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

Versions: (draft-chan-dmm-requirements) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 RFC 7333

Network Working Group                                      H. Chan (Ed.)
Internet-Draft                                 Huawei Technologies (more
Intended status: Informational                      co-authors on P. 17)
Expires: December 7, 2013                                         D. Liu
                                                            China Mobile
                                                                P. Seite
                                                                  Orange
                                                               H. Yokota
                                                                KDDI Lab
                                                             J. Korhonen
                                                  Nokia Siemens Networks
                                                            June 5, 2013


            Requirements for Distributed Mobility Management
                     draft-ietf-dmm-requirements-05

Abstract

   This document defines the requirements for Distributed Mobility
   Management (DMM) in IPv6 deployments.  The hierarchical structure in
   traditional wireless networks has led to deployment models which are
   in practice centralized.  Mobility management with logically
   centralized mobility anchoring in current mobile networks is prone to
   suboptimal routing and raises scalability issues.  Such centralized
   functions can lead to single points of failure and inevitably
   introduce longer delays and higher signaling loads for network
   operations related to mobility management.  The objective is to
   enhance mobility management in order to meet the primary goals in
   network evolution, i.e., improve scalability, avoid single points of
   failure, enable transparent mobility support to upper layers only
   when needed, and so on.  Distributed mobility management must be
   secure and may co-exist with existing network deployments and end
   hosts.

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 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



Chan (Ed.), et al.      Expires December 7, 2013                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                  DMM-Reqs                       June 2013


   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 7, 2013.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

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


























Chan (Ed.), et al.      Expires December 7, 2013                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                  DMM-Reqs                       June 2013


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Conventions used in this document  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     2.1.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   3.  Centralized versus distributed mobility management . . . . . .  6
     3.1.  Centralized mobility management  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.2.  Distributed mobility management  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   4.  Problem Statement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   5.  Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     5.1.  Distributed processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     5.2.  Transparency to Upper Layers when needed . . . . . . . . . 11
     5.3.  IPv6 deployment  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     5.4.  Existing mobility protocols  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     5.5.  Co-existence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     5.6.  Security considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     5.7.  Multicast  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   7.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   8.  Co-authors and Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   9.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     9.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     9.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17



























Chan (Ed.), et al.      Expires December 7, 2013                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                  DMM-Reqs                       June 2013


1.  Introduction

   In the past decade a fair number of mobility protocols have been
   standardized [RFC6275] [RFC5944] [RFC5380] [RFC6301] [RFC5213].
   Although the protocols differ in terms of functions and associated
   message formats, we can identify a few key common features:

   o  a centralized mobility anchor providing global reachability and an
      always-on experience to the user;

   o  extensions to the base protocols to optimize handover performance
      while users roam across wireless cells; and

   o  extensions to enable the use of heterogeneous wireless interfaces
      for multi-mode terminals (e.g. smartphones).

   The presence of the centralized mobility anchor allows a mobile node
   to remain reachable after it has moved to a different network.  The
   anchor point, among other tasks, ensures connectivity by forwarding
   packets destined to, or sent from, the mobile node.  In practice,
   most of the deployed architectures today have a small number of
   centralized anchors managing the traffic of millions of mobile nodes.
   Compared with a distributed approach, a centralized approach is
   likely to have several issues or limitations affecting performance
   and scalability, which require costly network engineering to resolve.

   To optimize handovers from the perspective of mobile nodes, the base
   protocols have been extended to efficiently handle packet forwarding
   between the previous and new points of attachment.  These extensions
   are necessary when applications have stringent requirements in terms
   of delay.  Notions of localization and distribution of local agents
   have been introduced to reduce signaling overhead at the centralized
   routing anchor point [Paper-Distributed.Centralized.Mobility].
   Unfortunately, today we witness difficulties in getting such
   protocols deployed, resulting in sub-optimal choices for the network
   operators.

   Moreover, the availability of multiple-interface host and the
   possibility of using several network interfaces simultaneously have
   motivated the development of even more protocol extensions to add
   more capabilities to the mobility management protocol.  In the end,
   deployment is further complicated with the multitude of extensions.

   As an effective transport method for multimedia data delivery, IP
   multicast support, including optimizations, have been introduced but
   by "patching-up" procedure after completing the design of reference
   mobility protocol, leading to network inefficiency and non-optimal
   routing.



