have policy which binds traffic for
      Application "X" needs to interface with Label "Y".  When a
      registration through an interface matching Label "Y" gets
      activated, the home agent and the mobile node can dynamically
      generate a forwarding policy for forwarding traffic for
      Application "X" through mobile IP tunnel matching Label "Y".  Both
      the home agent and the mobile node can route the Application-X
      traffic through that interface.  The permitted values for If-Label
      are 1 through 255.




Seite, et al.           Expires December 2, 2017                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft        MAG Multipath Binding Option              May 2017


   Binding-Identifier (BID)

      This 8-bit field is used for carrying the binding identifier.  It
      uniquely identifies a specific binding of the mobile node, to
      which this request can be associated.  Each binding identifier is
      represented as an unsigned integer.  The permitted values are 1
      through 254.  The BID value of 0 and 255 are reserved.  The mobile
      access gateway assigns a unique value for each of its interfaces
      and includes them in the message.

   Bulk Re-registration Flag (B)

      This flag, if set to a value of (1), is to notify the local
      mobility anchor to consider this request as a request to update
      the binding lifetime of all the mobile node's bindings, upon
      accepting this specific request.  This flag MUST NOT be set to a
      value of (1), if the value of the Registration Overwrite Flag (O)
      is set to a value of (1).

   Binding Overwrite (O)

      This flag, if set to a value of (1), notifies the local mobility
      anchor that upon accepting this request, it should replace all of
      the mobile node's existing bindings with this binding.  This flag
      MUST NOT be set to a value of (1), if the value of the Bulk Re-
      registration Flag (B) is set to a value of (1).  This flag MUST be
      set to a value of (0), in de-registration requests.

   Reserved

      This field is unused in this specification.  The value MUST be set
      to zero (0) by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.

4.2.  MAG Identifier Option

   The MAG Identifier option is a new mobility header option defined for
   use with Proxy Binding Update and Proxy Binding Acknowledgement
   messages exchanged between the local mobility anchor and the mobile
   access gateway.  This mobility header option is used for conveying
   the MAG's identity.

   This option does not have any alignment requirements.









Seite, et al.           Expires December 2, 2017                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft        MAG Multipath Binding Option              May 2017


   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      |  Subtype      |  Reserved     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           Identifier ...                      ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                      Figure 4: MAG Identifier Option

   Type

      <IANA-2> To be assigned by IANA.

   Length

      8-bit unsigned integer indicating the length of the option in
      octets, excluding the type and length fields.

   Subtype

      One byte unsigned integer used for identifying the type of the
      Identifier field.  Accepted values for this field are the
      registered type values from the Mobile Node Identifier Option
      Subtypes registry.

   Reserved

      This field is unused in this specification.  The value MUST be set
      to zero (0) by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.

   Identifier

      A variable length identifier of type indicated in the Subtype
      field.

4.3.  New Status Code for Proxy Binding Acknowledgement

   This document defines the following new Status Code value for use in
   Proxy Binding Acknowledgement message.

   CANNOT_SUPPORT_MULTIPATH_BINDING (Cannot Support Multipath Binding):
   <IANA-4>


5.  IANA Considerations

   This document requires the following IANA actions.



Seite, et al.           Expires December 2, 2017               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft        MAG Multipath Binding Option              May 2017


   o  Action-1: This specification defines a new mobility option, the
      MAG Multipath-Binding option.  The format of this option is
      described in Section 4.1.  The type value <IANA-1> for this
      mobility option needs to be allocated from the Mobility Options
      registry at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters>.
      RFC Editor: Please replace <IANA-1> in Section 4.1 with the
      assigned value and update this section accordingly.

   o  Action-2: This specification defines a new mobility option, the
      MAG Identifier option.  The format of this option is described in
      Section 4.2.  The type value <IANA-2> for this mobility option
      needs to be allocated from the Mobility Options registry at
      <http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters>.  RFC
      Editor: Please replace <IANA-2> in Section 4.2 with the assigned
      value and update this section accordingly.

   o  Action-3: This document defines a new status value,
      CANNOT_SUPPORT_MULTIPATH_BINDING (<IANA-3>) for use in Proxy
      Binding Acknowledgement message, as described in Section 4.3.
      This value is to be assigned from the "Status Codes" registry at
      <http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters>.  The
      allocated value has to be greater than 127.  RFC Editor: Please
      replace <IANA-4> in Section 4.3 with the assigned value and update
      this section accordingly.


