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

Versions: (draft-bernardos-dmm-pmipv6-dlif) 00 01 02 03

DMM Working Group                                          CJ. Bernardos
Internet-Draft                                            A. de la Oliva
Intended status: Standards Track                                    UC3M
Expires: April 23, 2019                                         F. Giust
                                                                 Athonet
                                                              JC. Zuniga
                                                                  SIGFOX
                                                               A. Mourad
                                                            InterDigital
                                                        October 20, 2018


    Proxy Mobile IPv6 extensions for Distributed Mobility Management
                     draft-ietf-dmm-pmipv6-dlif-03

Abstract

   Distributed Mobility Management solutions allow for setting up
   networks so that traffic is distributed in an optimal way and does
   not rely on centrally deployed anchors to provide IP mobility
   support.

   There are many different approaches to address Distributed Mobility
   Management, as for example extending network-based mobility protocols
   (like Proxy Mobile IPv6), or client-based mobility protocols (like
   Mobile IPv6), among others.  This document follows the former
   approach and proposes a solution based on Proxy Mobile IPv6 in which
   mobility sessions are anchored at the last IP hop router (called
   mobility anchor and access router).  The mobility anchor and access
   router is an enhanced access router which is also able to operate as
   a local mobility anchor or mobility access gateway, on a per prefix
   basis.  The document focuses on the required extensions to
   effectively support simultaneously anchoring several flows at
   different distributed gateways.

Requirements Language

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

Status of This Memo

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

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute



Bernardos, et al.        Expires April 23, 2019                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft             PMIPv6 DMM and DLIF              October 2018


   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://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, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 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
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  PMIPv6 DMM extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  Initial registration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.2.  The CMD as PBU/PBA relay  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.3.  The CMD as MAAR locator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     3.4.  The CMD as MAAR proxy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     3.5.  De-registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     3.6.  The Distributed Logical Interface (DLIF) concept  . . . .  13
   4.  Message Format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     4.1.  Proxy Binding Update  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     4.2.  Proxy Binding Acknowledgment  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     4.3.  Anchored Prefix Option  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     4.4.  Local Prefix Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     4.5.  Previous MAAR Option  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     4.6.  Serving MAAR Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     4.7.  DLIF Link-local Address Option  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     4.8.  DLIF Link-layer Address Option  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   7.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25



Bernardos, et al.        Expires April 23, 2019                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft             PMIPv6 DMM and DLIF              October 2018


   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
   Appendix A.  Comparison with Requirement document . . . . . . . .  26
     A.1.  Distributed mobility management . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
     A.2.  Bypassable network-layer mobility support for each
           application session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
     A.3.  IPv6 deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
     A.4.  Existing mobility protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
     A.5.  Coexistence with deployed networks/hosts and operability
           across different networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
     A.6.  Operation and management considerations . . . . . . . . .  28
     A.7.  Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
     A.8.  Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
   Appendix B.  Implementation experience  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
   Appendix C.  Applicability to the fog environment . . . . . . . .  30
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32

1.  Introduction

   The Distributed Mobility Management (DMM) paradigm aims at minimizing
   the impact of currently standardized mobility management solutions
   which are centralized (at least to a considerable extent).

   Current IP mobility solutions, standardized with the names of Mobile
   IPv6 [RFC6275], or Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) [RFC5213], just to cite
   the two most relevant examples, offer mobility support at the cost of
   handling operations at a cardinal point, the mobility anchor (i.e.,
   the home agent for Mobile IPv6, and the local mobility anchor for
   Proxy Mobile IPv6), and burdening it with data forwarding and control
   mechanisms for a great amount of users.  As stated in [RFC7333],
   centralized mobility solutions are prone to several problems and
   limitations: longer (sub-optimal) routing paths, scalability
   problems, signaling overhead (and most likely a longer associated
   handover latency), more complex network deployment, higher
   vulnerability due to the existence of a potential single point of
   failure, and lack of granularity of the mobility management service
   (i.e., mobility is offered on a per-node basis, not being possible to
   define finer granularity policies, as for example per-application).

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



Bernardos, et al.        Expires April 23, 2019                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft             PMIPv6 DMM and DLIF              October 2018


   MNs.  In this document, we call these entities Mobility Anchors and
   Access Routers (MAARs).

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

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

2.  Terminology

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

      Local Mobility Anchor (LMA)

      Mobile Access Gateway (MAG)

      Mobile Node (MN)

      Binding Cache Entry (BCE)

      Proxy Care-of Address (P-CoA)

      Proxy Binding Update (PBU)

      Proxy Binding Acknowledgement (PBA)

   The following terms used in this document are defined in the DMM
   Deployment Models and Architectural Considerations document
   [I-D.ietf-dmm-deployment-models]:

      Home Control-Plane Anchor (Home-CPA)

      Home Data Plane Anchor (Home-DPA)

      Access Control Plane Node (Access-CPN)



Bernardos, et al.        Expires April 23, 2019                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft             PMIPv6 DMM and DLIF              October 2018


      Access Data Plane Node (Access-DPN)

   The following terms are defined and used in this document:

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

   CMD (Central Mobility Database).  The node that stores the BCEs
      allocated for the MNs in the mobility domain.  It plays the role
      of Home-CPA.