Chan (Ed.), et al.      Expires December 7, 2013                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                  DMM-Reqs                       June 2013


   Mobile users are, more than ever, consuming Internet content; such
   traffic imposes new requirements on mobile core networks for data
   traffic delivery.  The presence of content providers closer to
   Internet Service Providers (ISP) network requires taking into account
   local Content Delivery Networks (CDNs) while providing mobility
   services.  Moreover, when the traffic demand exceeds available
   capacity, service providers need to implement new strategies such as
   selective traffic offload (e.g. 3GPP work items LIPA/SIPTO
   [TS.23.401]) through alternative access networks (e.g.  WLAN) [Paper-
   Mobile.Data.Offloading].  A gateway selection mechanism also takes
   the user proximity into account within EPC [TS.29303].  These
   mechanisms were not pursued in the past owing to charging and billing
   reasons.  Assigning a gateway anchor node from a visited network in
   roaming scenario has until recently been done and are limited to
   voice services only.  Charging and billing require solutions beyond
   the mobility protocol.

   Both traffic offloading and CDN mechanisms could benefit from the
   development of mobile architectures with fewer levels of routing
   hierarchy introduced into the data path by the mobility management
   system.  This trend towards so-called "flat networks" works best for
   direct communications among peers in the same geographical area.
   Distributed mobility management in a truly flat mobile architecture
   would anchor the traffic closer to the point of attachment of the
   user.

   Today's mobile networks present service providers with new
   challenges.  Mobility patterns indicate that mobile nodes often
   remain attached to the same point of attachment for considerable
   periods of time [Paper-Locating.User].  Specific IP mobility
   management support is not required for applications that launch and
   complete their sessions while the mobile node is connected to the
   same point of attachment.  However, currently, IP mobility support is
   designed for always-on operation, maintaining all parameters of the
   context for each mobile subscriber for as long as they are connected
   to the network.  This can result in a waste of resources and
   unnecessary costs for the service provider.  Infrequent node mobility
   coupled with application intelligence suggest that mobility support
   could be provided selectively, thus reducing the amount of context
   maintained in the network.

   The distributed mobility management (DMM) charter addresses two
   complementary aspects of mobility management procedures: the
   distribution of mobility anchors towards a more flat network and the
   dynamic activation/deactivation of mobility protocol support as an
   enabler to distributed mobility management.  The former aims at
   positioning mobility anchors (e.g., HA, LMA) closer to the user;
   ideally, mobility agents could be collocated with the first-hop



Chan (Ed.), et al.      Expires December 7, 2013                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                  DMM-Reqs                       June 2013


   router.  The latter, facilitated by the distribution of mobility
   anchors, aims at identifying when mobility support must be activated
   and identifying sessions that do not require mobility management
   support -- thus reducing the amount of state information that must be
   maintained in various mobility agents of the mobile network.  The key
   idea is that dynamic mobility management relaxes some of the
   constraints of previously-standardized mobility management solutions
   and, by doing so, it can avoid the unnecessary establishment of
   mechanisms to forward traffic from an old to a new mobility anchor.

   This document compares distributed mobility management with
   centralized mobility management in Section 3.  The problems that can
   be addressed with DMM are summarized in Section 4.  The mandatory
   requirements as well as the optional requirements are given in
   Section 5.  Finally, security considerations are discussed in Section
   6.

   The problem statement and the use cases [I-D.yokota-dmm-scenario] can
   be found in [Paper-Distributed.Mobility.Review].


2.  Conventions used in this document

2.1.  Terminology

   All the general mobility-related terms and their acronyms used in
   this document are to be interpreted as defined in the Mobile IPv6
   base specification [RFC6275], in the Proxy mobile IPv6 specification
   [RFC5213], and in Mobility Related Terminology [RFC3753].  These
   terms include the following: mobile node (MN), correspondent node
   (CN), and home agent (HA) as per [RFC6275]; local mobility anchor
   (LMA) and mobile access gateway (MAG) as per [RFC5213], and context
   as per [RFC3753].

   In addition, this draft introduces the following term.

   Mobility context

      is the collection of information required to provide mobility
      management support for a given mobile node.


3.  Centralized versus distributed mobility management

   Mobility management functions may be implemented at different layers
   of the protocol stack.  At the IP (network) layer, they may reside in
   the network or in the mobile node.  In particular, a network-based
   solution resides in the network only.  It therefore enables mobility



Chan (Ed.), et al.      Expires December 7, 2013                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                  DMM-Reqs                       June 2013


   for existing hosts and network applications which are already in
   deployment but lack mobility support.

