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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04

  IETF Seamoby Working Group                              Dirk Trossen
  INTERNET-DRAFT                                  Govind Krishnamurthi
  draft-ietf-seamoby-cardiscovery-issues-04.txt         Hemant Chaskar
  16 October, 2002                                               Nokia
                                                           James Kempf
                                                                DoCoMo
               Issues in candidate access router discovery
                      for seamless IP-level handoffs

  Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026.
   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.
   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.''
   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

  Copyright notice

   Copyright (c) The Internet Society (2002). All rights reserved.

  Abstract

   Handoff in IP mobility protocols involves moving a mobile node's
   Layer 3 routing reachability point from one access router to
   another, before or after the mobile node has established a Layer 2
   connection with the radio access point that is covered by the new
   access router. In addition, other context information about the
   mobile node's IP service may be transferred from the old access
   router to the new one, in order to minimize the service disruption
   during the handoff process. While the exact details of how this is
   accomplished vary depending on the IP mobility and seamless handoff
   protocols, one common thread required for IP-level handoffs is
   discovering the candidate access routers for the mobile node's
   handoff. Discovering the candidate access router involves
   identifying its IP address as well as its capabilities that the
   mobile node might be interested in. At the time of IP-level handoff,
   if a collection of candidates is identified, an algorithm is run to
   determine the target access router for the mobile node's handoff.
   This document describes the problem of candidate access router
   discovery. The document does not discuss the algorithm by which the
   actual target access router is selected, nor how the handoff to the
   target is achieved.

Trossen et. al.           Expires April 2003                  [Page 1]


Internet Draft  Candidate access router discovery issues  October 2002


                             Table of Content
   1. INTRODUCTION...................................................3
   1.1. Seamless Handoff Protocols...................................3
   1.2. Choice for Handoff...........................................3
   2. TERMINOLOGY....................................................4
   3. MOTIVATION FOR CAR DISCOVERY...................................4
   4. THE CAR DISCOVERY PROBLEM......................................6
   4.1. CAR IP Address Discovery.....................................6
   4.2. Identifying Capabilities of CAR..............................7
   5. SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS........................................7
   6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...............................................7
   7. REFERENCES.....................................................7
   8. AUTHORS' ADDRESSES.............................................8







































Trossen et. al.           Expires April 2003                  [Page 2]


Internet Draft  Candidate access router discovery issues  October 2002


1. INTRODUCTION

   IP mobility protocols enable mobile nodes (MNs) to change the access
   routers (ARs) by which they obtain the Layer 3 connectivity to the
   Internet, while communicating with another node over the Internet.
   An AR providing Internet connectivity to the MN changes when there
   is a change (usually as a result of movement of the MN) in the
   access point (AP) through which the MN communicates with the wired
   network, such that the AR serving the new AP is in a new subnet.
   There are existing solutions [1, 2] that enable MNs to execute IP-
   level handoffs between the ARs.

1.1. Seamless Handoff Protocols

   Additionally, work is underway [3, 4, 5, 6, 7], to define protocols
   that would allow seamless, meaning low latency and low packet loss,
   handoffs of MNs between the ARs. These seamless handoff solutions
   assume that the (wireless) link protocol is capable of delivering a
   Layer 2 identifier for the new AP or the radio interface of new AR
   [8] to the current AR  or to the MN, and require that the current AR
   be able to translate this Layer 2 identifier to the IP address of
   the new AR in order to facilitate  the seamless handoff. In addition
   to simply providing the Layer 2 to IP address mapping, the AR needs
   some way to determine if the Layer 2 identifier is that of a
   legitimate AP or AR or whether it is an imposter. Some link layers
   provide Layer 2 security mechanisms for this purpose.