   P-MAAR (Previous MAAR).  When a MN moves to a new point of attachment
      a new MAAR might be allocated as its anchor point for future IPv6
      prefixes.  The MAAR that served the MN prior to new attachment
      becomes the P-MAAR.  It is still the anchor point for the IPv6
      prefixes it had allocated to the MN in the past and serves as the
      Home-DPA for flows using these prefixes.  There might be several
      P-MAARs serving a MN when the MN is frequently switching points of
      attachment while maintaining long-lasting flows.

   S-MAAR (Serving MAAR).  The MAAR which the MN is currently attached
      to.  Depending on the prefix, it plays the role of Access-DPN,
      Home-DPA and Access-CPN.

   DLIF (Distributed Logical Interface).  It is a logical interface at
      the IP stack of the MAAR.  For each active prefix used by the MN,
      the S-MAAR has a DLIF configured (associated to each MAAR still
      anchoring flows).  In this way, an S-MAAR exposes itself towards
      each MN as multiple routers, one as itself and one per P-MAAR.

3.  PMIPv6 DMM extensions

   The solution consists of de-coupling the entities that participate in
   the data and the control planes: the data plane becomes distributed
   and managed by the MAARs near the edge of the network, while the
   control plane, besides those on the MAARs, relies on a central entity
   called Central Mobility Database (CMD).  In the proposed
   architecture, the hierarchy present in PMIPv6 between LMA and MAG is
   preserved, but with the following substantial variations:

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



Bernardos, et al.        Expires April 23, 2019                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft             PMIPv6 DMM and DLIF              October 2018


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

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

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

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

   o  The CMD is a PBU/PBA relay;

   o  The CMD is only a MAAR locator;

   o  The CMD is a PBU/PBA proxy.

   This solution can be categorized under Model-1: Split Home Anchor
   Mode in [I-D.ietf-dmm-deployment-models].  As another note, the
   solution described in this document allows performing per-prefix
   anchoring decisions, to support e.g., some flows to be anchored at a
   central Home-DPA (like a traditional LMA) or to enable an application
   to switch to the locally anchored prefix to gain route optimization,
   as indicated in [I-D.ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility].

   Note that a MN MAY move across different MAARs, which might result in
   several P-MAARs existing at a given moment of time, each of them
   anchoring a different prefix used by the MN.






Bernardos, et al.        Expires April 23, 2019                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft             PMIPv6 DMM and DLIF              October 2018


3.1.  Initial registration

   Initial registration is performed when an MN attaches to a network
   for the first time (rather than attaching to a new network after
   moving from a previous one).

   In this description (shown in Figure 1), it is assumed that:

   1.  The MN is attaching to MAAR1.

   2.  The MN is authorized to attach to the network.

   Upon MN attachment, the following operations take place:

   1.  MAAR1 assigns an IPv6 global prefix from its own prefix pool to
       the MN (Pref1).  It also stores this prefix (Pref1) in the
       locally allocated temporary Binding Cache Entry (BCE).

   2.  MAAR1 sends a PBU [RFC5213] with Pref1 and the MN's MN-ID to the
       CMD.

   3.  Since this is an initial registration, the CMD stores a permanent
       BCE containing as primary fields the MN-ID, Pref1 and MAAr1's
       address as a Proxy-CoA.

   4.  The CMD replies with a PBA with the usual options defined in
       PMIPv6 [RFC5213], meaning that the MN's registration is fresh and
       no past status is available.

   5.  MAAR1 stores the BCE described in (1) an unicast a Router
       Advertisement (RA) to the MN with Pref1.

   6.  The MN uses Pref1 to configure an IPv6 address (IP1) (e.g., with
       stateless auto-configuration, SLAAC).

   Note that:

   1.  Alternative IPv6 auto-configuration mechanisms can also be used,
       though this document describes the SLAAC-based one.

   2.  IP1 is routable at MAAR1, in the sense that it is on the path of
       packets addressed to the MN.

   3.  MAAR1 acts as a plain router for packets destined to the MN, as
       no encapsulation nor special handling takes place.

   In the diagram shown in Figure 1 (and subsequent diagrams), the flow
   of packets is presented using '*'.



Bernardos, et al.        Expires April 23, 2019                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft             PMIPv6 DMM and DLIF              October 2018


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

     Operations sequence                  Packets flow

                 Figure 1: First attachment to the network

   Note that the registration process does not change regardless of the
   CMD's modes (relay, locator or proxy) described next.  The procedure
   is depicted in Figure 2.

3.2.  The CMD as PBU/PBA relay

   Upon MN mobility, if the CMD behaves as PBU/PBA relay, the following
   operations take place:

   1.  When the MN moves from its current point of attachment and
       attaches to MAAR2 (now the S-MAAR), MAAR2 reserves another IPv6
       prefix (Pref2), it stores a temporary BCE, and it sends a plain
       PBU to the CMD for registration.