   At the IP layer, a mobility management protocol supporting session
   continuity is typically based on the principle of distinguishing
   between identifier and routing address and maintaining a mapping
   between the two.  In Mobile IP, the home address serves as an
   identifier of the device whereas the care-of-address (CoA) takes the
   role of the routing address.  The binding between these two is
   maintained at the home agent (mobility anchor).  If packets can be
   continuously delivered to a mobile node at its home address, then all
   sessions using that home address are unaffected even though the
   routing address (CoA) changes.

   The next two subsections explain centralized and distributed mobility
   management functions in the network.

3.1.  Centralized mobility management

   In centralized mobility management, the mapping information between
   the persistent node identifier and the locator IP address of a mobile
   node (MN) is kept at a single mobility anchor.  At the same time,
   packets destined to the MN are routed via this anchor.  In other
   words, such mobility management systems are centralized in both the
   control plane and the data plane (mobile node IP traffic).

   Many existing mobility management deployments make use of centralized
   mobility anchoring in a hierarchical network architecture, as shown
   in Figure 1.  Examples of such centralized mobility anchors are the
   home agent (HA) and local mobility anchor (LMA) in Mobile IPv6
   [RFC6275] and Proxy Mobile IPv6 [RFC5213], respectively.  Current
   cellular networks such as the Third Generation Partnership Project
   (3GPP) GPRS networks, CDMA networks, and 3GPP Evolved Packet System
   (EPS) networks employ centralized mobility management too.  In
   particular, the Gateway GPRS Support Node (GGSN), Serving GPRS
   Support Node (SGSN) and Radio Network Controller (RNC) in the 3GPP
   GPRS hierarchical network, and the Packet Data Network Gateway (P-GW)
   and Serving Gateway (S-GW) in the 3GPP EPS network all act as anchors
   in a hierarchy.












Chan (Ed.), et al.      Expires December 7, 2013                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                  DMM-Reqs                       June 2013


         3G GPRS                 3GPP EPS                MIP/PMIP
         +------+                +------+                +------+
         | GGSN |                | P-GW |                |HA/LMA|
         +------+                +------+                +------+
            /\                      /\                      /\
           /  \                    /  \                    /  \
          /    \                  /    \                  /    \
         /      \                /      \                /      \
        /        \              /        \              /        \
       /          \            /          \            /          \
      /            \          /            \          /            \
  +------+      +------+  +------+      +------+  +------+      +------+
  | SGSN |      | SGSN |  | S-GW |      | S-GW |  |MN/MAG|      |MN/MAG|
  +------+      +------+  +------+      +------+  +------+      +------+
     /\            /\
    /  \          /  \
   /    \        /    \
+---+  +---+  +---+  +---+
|RNC|  |RNC|  |RNC|  |RNC|
+---+  +---+  +---+  +---+

   Figure 1.  Centralized mobility management.

3.2.  Distributed mobility management

   Mobility management functions may also be distributed to multiple
   networks as shown in Figure 2, so that a mobile node in any of these
   networks may be served by a nearby mobility function (MF).


                    +------+  +------+  +------+  +------+
                    |  MF  |  |  MF  |  |  MF  |  |  MF  |
                    +------+  +------+  +------+  +------+
                                           |
                                         +----+
                                         | MN |
                                         +----+

   Figure 2.  Distributed mobility management.

   Mobility management may be partially or fully distributed.  In the
   former case only the data plane is distributed.  Fully distributed
   mobility management implies that both the data plane and the control
   plane are distributed.  Such concepts of data and control plane
   separation are not yet described in the IETF developed mobility
   protocols so far but are described in detail in [I-D.yokota-dmm-
   scenario].  While mobility management can be distributed, it is not
   necessary for other functions such as subscription management,



Chan (Ed.), et al.      Expires December 7, 2013                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                  DMM-Reqs                       June 2013


   subscription database, and network access authentication to be
   similarly distributed.