1.2. Choice for Handoff

   In future mobile networks, there will be cases when MN has a choice
   of performing IP-level handoff to a different AR. For example, an MN
   having network interface cards supporting two or more wireless
   access technologies (such as, 3G and wireless LAN) and communicating
   over one of them, may wish to switch to a different access network
   if it feels that the IP service offered by the latter better suits
   its requirements. A generalization of this case is when the MN has a
   choice of different APs (of possibly different media and access
   technologies) connected to different ARs, for the sake of
   maintaining Internet connectivity. These different ARs may have
   different capabilities (different service providers, different load
   conditions, different wired QoS availability, etc.). The MN requires
   some means of obtaining information about the capabilities of these
   ARs so that the best decision about the handoff target can be made.
   Note that there might be scenarios when a handoff is essential to at
   least one of these ARs (old connection is fading fast) as well as
   those when MN may live without performing a handoff to any of these
   ARs (coverage of new AR is subsumed within that of the current AR).
   Further, depending upon the handoff scenario, seamless handoff
   protocols may or may not be used.



Trossen et. al.           Expires April 2003                  [Page 3]


Internet Draft  Candidate access router discovery issues  October 2002


   The two problems are linked in the sense that they both involve
   determining the information about a new AR (IP address and
   capabilities) that is a candidate for the next handoff. In this
   document, we discuss the problem of Candidate Access Router (CAR)
   discovery.


2. TERMINOLOGY

   Access Point (AP)

   A radio transceiver by which an MN obtains Layer 2 connectivity
   with the wired network.

   Access Router (AR)

   An IP router residing in an access network and connected to one or
   more APs. An AR offers IP connectivity to MN.

   Capability of AR

   A characteristic of the IP service offered by an AR that may be of
   interest to an MN when the AR is being considered as a handoff
   candidate.

   Candidate AR (CAR)

   An AR to which MN has a choice of performing IP-level handoff. This
   means that MN has the right radio interface to connect to an AP that
   is served by this AR, as well as the coverage of this AR overlaps
   with that of the AR to which MN is currently attached to.

   Target AR (TAR)

   An AR with which the procedures for the MN's IP-level handoff are
   initiated. TAR is selected after running a TAR Selection Algorithm
   that takes into account the capabilities of CARs, preferences of MN
   and any local policies.


3. MOTIVATION FOR CAR DISCOVERY

   This section describes some features that can be implemented with
   the help of CAR discovery protocol.

   Scenario 1: Load balancing

   Consider an AR to which an MN is currently attached. This AR is
   denoted by AR1. Further, assume that AR1 is heavily loaded. Suppose
   there is another AR, denoted by AR2, that is reachable from the


Trossen et. al.           Expires April 2003                  [Page 4]


Internet Draft  Candidate access router discovery issues  October 2002


   attached MN and is not heavily loaded. Then, MN may decide to
   undergo handoff to AR2. Such load balancing can be achieved using
   the capability information about AR2 obtained via CAR discovery
   protocol.

   Scenario 2: Resource intensive applications

   Consider an MN running a streaming video application, which might be
   an important application for the future mobile networks. These
   applications require high bandwidth and possibly other QoS support
   to be available at the AR serving the MN. When this MN moves into
   the coverage area of a new AR, it is possible that the new AR does
   not have the capability to support the MN's application. The MN can
   then be informed about this fact when it is still connected to the
   current AR. This information might be used to alert the user about
   possible service degradation when moving. If the MN does have choices
   in what AR might be used for connectivity after moving, i.e., because
   of overlapping coverage areas, these choices might be presented to the
   user or the running application might make choices based on certain
   preferences. Clearly for this, it is necessary to have the knowledge
   of the capabilities of the neighboring  ARs, and this can be
   obtained using the CAR discovery protocol.

   Scenario 3: Least-cost phone call

   Consider the preference expressed by the MN to prioritize handoffs
   to an AR with minimal cost of access for phone call (``least cost
   policy"). The ``cost of access" capability of an AR can be obtained
   using CAR discovery protocol.

   Scenario 4: Adaptability to change in the coverage topology

   Consider a situation in which ARs may be temporarily introduced in
   hot-spots to cater to the existing traffic demand. In such a case,
   a static configuration of the neighborhood information in ARs is not
   feasible as the operators may not inform each other of temporary
   changes. A protocol is therefore needed in such cases for the MN to
   automatically identify any change in the coverage topology and
   identify the capabilities of the neighboring ARs. This can be
   facilitated by the CAR discovery protocol.