   2.  Upon PBU reception and BC lookup, the CMD retrieves an already
       existing entry for the MN, binding the MN-ID to its former
       location; thus, the CMD forwards the PBU to the MAAR indicated as
       Proxy CoA (MAAR1), including a new mobility option to communicate
       the S-MAAR's global address to MAAR1, defined as Serving MAAR
       Option in Section 4.6.  The CMD updates the P-CoA field in the
       BCE related to the MN with the S-MAAR's address.





Bernardos, et al.        Expires April 23, 2019                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft             PMIPv6 DMM and DLIF              October 2018


   3.  Upon PBU reception, MAAR1 can install a tunnel on its side
       towards MAAR2 and the related routes for Pref1.  Then MAAR1
       replies to the CMD with a PBA (including the option mentioned
       before) to ensure that the new location has successfully changed,
       containing the prefix anchored at MAAR1 in the Home Network
       Prefix option.

   4.  The CMD, after receiving the PBA, updates the BCE populating an
       instance of the P-MAAR list.  The P-MAAR list is an additional
       field on the BCE that contains an element for each P-MAAR
       involved in the MN's mobility session.  The list element contains
       the P-MAAR's global address and the prefix it has delegated (see
       Appendix B for further details).  Also, the CMD sends a PBA to
       the new S-MAAR, containing the previous Proxy-CoA and the prefix
       anchored to it embedded into a new mobility option called
       Previous MAAR Option (defined in Section 4.5), so that, upon PBA
       arrival, a bi-directional tunnel can be established between the
       two MAARs and new routes are set appropriately to recover the IP
       flow(s) carrying Pref1.

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

   6.





















Bernardos, et al.        Expires April 23, 2019                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft             PMIPv6 DMM and DLIF              October 2018


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

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

             Figure 2: Scenario after a handover, CMD as relay

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

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






Bernardos, et al.        Expires April 23, 2019                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft             PMIPv6 DMM and DLIF              October 2018


3.3.  The CMD as MAAR locator

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

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

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

            Figure 3: Scenario after a handover, CMD as locator







Bernardos, et al.        Expires April 23, 2019                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft             PMIPv6 DMM and DLIF              October 2018


3.4.  The CMD as MAAR proxy

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

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

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

             Figure 4: Scenario after a handover, CMD as proxy






Bernardos, et al.        Expires April 23, 2019                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft             PMIPv6 DMM and DLIF              October 2018


3.5.  De-registration

   The de-registration mechanism devised for PMIPv6 cannot be used as is
   in this solution.  The reason for this is that each MAAR handles an
   independent mobility session (i.e., a single or a set of prefixes)
   for a given MN, whereas the aggregated session is stored at the CMD.
   Indeed, when a previous MAAR initiates a de-registration procedure,
   because the MN is no longer present on the MAAR's access link, it
   removes the routing state for that (those) prefix(es), that would be
   deleted by the CMD as well, hence defeating any prefix continuity
   attempt.  The simplest approach to overcome this limitation is to
   deny a P-MAAR to de-register a prefix, that is, allowing only a
   serving MAAR to de-register the whole MN session.  This can be
   achieved by first removing any layer-2 detachment event, so that de-
   registration is triggered only when the session lifetime expires,
   hence providing a guard interval for the MN to connect to a new MAAR.
   Then, a change in the MAAR operations is required, and at this stage
   two possible solutions can be deployed:

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

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

3.6.  The Distributed Logical Interface (DLIF) concept

   One of the main challenges of a network-based DMM solution is how to
   allow a mobile node to simultaneously send/receive traffic which is
   anchored at different MAARs, and how to influence on the mobile
   node's selection process of its source IPv6 address for a new flow,
   without requiring special support from the mobile node's IP stack.
   This document defines the Distributed Logical Interface (DLIF), which
   is a software construct that allows to easily hide the change of
   associated anchors from the mobile node.












Bernardos, et al.        Expires April 23, 2019                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft             PMIPv6 DMM and DLIF              October 2018


     +---------------------------------------------------+
    (                      Operator's                     )
    (                         core                        )
     +---------------------------------------------------+
               |                               |
       +---------------+     tunnel    +---------------+
       |   IP  stack   |===============|   IP  stack   |
       +---------------+               +-------+-------+
       |    mn1mar1    |--+ (DLIFs) +--|mn1mar1|mn1mar2|--+
       +---------------+  |         |  +-------+-------+  |
       | phy interface |  |         |  | phy interface |  |
       +---------------+  |         |  +---------------+  |
             MAAR1       (o)       (o)       MAAR2       (o)
                                      x                 x
                                        x             x
                           prefA::/64     x         x   prefB::/64
                         (AdvPrefLft=0)     x     x
                                              (o)
                                               |
                                            +-----+
                                prefA::MN1  | MN1 |  prefB::MN1
                               (deprecated) +-----+

        Figure 5: DLIF: exposing multiple routers (one per P-MAAR)

   The basic idea of the DLIF concept is the following: each serving
   MAAR exposes itself towards a given MN as multiple routers, one per
   P-MAAR associated to the MN.  Let's consider the example shown in
   Figure 5, MN1 initially attaches to MAAR1, configuring an IPv6
   address (prefA::MN1) from a prefix locally anchored at MAAR1
   (prefA::/64).  At this stage, MAAR1 plays both the role of anchoring
   and serving MAAR, and also behaves as a plain IPv6 access router.
   MAAR1 creates a distributed logical interface to communicate (point-
   to-point link) with MN1, exposing itself as a (logical) router with a
   specific MAC (e.g., 00:11:22:33:01:01) and IPv6 addresses (e.g.,
   prefA::MAAR1/64 and fe80:211:22ff:fe33:101/64) using the DLIF
   mn1mar1.  As explained below, these addresses represent the "logical"
   identity of MAAR1 towards MN1, and will "follow" the mobile node
   while roaming within the domain (note that the place where all this
   information is maintained and updated is out-of-scope of this draft;
   potential examples are to keep it on the home subscriber server --
   HSS -- or the user's profile).