   A distributed mobility management scheme for flat IP-based mobile
   network architecture consisting of access nodes is proposed in
   [Paper-Distributed.Dynamic.Mobility].  Its benefits over centralized
   mobility management are shown through simulations in [Paper-
   Distributed.Centralized.Mobility].  Moreover, the (re)use and
   extension of existing protocols in the design of both fully
   distributed mobility management [Paper-Migrating.Home.Agents] [Paper-
   Distributed.Mobility.SAE] and partially distributed mobility
   management [Paper-Distributed.Mobility.PMIP] [Paper-
   Distributed.Mobility.MIP] have been reported in the literature.
   Therefore, before designing new mobility management protocols for a
   future flat IP architecture, it is recommended to first consider
   whether existing mobility management protocols can be extended to
   serve a flat IP architecture.


4.  Problem Statement

   The problems that can be addressed with DMM are summarized in the
   following:

   PS1:  Non-optimal routes

         Routing via a centralized anchor often results in a longer
         route.  The problem is manifested, for example, when accessing
         a local server or servers of a Content Delivery Network (CDN),
         or when receiving locally available IP multicast or sending IP
         multicast packets.

   PS2:  Divergence from other evolutionary trends in network
         architectures such as distribution of content delivery.

         Centralized mobility management can become non-optimal with a
         flat network architecture.

   PS3:  Low scalability of centralized tunnel management and mobility
         context maintenance

         Setting up tunnels through a central anchor and maintaining
         mobility context for each MN usually requires more concentrated
         resources in a centralized design, thus reducing scalability.
         Distributing the tunnel maintenance function and the mobility
         context maintenance function among different network entities
         with proper signaling protocol design can increase scalability.




Chan (Ed.), et al.      Expires December 7, 2013                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                  DMM-Reqs                       June 2013


   PS4:  Single point of failure and attack

         Centralized anchoring designs may be more vulnerable to single
         points of failures and attacks than a distributed system.  The
         impact of a successful attack on a system with centralized
         mobility management can be far greater as well.

   PS5:  Unnecessarily reserving resources to provide mobility support
         to nodes that do not need such support

         IP mobility support is not always required, and not every
         parameter of mobility context is always used.  For example,
         some applications do not need a stable IP address during a
         handover to maintain session continuity.  Sometimes, the entire
         application session runs while the terminal does not change the
         point of attachment.  Besides, some sessions, e.g.  SIP-based
         sessions, can handle mobility at the application layer and
         hence do not need IP mobility support; it is then more
         efficient to deactivate IP mobility support for such sessions.

   PS6:  (Related problem) Mobility signaling overhead with peer-to-peer
         communication

         Wasting resources when mobility signaling (e.g., maintenance of
         the tunnel, keep alive signaling, etc.) is not turned off for
         peer-to-peer communication.  Peer-to-peer communications have
         particular traffic patterns that often do not benefit from
         mobility support from the network.  Thus, the associated
         mobility support signaling (e.g., maintenance of the tunnel,
         keep alive signaling, etc.) wastes network resources for no
         application gain.  In such a case, it is better to enable
         mobility support selectively.

   PS7:  (Related problem) Deployment with multiple mobility solutions

         There are already many variants and extensions of MIP.
         Deployment of new mobility management solutions can be
         challenging, and debugging difficult, when they must co-exist
         with solutions already in the field.

   PS8:  Duplicate multicast traffic

         IP multicast distribution over architectures using IP mobility
         solutions (e.g.  RFC6224) may lead to convergence of duplicated
         multicast subscriptions towards the downstream tunnel entity
         (e.g.  MAG in PMIPv6).  Concretely, when multicast subscription
         for individual mobile nodes is coupled with mobility tunnels
         (e.g.  PMIPv6 tunnel), duplicate multicast subscription(s) is



Chan (Ed.), et al.      Expires December 7, 2013               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                  DMM-Reqs                       June 2013


         prone to be received through different upstream paths.  This
         problem may also exist or be more severe in a distributed
         mobility environment.


5.  Requirements

   After comparing distributed mobility management against centralized
   deployment in Section 3, this section identifies the following
   requirements:

5.1.  Distributed processing

   REQ1:  Distributed processing

          IP mobility, network access and routing solutions provided by
          DMM MUST enable distributed processing for mobility management
          of some flows so that traffic does not need to traverse
          centrally deployed mobility anchors and thereby avoid non-
          optimal routes.

          Motivation: This requirement is motivated by current trends in
          network evolution: (a) it is cost- and resource-effective to
          cache and distribute content by combining distributed mobility
          anchors with caching systems (e.g., CDN); (b) the
          significantly larger number of mobile nodes and flows call for
          improved scalability; (c) single points of failure are avoided
          in a distributed system; (d) threats against centrally
          deployed anchors, e.g., home agent and local mobility anchor,
          are mitigated in a distributed system.