6.  Security Considerations

   This specification allows a mobile access gateway to establish
   multiple Proxy Mobile IPv6 tunnels with a local mobility anchor, by
   registering a care-of address for each of its connected access
   networks.  This essentially allows the mobile node's IP traffic to be
   routed through any of the tunnel paths and either based on a static
   or a dynamically negotiated flow policy.  This new capability has no
   impact on the protocol security.  Furthermore, this specification
   defines two new mobility header options, MAG Multipath-Binding option
   and the MAG Identifier option.  These options are carried like any
   other mobility header option as specified in [RFC5213].  Therefore,
   it inherits security guidelines from [RFC5213].  Thus, this
   specification does not weaken the security of Proxy Mobile IPv6
   Protocol, and does not introduce any new security vulnerabilities.


7.  Acknowledgements

   The authors of this draft would like to acknowledge the discussions
   and feedback on this topic from the members of the DMM working group.
   The authors would also like to thank Jouni Korhonen, Jong Hyouk Lee,



Seite, et al.           Expires December 2, 2017               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft        MAG Multipath Binding Option              May 2017


   Dirk Von-Hugo, Seil Jeon and Carlos Bernardos for their review
   feedback.


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,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC3963]  Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., and P.
              Thubert, "Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol",
              RFC 3963, DOI 10.17487/RFC3963, January 2005,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3963>.

   [RFC5094]  Devarapalli, V., Patel, A., and K. Leung, "Mobile IPv6
              Vendor Specific Option", RFC 5094, DOI 10.17487/RFC5094,
              December 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5094>.

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

   [RFC5648]  Wakikawa, R., Ed., Devarapalli, V., Tsirtsis, G., Ernst,
              T., and K. Nagami, "Multiple Care-of Addresses
              Registration", RFC 5648, DOI 10.17487/RFC5648,
              October 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5648>.

   [RFC5844]  Wakikawa, R. and S. Gundavelli, "IPv4 Support for Proxy
              Mobile IPv6", RFC 5844, DOI 10.17487/RFC5844, May 2010,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5844>.

   [RFC5845]  Muhanna, A., Khalil, M., Gundavelli, S., and K. Leung,
              "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) Key Option for Proxy
              Mobile IPv6", RFC 5845, DOI 10.17487/RFC5845, June 2010,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5845>.

   [RFC6088]  Tsirtsis, G., Giarreta, G., Soliman, H., and N. Montavont,
              "Traffic Selectors for Flow Bindings", RFC 6088,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6088, January 2011,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6088>.

   [RFC6089]  Tsirtsis, G., Soliman, H., Montavont, N., Giaretta, G.,
              and K. Kuladinithi, "Flow Bindings in Mobile IPv6 and



Seite, et al.           Expires December 2, 2017               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft        MAG Multipath Binding Option              May 2017


              Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support", RFC 6089,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6089, January 2011,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6089>.

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

   [RFC7148]  Zhou, X., Korhonen, J., Williams, C., Gundavelli, S., and
              CJ. Bernardos, "Prefix Delegation Support for Proxy Mobile
              IPv6", RFC 7148, DOI 10.17487/RFC7148, March 2014,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7148>.

8.2.  Informative References

   [RFC2473]  Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Generic Packet Tunneling in
              IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, DOI 10.17487/RFC2473,
              December 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2473>.

   [RFC4213]  Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms
              for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213, DOI 10.17487/
              RFC4213, October 2005,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4213>.

   [RFC4908]  Nagami, K., Uda, S., Ogashiwa, N., Esaki, H., Wakikawa,
              R., and H. Ohnishi, "Multi-homing for small scale fixed
              network Using Mobile IP and NEMO", RFC 4908, DOI 10.17487/
              RFC4908, June 2007,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4908>.


Authors' Addresses

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

   Email: pierrick.seite@orange.com


   Alper Yegin
   Actility
   Turkey

   Email: alper.yegin@actility.com




Seite, et al.           Expires December 2, 2017               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft        MAG Multipath Binding Option              May 2017


   Sri Gundavelli
   Cisco
   170 West Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA  95134
   USA

   Email: sgundave@cisco.com












































Seite, et al.           Expires December 2, 2017               [Page 14]


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