   If MN1 moves and attaches to a different MAAR of the domain (MAAR2 in
   the example of Figure 5), this MAAR will create a new logical
   interface (mn1mar2) to expose itself towards MN1, providing it with a
   locally anchored prefix (prefB::/64).  In this case, since the MN1
   has another active IPv6 address anchored at a MAAR1, MAAR2 also needs



Bernardos, et al.        Expires April 23, 2019                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft             PMIPv6 DMM and DLIF              October 2018


   to create an additional logical interface configured to exactly
   resemble the one used by MAAR1 to communicate with MN1.  In this
   example, there is only one P-MAAR (in addition to MAAR2, which is the
   serving one): MAAR1, so only the logical interface mn1mar1 is
   created, but the same process would be repeated in case there were
   more P-MAARs involved.  In order to maintain the prefix anchored at
   MAAR1 reachable, a tunnel between MAAR1 and MAAR2 is established and
   the routing is modified accordingly.  The PBU/PBA signaling is used
   to set-up the bi-directional tunnel between MAAR1 and MAAR2, and it
   might also be used to convey to MAAR2 the information about the
   prefix(es) anchored at MAAR1 and about the addresses of the
   associated DLIF (i.e., mn1mar1).

   +------------------------------------------+ +----------------------+
   |                  MAAR1                   | |         MAAR2        |
   |+----------------------------------------+| |+--------------------+|
   ||+------------------++------------------+|| ||+------------------+||
   |||+-------++-------+||+-------++-------+||| |||+-------++-------+|||
   ||||mn3mar1||mn3mar2||||mn2mar1||mn2mar2|||| ||||mn1mar1||mn1mar2||||
   |||| LMAC1 || LMAC2 |||| LMAC3 || LMAC4 |||| |||| LMAC5 || LMAC6 ||||
   |||+-------++-------+||+-------++-------+||| |||+-------++-------+|||
   |||    LIFs of MN3   ||    LIFs of MN2   ||| |||   LIFs of MN1    |||
   ||+------------------++------------------+|| ||+------------------+||
   ||              HMAC1   (phy if MAAR1)    || ||HMAC2 (phy if MAAR2)||
   |+----------------------------------------+| |+--------------------+|
   +------------------------------------------+ +----------------------+
                       x        x                            x
                      x          x                          x
                    (o)          (o)                      (o)
                     |            |                        |
                  +--+--+      +--+--+                  +--+--+
                  | MN3 |      | MN2 |                  | MN1 |
                  +-----+      +-----+                  +-----+

              Figure 6: Distributed Logical Interface concept

   Figure 6 shows the logical interface concept in more detail.  The
   figure shows two MAARs and three MNs.  MAAR1 is currently serving MN2
   and MN3, while MAAR2 is serving MN1.  MN1, MN2 and MN3 have two
   P-MAARs: MAAR1 and MAAR2.  Note that a serving MAAR always plays the
   role of anchoring MAAR for the attached (served) MNs.  Each MAAR has
   one single physical wireless interface.

   As introduced before, each MN always "sees" multiple logical routers
   -- one per P-MAAR -- independently of its currently serving MAAR.
   From the point of view of the MN, these MAARs are portrayed as
   different routers, although the MN is physically attached to one
   single interface.  The way this is achieved is by the serving MAAR



Bernardos, et al.        Expires April 23, 2019                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft             PMIPv6 DMM and DLIF              October 2018


   configuring different logical interfaces.  Focusing on MN1, it is
   currently attached to MAAR2 (i.e., MAAR2 is its serving MAAR) and,
   therefore, it has configured an IPv6 address from MAAR2's pool (e.g.,
   prefB::/64).  MAAR2 has set-up a logical interface (mn1mar2) on top
   of its wireless physical interface (phy if MAAR2) which is used to
   serve MN1.  This interface has a logical MAC address (LMAC6),
   different from the hardware MAC address (HMAC2) of the physical
   interface of MAAR2.  Over the mn1mar2 interface, MAAR2 advertises its
   locally anchored prefix prefB::/64.  Before attaching to MAAR2, MN1
   was attached to MAAR1, configuring also an address locally anchored
   at that MAAR, which is still being used by MN1 in active
   communications.  MN1 keeps "seeing" an interface connecting to MAAR1,
   as if it were directly connected to the two MAARs.  This is achieved
   by the serving MAAR (MAAR2) configuring an additional distributed
   logical interface: mn1mar1, which behaves exactly as the logical
   interface configured by MAAR1 when MN1 was attached to it.  This
   means that both the MAC and IPv6 addresses configured on this logical
   interface remain the same regardless of the physical MAAR which is
   serving the MN.  The information required by a serving MAAR to
   properly configure this logical interfaces can be obtained in
   different ways: as part of the information conveyed in the PBA, from
   an external database (e.g., the HSS) or by other means.  As shown in
   the figure, each MAAR may have several logical interfaces associated
   to each attached MN, having always at least one (since a serving MAAR
   is also an anchoring MAAR for the attached MN).