   This requirement addresses problems PS1, PS2, PS3, and PS4 in Section
   4.  (Existing route optimization is only a host-based solution.  On
   the other hand, localized routing with PMIPv6 addresses only a part
   of the problem where both the MN and the CN are located in the PMIP
   domain and attached to a MAG, and is not applicable when the CN is
   outside the PMIP domain.)

5.2.  Transparency to Upper Layers when needed

   REQ2:  Transparency to Upper Layers when needed

          DMM solutions MUST provide transparent mobility support above
          the IP layer when needed.  Such transparency is needed, for
          example, when, upon change of point of attachment to the
          network, an application flow cannot cope with a change in the
          IP address.  However, it is not always necessary to maintain a
          stable home IP address or prefix for every application or at



Chan (Ed.), et al.      Expires December 7, 2013               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                  DMM-Reqs                       June 2013


          all times for a mobile node.

          Motivation: The motivation of this requirement is to enable
          more efficient use of network resources and more efficient
          routing by not maintaining context at the mobility anchor when
          there is no such need.

   This requirement addresses the problem PS5 as well as the related
   problem PS6 in Section 4.

5.3.  IPv6 deployment

   REQ3:  IPv6 deployment

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

          Motivation: This requirement conforms to the general
          orientation of IETF work.  DMM deployment is foreseen in mid-
          to long-term horizon, when IPv6 is expected to be far more
          common than today.

   This requirement avoids the unnecessarily complexity in solving the
   problems in Section 4 for IPv4, which will not be able to use some of
   the IPv6-specific features.

5.4.  Existing mobility protocols

   REQ4:  Existing mobility protocols

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

          Motivation: Reuse of existing IETF work is more efficient and
          less error-prone.

   This requirement attempts to avoid the need of new protocols
   development and therefore their potential problems of being time-
   consuming and error-prone.

5.5.  Co-existence








Chan (Ed.), et al.      Expires December 7, 2013               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                  DMM-Reqs                       June 2013


   REQ5:  Co-existence with deployed networks and hosts

          The DMM solution MUST be able to co-exist with existing
          network deployments and end hosts.  For example, depending on
          the environment in which DMM is deployed, DMM solutions may
          need to be compatible with other deployed mobility protocols
          or may need to co-exist with a network or mobile hosts/routers
          that do not support DMM protocols.  The mobile node may also
          move between different access networks, where some of them may
          support neither DMM nor another mobility protocol.
          Furthermore, a DMM solution SHOULD work across different
          networks, possibly operated as separate administrative
          domains, when allowed by the trust relationship between them.

          Motivation: (a) to preserve backwards compatibility so that
          existing networks and hosts are not affected and continue to
          function as usual, and (b) enable inter-domain operation if
          desired.

   This requirement addresses the following related problem PS7 in
   Section 4.

5.6.  Security considerations

   REQ6:  Security considerations

          DMM protocol solutions MUST consider security risks introduced
          by DMM into the network.  Such considerations may include
          authentication and authorization mechanisms that allow a
          mobile host/router to use the mobility support provided by the
          DMM solution; measures against redirecting traffic to the
          wrong host when providing DMM support; signaling message
          protection for authentication, integrity and confidentiality.

          Motivation: Various attacks such as impersonation, denial of
          service, man-in-the-middle attacks, and so on, may become
          newly possible or easier to mount due to the introduction of
          DMM.  Proof of possession of past and new IP addresses may be
          needed.

          Signaling messages can be subject to various attacks since
          they carry critical context information about a mobile node/
          router.  For instance, a malicious node can forge a number of
          signaling messages thus redirecting traffic from its
          legitimate path.  Consequently, the specific node is under a
          denial of service attack, whereas other nodes do not receive
          their traffic.  As signaling messages may travel over the
          Internet, end-to-end security between communicating hosts must



Chan (Ed.), et al.      Expires December 7, 2013               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft                  DMM-Reqs                       June 2013


          be required.

   This requirement addresses the problems of potentially insecure
   mobility management protocols which make deployment infeasible
   because platforms conforming to the protocols are at risk for data
   loss and numerous other dangers, including financial harm to the
   user.