   Scenario 5: Inter-technology handoff

   Consider the case in which an MN has a variety of wireless access
   network media available to it, and also possibly a wired interface.
   Theoretically, the MN could bring  up each interface and solicit a
   Router Advertisement on it, but as the number of interfaces becomes
   larger, such a procedure results in a larger and larger drain on
   power. An alternative would be if the MN could solicit for
   alternative AR choices on an active interface, and use this
   information to choose handoff target.

Trossen et. al.           Expires April 2003                  [Page 5]


Internet Draft  Candidate access router discovery issues  October 2002


4. THE CAR DISCOVERY PROBLEM

   There are two basic problems associated with CAR discovery:

   1) Mapping from a Layer 2 identifier for an AP to the IP address of
   the CAR

   2) Identifying the capabilities of CAR

   The two problems are related in that both are concerned with
   obtaining IP-level information about a CAR for the purposes of
   determination of the target access router for handoff.
   We discuss these two problems in the following subsections.

4.1. CAR IP Address Discovery

   The seamless handoff protocols defined in [3, 4, 5, 6, 7] require a
   certain amount of IP level signaling between a MN's current AR and
   the target AR to which the MN will undergo handoff or has undergone
   handoff. For [3] and [4], the signaling is required to rearrange
   routing for a Mobile IP handoff when the MN's link moves to the
   target AR. For [5], [6], and [7], the signaling is required so that
   the current AR can transfer IP service context to the target AR. IP
   service context may include QoS state, AAA state, etc. Being able to
   quickly set up IP service context on the target AR is important
   because it determines how quickly the MN will receive the same level
   of IP service on the target AR as it received on the old. In order
   for the IP level signaling to occur, the current AR requires the IP
   address of the target AR.

   Typically, the seamless handoff protocols assume that the MN knows a
   Layer 2 identifier for the wireless AP or AR to which it may undergo
   a handoff. The Layer 2 identifier might be obtained when the MN has
   Layer 2 beacon contact with the AP. It is now the task of the CAR
   discovery protocol is to enable mapping from the Layer 2 identifier
   to the IP address of the CAR that serves this AP.

   This problem is not dissimilar to reverse address resolution [9] or
   to the use of DHCP [10] to obtain the address of a host based on its
   MAC address. In the current case, however, the reverse address
   translation is occuring across subnets for ARs rather than between a
   host and a server. Another added twist is that the actual L2
   identifier may be for the new wireless AP and not for  the new AR,
   whereas the current AR requires the new AR IP address. Any solution
   to this problem must provide for dynamic autoconfiguration of
   reverse address resolution, so that ARs and APs that are added and
   removed can be quickly discovered without requiring much, if any,
   human intervention.




Trossen et. al.           Expires April 2003                  [Page 6]


Internet Draft  Candidate access router discovery issues  October 2002


4.2. Identifying Capabilities of CAR

   Although not common now, future generation mobile networks may
   consist of ARs that offer coverage in the same geographical area but
   are heterogeneous in capabilities. The basic functionality shared by
   all IP routers is that of packet forwarding. In that respect, all
   ARs are similar. However, heterogeneity may arise among different
   ARs due to factors such as additional functions performed by ARs
   (seamless handoff support, security functions, wireless performance
   enhancing functions, etc.), administrative and business aspects of
   providing service to MN (service provider, cost of access, etc.),
   availability of certain type of resources with AR (QoS availability)
   etc. A solution is needed that will allow the MN to learn the
   capabilities of CARs that it might be interested in. CAR discovery
   protocol enables this.

   However, since the complexity of the process might grow, in particular
   with growing number of capabilities, limitations in the scope of CAR
   discovery with respect to, for instance, the number of supported
   capabilities or the final decision making, might be necessary to cope
   with this complexity issue.

5. SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS

   CAR discovery may allow other nodes to learn information about an
   AR, including its IP address and capabilities. Malicious nodes may
   use this kind of information to launch DoS attacks and/or service
   hijacking.

   Information about the capabilities of a CAR often needs to be
   digitally signed.  Otherwise, intentional or accidental APs can
   capture traffic, to the detriment of the MN.  Such captures can
   result in black holes, and/or can facilitate eavesdropping and active
   attacks. Attacks like these have already occurred on 802.11 networks.