   In order to enforce the use of the prefix locally anchored at the
   serving MAAR, the router advertisements sent over those logical
   interfaces playing the role of anchoring MAARs (different from the
   serving one) include a zero preferred prefix lifetime (and a non-zero
   valid prefix lifetime, so the prefix remains valid, while being
   deprecated).  The goal is to deprecate the prefixes delegated by
   these MAARs (which will be no longer serving the MN).  Note that on-
   going communications may keep on using those addresses, even if they
   are deprecated, so this only affects the establishment of new
   sessions.

   The distributed logical interface concept also enables the following
   use case: suppose that access to a local IP network is provided by a
   given MAAR (e.g., MAAR1 in the example shown in Figure 5) and that
   the resources available at that network cannot be reached from
   outside the local network (e.g., cannot be accessed by an MN attached
   to MAAR2).  This is similar to the local IP access scenario
   considered by 3GPP, where a local gateway node is selected for
   sessions requiring access to services provided locally (instead of
   going through a central gateway).  The goal is to allow an MN to be
   able to roam while still being able to have connectivity to this
   local IP network.  The solution adopted to support this case makes



Bernardos, et al.        Expires April 23, 2019                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft             PMIPv6 DMM and DLIF              October 2018


   use of RFC 4191 [RFC4191] more specific routes when the MN moves to a
   MAAR different from the one providing access to the local IP network
   (MAAR1 in the example).  These routes are advertised through the
   distributed logical interface representing the MAAR providing access
   to the local network (MAAR1 in this example).  In this way, if MN1
   moves from MAAR1 to MAAR2, any active session that MN1 may have with
   a node on the local network connected to MAAR1 will survive via the
   tunnel between MAAR1 and MAAR2.  Also, any potential future
   connection attempt towards the local network will be supported, even
   though MN1 is no longer attached to MAAR1.

4.  Message Format

   This section defines extensions to the Proxy Mobile IPv6 [RFC5213]
   protocol messages.

4.1.  Proxy Binding Update

   A new flag (D) is included in the Proxy Binding Update to indicate
   that the Proxy Binding Update is coming from a Mobility Anchor and
   Access Router and not from a mobile access gateway.  The rest of the
   Proxy Binding Update format remains the same as defined in [RFC5213].

   0               1               2               3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
                                   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                   |            Sequence #         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |A|H|L|K|M|R|P|D| Reserved      |            Lifetime           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   .                                                               .
   .                        Mobility options                       .
   .                                                               .

   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   MAAR Flag (D)

      The D Flag is set to indicate to the receiver of the message that
      the Proxy Binding Update is from a MAAR.  When an LMA that does
      not support the extensions described in this document receives a
      message with the D-Flag set, the PBU in that case MUST NOT be
      processed by the LMA and an error MUST be returned.

   Mobility Options




Bernardos, et al.        Expires April 23, 2019                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft             PMIPv6 DMM and DLIF              October 2018


      Variable-length field of such length that the complete Mobility
      Header is an integer multiple of 8 octets long.  This field
      contains zero or more TLV-encoded mobility options.  The encoding
      and format of defined options are described in Section 6.2 of
      [RFC6275].  The MAAR MUST ignore and skip any options that it does
      not understand.

4.2.  Proxy Binding Acknowledgment

   A new flag (D) is included in the Proxy Binding Acknowledgment to
   indicate that the sender supports operating as a Mobility Anchor and
   Access Router.  The rest of the Proxy Binding Acknowledgment format
   remains the same as defined in [RFC5213].

   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
                                   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                   |   Status      |K|R|P|D| Reser |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |         Sequence #            |           Lifetime            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   .                                                               .
   .                        Mobility options                       .
   .                                                               .
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   MAAR (D)

      The D is set to indicate that the sender of the message supports
      operating as a Mobility Anchor and Access Router.  When a MAG that
      does not support the extensions described in this document
      receives a message with the D-Flag set, it MUST ignore the message
      and an error MUST be returned.

   Mobility Options

      Variable-length field of such length that the complete Mobility
      Header is an integer multiple of 8 octets long.  This field
      contains zero or more TLV-encoded mobility options.  The encoding
      and format of defined options are described in Section 6.2 of
      [RFC6275].  The MAAR MUST ignore and skip any options that it does
      not understand.







Bernardos, et al.        Expires April 23, 2019                [Page 18]


Internet-Draft             PMIPv6 DMM and DLIF              October 2018


4.3.  Anchored Prefix Option

   A new Anchored Prefix option is defined for use with the Proxy
   Binding Update and Proxy Binding Acknowledgment messages exchanged
   between MAARs and CMDs.  Therefore, this option can only appear if
   the D bit is set in a PBU/PBA.  This option is used for exchanging
   the mobile node's prefix anchored at the anchoring MAAR.  There can
   be multiple Anchored Prefix options present in the message.