5.7.  Multicast

   REQ7:  DMM SHOULD enable multicast solutions in flexible distribution
          scenario.  This flexibility pertains to the preservation of IP
          multicast nature from the perspective of a mobility entity and
          transmission of multicast packets to/from various multicast-
          enabled entities.  Therefore, this flexibility enables
          different IP multicast flows with respect to a mobile host to
          be managed (e.g., subscribed, received and/or transmitted)
          using multiple multicast-enabled endpoints.

          Motivation: to consider multicast early so that solutions can
          be developed to avoid network inefficiency issues in multicast
          traffic delivery.  The multicast solution should therefore
          avoid restricting the management of all IP multicast traffic
          relative to a host through a dedicated interface on multicast-
          capable access routers.

   This requirement addresses the problems PS1 and PS8 in Section 4.


6.  Security Considerations

   Distributed mobility management (DMM) requires two kinds of security
   considerations.  The first consideration is on access network
   security required between the mobile host/router and the access
   network deploying DMM.  It allows only a legitimate mobile host/
   router to use DMM.  The second consideration is on end-to-end
   security required between nodes that participate in the DMM protocol.
   It protects the DMM signaling messages.

   It is necessary to provide sufficient defense against possible
   security attacks, or to adopt existing security mechanisms and
   protocols to provide sufficient security protections.  For instance,
   EAP-based authentication can be used for access network security,
   while IPsec can be used for end-to-end security.







Chan (Ed.), et al.      Expires December 7, 2013               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft                  DMM-Reqs                       June 2013


7.  IANA Considerations

   None


8.  Co-authors and Contributors

   This problem statement document is a joint effort among the numerous
   participants.  Each individual has made significant contributions to
   this work and have been listed as co-authors.


9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

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

9.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.yokota-dmm-scenario]
              Yokota, H., Seite, P., Demaria, E., and Z. Cao, "Use case
              scenarios  for Distributed Mobility Management",
              draft-yokota-dmm-scenario-00 (work in progress),
              October 2010.

   [Paper-Distributed.Centralized.Mobility]
              Bertin, P., Bonjour, S., and J-M. Bonnin, "A Distributed
              or Centralized Mobility",  Proceedings of Global
              Communications Conference  (GlobeCom), December 2009.

   [Paper-Distributed.Dynamic.Mobility]
              Bertin, P., Bonjour, S., and J-M. Bonnin, "A Distributed
              Dynamic Mobility Management Scheme  Designed for Flat IP
              Architectures",  Proceedings of 3rd International
              Conference  on New Technologies, Mobility and Security
              (NTMS), 2008.

   [Paper-Distributed.Mobility.MIP]
              Chan, H., "Distributed Mobility Management with Mobile
              IP",  Proceedings of  IEEE International Communication
              Conference (ICC)  Workshop on Telecommunications:  from
              Research to Standards, June 2012.

   [Paper-Distributed.Mobility.PMIP]
              Chan, H., "Proxy Mobile IP  with Distributed Mobility
              Anchors",  Proceedings of GlobeCom Workshop  on Seamless



Chan (Ed.), et al.      Expires December 7, 2013               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft                  DMM-Reqs                       June 2013


              Wireless Mobility, December 2010.

   [Paper-Distributed.Mobility.Review]
              Chan, H., Yokota, H., Xie, J., Seite, P., and D. Liu,
              "Distributed and Dynamic Mobility Management  in Mobile
              Internet: Current Approaches and Issues, Journal of
              Communications, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 4-15, Feb 2011.",
               Proceedings of GlobeCom Workshop  on Seamless Wireless
              Mobility, February 2011.

   [Paper-Distributed.Mobility.SAE]
              Fisher, M., Anderson, F., Kopsel, A., Schafer, G., and M.
              Schlager, "A Distributed IP Mobility Approach for 3G SAE",
               Proceedings of the 19th International Symposium  on
              Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC),
              2008.

   [Paper-Locating.User]
              Kirby, G., "Locating the User",  Communication
              International, 1995.

   [Paper-Migrating.Home.Agents]
              Wakikawa, R., Valadon, G., and J. Murai, "Migrating Home
              Agents  Towards Internet-scale Mobility Deployments",
               Proceedings of the ACM 2nd CoNEXT Conference  on Future
              Networking Technologies, December 2006.

   [Paper-Mobile.Data.Offloading]
              Lee, K., Lee, J., Yi, Y., Rhee, I., and S. Chong, "Mobile
              Data Offloading: How Much Can WiFi Deliver?",  SIGCOMM
              2010, 2010.