   The need for digital signatures can cause other problems.  MNs MUST
   be preprovisioned with information that lets them ascertain the
   authorization of any CAR. Digital signatures are expensive to compute
   and verify; this can translate into increased computational load on
   the CARs and on the MNs, and increased power consumption on the MNs.

   Therefore, the following topics should be covered in any solution
   developed for CAR discovery:

   - Authentication of nodes
   - Security associations between nodes
   - Message/payload encryption.
   - Encryption of CAR capabilities
   - Additional load on CARs and MN due to additional security measures



Trossen et. al.           Expires April 2003                  [Page 7]


Internet Draft  Candidate access router discovery issues  October 2002


6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

   Special thanks are due to John Loughney (Nokia) and Hesham Soliman
   (Ericsson) for their input during the preparation of this document.
   Steve Deering's thoughts about how to involve the mobile node in CAR
   discovery were instrumental in achieving more focus to the problem
   statement.


7. REFERENCES

   1. "IP Mobility Support", C. Perkins (Editor), RFC 2002, October
     1996.

   2. "Mobility Support in IPv6", D. Johnson, C. Perkins, and Jari
     Arkko, draft-ietf-mobileip-ipv6-17.txt, work in progress, May
     2002.

   3. "Low Latency Handoffs in Mobile IPv4", MIPv4 Handoffs Design
     Team, draft-ietf-mobileip-lowlatency-handoffs-v4-00.txt, work in
     progress, February 2001.

   4. "Fast handoffs for Mobile IPv6", MIPv6 handoff Design Team,
     draft-ietf-mobileip-fast-mipv6-01.txt, work in progress, April
     2001.

   5. "Problem Description: Reasons For Performing Context Transfers
     Between Nodes in an IP Access Network", O. H. Levkowetz, et. al.,
     draft-ietf-seamoby-context-transfer-problem-stat-01.doc, work in
     progress, May 2001.

   6. "General requirements for a context transfer framework", H.
     Sayed, et. al., draft-ietf-seamoby-ct-reqs-00.txt, work in
     progress, May 2001.

   7. "Buffer Management for Smooth handoffs in Mobile IPv6", G.
     Krishnamurthi, R. Chalmers, and C. Perkins, draft-krishnamurthi-
     mobileip-buffer6-01.txt, work in progress, March 2001.

   8. "Supporting Optimized Handover for IP Mobility - Requirements
     for Underlying Systems", J. Kempf, et. al., draft-manyfolks-l2-
     mobilereq-02.txt, work in progress, November 2001.

   9. "A Reverse Address Resolution Protocol", R. Finlayson, et. al.
     RFC 903, June 1984

   10. "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", R. Droms, RFC 1531,
     October 1993.




Trossen et. al.           Expires April 2003                  [Page 8]


Internet Draft  Candidate access router discovery issues  October 2002


8. AUTHORS' ADDRSSES

   Dirk Trossen

   Communication Systems Laboratory
   Nokia Research Center
   5 Wayside Road
   Burlington, MA 01803, USA
   Phone:  +1 781 993 3605
   Fax:  +1 781 993 1907
   E-mail:  dirk.trossen@nokia.com

   Govind Krishnamurthi

   Communication Systems Laboratory
   Nokia Research Center
   5 Wayside Road
   Burlington, MA 01803, USA
   Phone:  +1 781 993 3627
   Fax:  +1 781 993 1907
   E-mail:  govind.krishnamurthi@nokia.com

   Hemant Chaskar

   Communication Systems Laboratory
   Nokia Research Center
   5 Wayside Road
   Burlington, MA 01803, USA
   Phone:  +1 781 993 3785
   Fax:  +1 781 993 1907
   E-mail:  hemant.chaskar@nokia.com

   James Kempf

   DoCoMo Communication Laboratories, USA
   181 Metro Drive, Suite 300
   San Jose, CA 95110, USA
   Phone: +1 408 451 4711
   Email: kempf@docomolabs-usa.com













Trossen et. al.           Expires April 2003                  [Page 9]


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