   The Anchored Prefix Option has an alignment requirement of 8n+4.  Its
   format is as follows:

   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |      Type     |   Length      |   Reserved    | Prefix Length |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +                        Anchored Prefix                        +
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Type

      IANA-1.

   Length

      8-bit unsigned integer indicating the length of the option in
      octets, excluding the type and length fields.  This field MUST be
      set to 18.

   Reserved

      This field is unused for now.  The value MUST be initialized to 0
      by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.

   Prefix Length

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

   Anchored Prefix




Bernardos, et al.        Expires April 23, 2019                [Page 19]


Internet-Draft             PMIPv6 DMM and DLIF              October 2018


      A sixteen-byte field containing the mobile node's IPv6 Anchored
      Prefix.  Only the first Prefix Length bytes are valid for the
      Anchored Prefix.  The rest of the bytes MUST be ignored.

4.4.  Local Prefix Option

   A new Local Prefix option is defined for use with the Proxy Binding
   Update and Proxy Binding Acknowledgment messages exchanged between
   MAARs.  Therefore, this option can only appear if the D bit is set in
   a PBU/PBA.  This option is used for exchanging a prefix of a local
   network that is only reachable via the anchoring MAAR.  There can be
   multiple Local Prefix options present in the message.

   The Local Prefix Option has an alignment requirement of 8n+4.  Its
   format is as follows:

   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |      Type     |   Length      |   Reserved    | Prefix Length |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +                         Local Prefix                          +
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Type

      IANA-2.

   Length

      8-bit unsigned integer indicating the length of the option in
      octets, excluding the type and length fields.  This field MUST be
      set to 18.

   Reserved

      This field is unused for now.  The value MUST be initialized to 0
      by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.

   Prefix Length





Bernardos, et al.        Expires April 23, 2019                [Page 20]


Internet-Draft             PMIPv6 DMM and DLIF              October 2018


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

   Local Prefix

      A sixteen-byte field containing the IPv6 Local Prefix.  Only the
      first Prefix Length bytes are valid for the IPv6 Local Prefix.
      The rest of the bytes MUST be ignored.

4.5.  Previous MAAR Option

   This new option is defined for use with the Proxy Binding
   Acknowledgement messages exchanged by the CMD to a MAAR.  This option
   is used to notify the S-MAAR about the previous MAAR's global address
   and the prefix anchored to it.  There can be multiple Previous MAAR
   options present in the message.  Its format is as follows:

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
                   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                   |      Type     |     Length    | Prefix Length |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +                     P-MAAR's address                          +
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +                    Home Network Prefix                        +
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Type

      IANA-3.

   Length

      8-bit unsigned integer indicating the length of the option in
      octets, excluding the type and length fields.  This field MUST be
      set to 33.



Bernardos, et al.        Expires April 23, 2019                [Page 21]


Internet-Draft             PMIPv6 DMM and DLIF              October 2018


   Prefix Length

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

   Previous MAAR's address

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

   Home Network Prefix

      A sixteen-byte field containing the mobile node's IPv6 Home
      Network Prefix.  Only the first Prefix Length bytes are valid for
      the mobile node's IPv6 Home Network Prefix.  The rest of the bytes
      MUST be ignored.

4.6.  Serving MAAR Option

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


    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
                                   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                   |      Type     |     Length    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +                     S-MAAR's address                          +
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Type

      IANA-4.

   Length

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




Bernardos, et al.        Expires April 23, 2019                [Page 22]


Internet-Draft             PMIPv6 DMM and DLIF              October 2018


   Serving MAAR's address

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

4.7.  DLIF Link-local Address Option

   A new DLIF Link-local Address option is defined for use with the
   Proxy Binding Update and Proxy Binding Acknowledgment messages
   exchanged between MAARs.  This option is used for exchanging the
   link-local address of the DLIF to be configured on the serving MAAR
   so it resembles the DLIF configured on the P-MAAR.

   The DLIF Link-local Address option has an alignment requirement of
   8n+6.  Its format is as follows:

   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
                                   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                   |   Type        |    Length     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +                  DLIF Link-local Address                      +
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Type

      IANA-5.

   Length

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

   DLIF Link-local Address

      A sixteen-byte field containing the link-local address of the
      logical interface.








Bernardos, et al.        Expires April 23, 2019                [Page 23]


Internet-Draft             PMIPv6 DMM and DLIF              October 2018


4.8.  DLIF Link-layer Address Option

   A new DLIF Link-layer Address option is defined for use with the
   Proxy Binding Update and Proxy Binding Acknowledgment messages
   exchanged between MAARs.  This option is used for exchanging the
   link-layer address of the DLIF to be configured on the serving MAAR
   so it resembles the DLIF configured on the P-MAAR.

   The format of the DLIF Link-layer Address option is shown below.
   Based on the size of the address, the option MUST be aligned
   appropriately, as per mobility option alignment requirements
   specified in [RFC6275].