   [RFC3753]  Manner, J. and M. Kojo, "Mobility Related Terminology",
              RFC 3753, June 2004.

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

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

   [RFC5944]  Perkins, C., "IP Mobility Support for IPv4, Revised",
              RFC 5944, November 2010.

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




Chan (Ed.), et al.      Expires December 7, 2013               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft                  DMM-Reqs                       June 2013


   [RFC6301]  Zhu, Z., Wakikawa, R., and L. Zhang, "A Survey of Mobility
              Support in the Internet", RFC 6301, July 2011.

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

   [TS.29303]
              3GPP, "Domain Name System Procedures; Stage 3", 3GPP
              TR 23.303 11.2.0, September 2012.


Authors' Addresses

   H Anthony Chan (editor)
   Huawei Technologies (more co-authors on P. 17)
   5340 Legacy Dr. Building 3, Plano, TX 75024, USA
   Email: h.a.chan@ieee.org


   Dapeng Liu
   China Mobile
   Unit2, 28 Xuanwumenxi Ave, Xuanwu District,  Beijing 100053, China
   Email: liudapeng@chinamobile.com


   Pierrick Seite
   Orange
   4, rue du Clos Courtel, BP 91226,  Cesson-Sevigne 35512, France
   Email: pierrick.seite@orange.com


   Hidetoshi Yokota
   KDDI Lab
   2-1-15 Ohara, Fujimino, Saitama, 356-8502 Japan
   Email: yokota@kddilabs.jp


   Jouni Korhonen
   Nokia Siemens Networks
   Email: jouni.korhonen@nsn.com
   -
   Charles E. Perkins
   Huawei Technologies
   Email: charliep@computer.org
   -
   Melia Telemaco



Chan (Ed.), et al.      Expires December 7, 2013               [Page 17]


Internet-Draft                  DMM-Reqs                       June 2013


   Alcatel-Lucent Bell Labs
   Email: telemaco.melia@alcatel-lucent.com
   -
   Elena Demaria
   Telecom Italia
   via G. Reiss Romoli, 274, TORINO, 10148, Italy
   Email: elena.demaria@telecomitalia.it
   -
   Jong-Hyouk Lee
   RSM Department, Telecom Bretagne
   Cesson-Sevigne, 35512, France
   Email: jh.lee@telecom-bretagne.eu
   -
   Kostas Pentikousis
   Huawei Technologies
   Carnotstr. 4 10587 Berlin, Germany
   Email: k.pentikousis@huawei.com
   -
   Tricci So
   ZTE
   Email: tso@zteusa.com
   -
   Carlos J. Bernardos
   Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
   Av. Universidad, 30, Leganes, Madrid 28911, Spain
   Email: cjbc@it.uc3m.es
   -
   Peter McCann
   Huawei Technologies
   Email: PeterMcCann@huawei.com
   -
   Seok Joo Koh
   Kyungpook National University, Korea
   Email: sjkoh@knu.ac.kr
   -
   Wen Luo
   ZTE
   No.68, Zijinhua RD,Yuhuatai District, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012, China
   Email: luo.wen@zte.com.cn
   -
   Sri Gundavelli
   sgundave@cisco.com
   -
   Marco Liebsch
   NEC Laboratories Europe
   Email: liebsch@neclab.eu
   -
   Carl Williams



Chan (Ed.), et al.      Expires December 7, 2013               [Page 18]


Internet-Draft                  DMM-Reqs                       June 2013


   MCSR Labs
   Email: carlw@mcsr-labs.org
   -
   Seil Jeon
   Email: seiljeon@av.it.pt
   -
   Sergio Figueiredo
   Email: sfigueiredo@av.it.pt
   -
   Stig Venaas
   Email: stig@venaas.com
   -
   Luis Miguel Contreras Murillo
   Email: lmcm@tid.es
   -
   Juan Carlos Zuniga
   Email: JuanCarlos.Zuniga@InterDigital.com
   -
   Alexandru Petrescu
   Email: alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com
   -
   Georgios Karagiannis
   Email: g.karagiannis@utwente.nl
   -
   Julien Laganier
   jlaganier@juniper.net
   -
   Wassim Michel Haddad
   Wassam.Haddad@ericsson.com
   -
   Dirk von Hugo
   Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de
   -
   Ahmad Muhanna
   amuhanna@awardsolutions.com
   -















Chan (Ed.), et al.      Expires December 7, 2013               [Page 19]


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