        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     |          Reserved             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +                    DLIF Link-layer Address                    +
   .                              ...                              .
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Type

      IANA-6.

   Length

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

   Reserved

      This field is unused for now.  The value MUST be initialized to 0
      by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.

   DLIF Link-layer Address

      A variable length field containing the link-layer address of the
      logical interface to be configured on the S-MAAR.

      The content and format of this field (including byte and bit
      ordering) is as specified in Section 4.6 of [RFC4861] for carrying
      link-layer addresses.  On certain access links, where the link-
      layer address is not used or cannot be determined, this option
      cannot be used.



Bernardos, et al.        Expires April 23, 2019                [Page 24]


Internet-Draft             PMIPv6 DMM and DLIF              October 2018


5.  IANA Considerations

   This document defines new mobility options that require IANA actions:
   IANA-1 to IANA-6.

6.  Security Considerations

   The protocol extensions defined in this document share the same
   security concerns of Proxy Mobile IPv6 [RFC5213].  It is recommended
   that the signaling messages, Proxy Binding Update and Proxy Binding
   Acknowledgment, exchanged between the MAARs are protected using IPsec
   using the established security association between them.  This
   essentially eliminates the threats related to the impersonation of a
   MAAR.

7.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Marco Liebsch, Dirk von Hugo, Alex
   Petrescu, Daniel Corujo, Akbar Rahman, Danny Moses, Xinpeng Wei and
   Satoru Matsushima for their comments and discussion on the documents
   [I-D.bernardos-dmm-distributed-anchoring] and
   [I-D.bernardos-dmm-pmip] on which the present document is based.

   The authors would also like to thank Lyle Bertz and Danny Moses for
   their in-deep review of this document and their very valuable
   comments and suggestions.

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

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

   [RFC4191]  Draves, R. and D. Thaler, "Default Router Preferences and
              More-Specific Routes", RFC 4191, DOI 10.17487/RFC4191,
              November 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4191>.

   [RFC4861]  Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
              "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>.







Bernardos, et al.        Expires April 23, 2019                [Page 25]


Internet-Draft             PMIPv6 DMM and DLIF              October 2018


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

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

8.2.  Informative References

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

   [I-D.bernardos-dmm-pmip]
              Bernardos, C., Oliva, A., and F. Giust, "A PMIPv6-based
              solution for Distributed Mobility Management", draft-
              bernardos-dmm-pmip-09 (work in progress), September 2017.

   [I-D.ietf-dmm-deployment-models]
              Gundavelli, S. and S. Jeon, "DMM Deployment Models and
              Architectural Considerations", draft-ietf-dmm-deployment-
              models-04 (work in progress), May 2018.

   [I-D.ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility]
              Yegin, A., Moses, D., Kweon, K., Lee, J., Park, J., and S.
              Jeon, "On Demand Mobility Management", draft-ietf-dmm-
              ondemand-mobility-15 (work in progress), July 2018.

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

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

Appendix A.  Comparison with Requirement document

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





Bernardos, et al.        Expires April 23, 2019                [Page 26]


Internet-Draft             PMIPv6 DMM and DLIF              October 2018


A.1.  Distributed mobility management

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

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

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

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

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

A.3.  IPv6 deployment

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

   The DMM solution we propose targets IPv6 only.



Bernardos, et al.        Expires April 23, 2019                [Page 27]


Internet-Draft             PMIPv6 DMM and DLIF              October 2018


A.4.  Existing mobility protocols

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

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

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

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

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

A.6.  Operation and management considerations

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

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

A.7.  Security considerations

   "A DMM solution MUST support any security protocols and mechanisms
   needed to secure the network and to make continuous security
   improvements.  In addition, with security taken into consideration



Bernardos, et al.        Expires April 23, 2019                [Page 28]


Internet-Draft             PMIPv6 DMM and DLIF              October 2018


   early in the design, a DMM solution MUST NOT introduce new security
   risks or amplify existing security risks that cannot be mitigated by
   existing security protocols and mechanisms."

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

A.8.  Multicast

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

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

Appendix B.  Implementation experience

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

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

   Tunnel management is hence a relevant technical aspect, as multiple
   tunnels are established by a single MAAR, which keeps their status
   directly into the MN's BCE.  Indeed, from the implementation
   experience it was chosen to create an ancillary data structure as
   field within a BCE: the data structure is called "MAAR list" and
   stores the previous MAARs' address and the corresponding prefix(es)
   assigned for the MN.  Only the CMD and the serving MAAR store this
   data structure, because the CMD maintains the global MN's mobility
   session formed during the MN's roaming within the domain, and the
   serving MAAR needs to know which previous MAARs were visited, the
   prefix(es) they assigned and the tunnels established with them.
   Conversely, a previous MAAR only needs to know which is the current
   Serving MAAR and establish a single tunnel with it.  For this reason,
   a MAAR that receives a PBU from the CMD (meaning that the MN attached
   to another MAAR), first sets up the routing state for the MN's



Bernardos, et al.        Expires April 23, 2019                [Page 29]


Internet-Draft             PMIPv6 DMM and DLIF              October 2018


   prefix(es) it is anchoring, then stops the BCE expiry timer and
   deletes the MAAR list (if present) since it is no longer useful.

   In order to have the MN totally unaware of the changes in the access
   link, all MAARs implement the Distributed Logical Interface (DLIF)
   concept.  Moreover, it should be noted that the protocols designed in
   the document work only at the network layer to handle the MNs joining
   or leaving the domain.  This should guarantee a certain independency
   to a particular access technology.  The implementation reflects this
   reasoning, but we argue that an interaction with lower layers
   produces a more effective attachment and detachment detection,
   therefore improving the performance, also regarding de-registration
   mechanisms.

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

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

Appendix C.  Applicability to the fog environment

   Virtualization is invading all domains of the E2E 5G network,
   including the access, as a mean to achieve the necessary flexibility
   in support of the E2E slicing concept.  The ETSI NFV framework is the
   cornerstone for making virtualization such a promising technology
   that can be matured in time for 5G.  Typically, virtualization has
   been mostly envisaged in the core network, where sophisticated data
   centers and clouds provided the right substrate.  And mostly, the
   framework focused on virtualizing network functions, so called VNFs
   (virtualized network functions), which were somewhat limited to
   functions that are delay tolerant, typically from the core and
   aggregation transport.




Bernardos, et al.        Expires April 23, 2019                [Page 30]


Internet-Draft             PMIPv6 DMM and DLIF              October 2018


   As the community has recently been developing the 5G applications and
   their technical requirements, it has become clear that certain
   applications would require very low latency which is extremely
   challenging and stressing for the network to deliver through a pure
   centralized architecture.  The need to provide networking, computing,
   and storage capabilities closer to the users has therefore emerged,
   leading to what is known today as the concept of intelligent edge.
   ETSI has been the first to address this need recently by developing
   the framework of multi-access edge computing (MEC).

   Such an intelligent edge could not be envisaged without
   virtualization.  Beyond applications, it raises a clear opportunity
   for networking functions to execute at the edge benefiting from
   inherent low latencies.

   Whilst it is appreciated the particular challenge for the intelligent
   edge concept in dealing with mobile users, the edge virtualization
   substrate has been largely assumed to be fixed or stationary.
   Although little developed, the intelligent edge concept is being
   extended further to scenarios where for example the edge computing
   substrate is on the move, e.g., on-board a car or a train, or that it
   is distributed further down the edge, even integrating resources from
   different stakeholders, into what is known as the fog.  The
   challenges and opportunities for such extensions of the intelligent
   edge remain an exciting area of future research.

   Figure 7 shows a diagram representing the fog virtualization concept.
   The fog is composed by virtual resources on top of heterogeneous
   resources available at the edge and even further in the RAN and end-
   user devices.  These resources are therefore owned by different
   stakeholders who collaboratively form a single hosting environment
   for the VNFs to run.  As an example, virtual resources provided to
   the fog might be running on eNBs, APs, at micro data centers deployed
   in shopping malls, cars, trains, etc.  The fog is connected to data
   centers deeper into the network architecture (at the edge or the
   core).















Bernardos, et al.        Expires April 23, 2019                [Page 31]


Internet-Draft             PMIPv6 DMM and DLIF              October 2018


         +--------------------------------+  +-------------------+
         | -------   --------   --------  |  |      ----------   |
         | |     |   |      |   |      |  |  |    ---------- |   |
         | | @UE |   | @car |   | @eNB |  |  |  ---------- | |   |
         | -------   --------   --------  |  |  |  Data  | | |   |
         |                                |  |  | Center | | -   |
         | -------- Heterogeneous ------- |  |  |  (DC)  |-      |
    phy  | |      |   computing   |     | |  |  ----------       |
   infra | |@train|    devices    | @AP | |==|      ----------   |
         | --------    forming    ------- |  |    ---------- |   |
         |             the fog            |  |  ---------- | |   |
         | ---------        ------------  |  |  |  Data  | | |   |
         | |       |        |          |  |  |  | Center | | -   |
         | | @mall |        | @localDC |  |  |  |  (DC)  |-      |
         | ---------        ------------  |  |  ----------       |
         |              FOG               |  |       CLOUD       |
         +--------------------------------+  +-------------------+
         <--------- fog and edge ----------------->
                                     <--- edge & central cloud --->

                       Figure 7: Fog virtualization

   In this context, where the "fog" hosts functions and resources, it is
   important to enable their mobility.  In future versions of this
   document we will describe how to apply the solution described here to
   the fog environment.

Authors' Addresses

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

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













Bernardos, et al.        Expires April 23, 2019                [Page 32]


Internet-Draft             PMIPv6 DMM and DLIF              October 2018


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

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


   Fabio Giust
   Athonet S.r.l.

   Email: fabio.giust.2011@ieee.org


   Juan Carlos Zuniga
   SIGFOX
   425 rue Jean Rostand
   Labege  31670
   France

   Email: j.c.zuniga@ieee.org
   URI:   http://www.sigfox.com/


   Alain Mourad
   InterDigital Europe

   Email: Alain.Mourad@InterDigital.com
   URI:   http://www.InterDigital.com/



















Bernardos, et al.        Expires April 23, 2019                [Page 33]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.128b, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/