[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00

TCPM Working Group                                          B. Pithawala
Internet-Draft                                          U. Chunduri, Ed.
Intended status: Informational                       Huawei Technologies
Expires: January 17, 2018                                  July 16, 2017


                  TCP Mobility Option with Identifiers
             draft-pc-tcpm-tcp-seamless-mobility-option-00

Abstract

   This document specifies the TCP Seamless Mobility Option (TCP-SMO)
   with variable length identifiers.  TCP-SMO allows mobility with
   session continuity, when either of the TCP endpoint change its IP
   address.  This is being done securely and without any additional
   round trips during mobility event.

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 RFC2119 [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
   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 January 17, 2018.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of



Pithawala & Chunduri    Expires January 17, 2018                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft    TCP Mobility Option with Identifiers         July 2017


   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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Acronyms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  TCP Seamless Mobility Option with Identifiers . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Elements of Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.1.  Flow of TCP Connection with SMO And IP Address Change . .   5
     4.2.  Security mechanisms during IP address change  . . . . . .   7
       4.2.1.  Security Option-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       4.2.2.  Security Option-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.3.  Notifying IP Address Change Event . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.4.  Buffering the In-flight data  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.5.  TCP-SMO with Unsupported Destination  . . . . . . . . . .  10
   5.  Unsupported Middleboxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   6.  Impact of NAT between Source and Destination  . . . . . . . .  10
   7.  Changes to host TCP Stack and Backward Compatibility  . . . .  10
   8.  Relationship with other Identifier Protocols  . . . . . . . .  11
   9.  Previous and Related Efforts  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   10. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   13. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     13.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     13.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13

1.  Introduction

   When a TCP [RFC0793] connection is opened with a peer, it (TCP
   Session or Socket) is identified by Source port, Destination port,
   Source IP address and Destination IP address by both initiator and
   responder of the connection.  This connection is identified by the
   socket parameters and stored in Transmission Control Block (TCB) at
   TCP stack.  Any of these connection identifier changes at one end
   cause either TCP RST by peer or the session times out eventually.

   The above is per [RFC0793], Section 2.7- "To identify the separate
   data streams that a TCP may handle, the TCP provides a port
   identifier.  Since port identifiers are selected independently by
   each TCP they might not be unique.  To provide for unique addresses
   within each TCP, we concatenate an internet address identifying the



Pithawala & Chunduri    Expires January 17, 2018                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft    TCP Mobility Option with Identifiers         July 2017


   TCP with a port identifier to create a socket which will be unique
   throughout all networks connected together."

   There are more mobile devices today than a decade earlier.  Hence it
   is imperative that we have a mechanism to provide Session or
   Transport layer connectivity that is impervious to network layer
   changes.  Some of the Identifier/Location protocols which has
   inherent support for seamless mobility and relationship to this work
   is discussed in Section 8.

   This document provides an option towards providing resilience in the
   TCP transport layer as either end of the connection moves and changes
   its location (and thereby its IP address).  Some of the previous
   efforts with TCP mobility have been discussed in Section 9

2.  Acronyms

   DH       -  Diffie-Hellman Key Agreement

   HIP       -  Host Identity Protocol

   LISP       -  The Locator/ID Separation Protocol

   TCP      -  Transmission Control Protocol

3.  TCP Seamless Mobility Option with Identifiers

   For seamless mobility with an uninterrupted TCP connection, this
   document proposes a TCP Seamless Mobility Option (TCP-SMO) as
   described in Figure 1 .  This new TCP option introduces connection
   identifiers and proposes changes to TCP to use these identifiers for
   TCB or connection identification.



















Pithawala & Chunduri    Expires January 17, 2018                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft    TCP Mobility Option with Identifiers         July 2017


       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      | Kind          | Length        |DH |M|Flags    | SL    |DL     |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |    Source Connection Identifier (variable length)             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |    Destination Connection Identifier (variable Length)        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |      Optional data                                            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+



             Figure 1: TCP Seamless Mobility Option (TCP-SMO)

   Kind - TBD (TCP IANA).

   Length - Variable.  Includes Kind and Length field in bytes.  Minimum
   value is 12 and a maximum value is 40 bytes.  When the Length is less
   than 12 TCP MUST discard the segment.

   Flags

      'D H' - (2 bits) When its non-zero Diffie-Helman value is being
      exchanged

      D H Bits in Flags

      0 0 NO Diffie-Hellman values exchanged

      0 1 1024-bit ModP Group (mandatory)

      1 0 2048-bit ModP Group/elliptic curve groups which has 200bits
      ModP

      1 1 Reserved

      Two tiers of identification are needed, with identifiers anchored
      at the identity.

      'M' - mobility event, optional data (4 bytes) contains the keyed
      hash of the Source Connection Identifier concatenated with a fixed
      12 byte String 0xFEFEFEFEABABABABDEDEDEDE.  The fixed string will
      help normalized the total data for the hash function as connection
      identifiers length can be as low as 4 bytes.





Pithawala & Chunduri    Expires January 17, 2018                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft    TCP Mobility Option with Identifiers         July 2017


      In Case of Security Option-1 - the hash function is a simple
      SHA1-96 hash of the above concatenated data.  Optional 4 byte data
      is the checksum of this hash data.

      In Case of Security Option-2 Hash function MUST use AES-128-CMAC-6
      [NIST-SP800-38B][FIPS197] and Optional 4 byte data is the checksum
      of this "keyed" hash data.

   Other flags are reserved and undefined.

   SL - Source CID Length (4 bits) - Length of the source identifier in
   bytes.  Minimum is 4 bytes and a maximum of 16 bytes.

   DL - Source CID Length (4 bits) - Length of the destination
   identifier in bytes.  Minimum is 4 bytes and a maximum of 16 bytes.

   SCID: Source Connection identifier - Length minimum of 4 bytes as
   indicated by CID length.  It can be generated by TCP module or can be
   supplied by application.

   DCID: Destination Connection identifier - Length minimum of 4 bytes
   as indicated by CID length.  It can be generated by TCP module or can
   be supplied by application.

   Optional data (4 Bytes) - MUST be present only when M bit is set and
   MUST contain the 4 bytes of Checksum of Generated hash of the Source
   Connection Identifier + Fixed Data.

   The Checksum and Hash is generated on the side of communication which
   detected an IP address change and needs to provide seamless mobility.

   Source CID (SCID) and Destination CID (DCID) can be provided to TCP
   by an application or other protocol (LISP, HIP or any other ID
   related protocol with in the constrains of this option) while opening
   the TCP socket or TCP stack can generate unique pair of CIDs to be
   used in this option.

4.  Elements of Procedure

4.1.  Flow of TCP Connection with SMO And IP Address Change

   Consider IP address of Source is IP1 and Destination is IP2.  TCP-SMO
   can be explained with a sequence of TCP segments as specified below:

   1.  Source sends TCP-SYN message with TCP-SMO.  In the Seamless
   Mobility Option: If CID's (source and destination) are chosen by
   application and given to TCP then both can be present in the TCP-SYN
   segment.  If TCP has to choose the CID's, source chooses the unique



Pithawala & Chunduri    Expires January 17, 2018                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft    TCP Mobility Option with Identifiers         July 2017


   (local to the TCP stack) connection Identifier and keeps the
   destination connection identifier as 0x0 with minimum length 4 bytes
   in the TCP-SYN segment.  When destination receives this segment, it
   allocates another unique identifier and this value would be kept in
   the SYN-ACK segment sent to the source.

   2.  Destination receives the SYN segment and it supports this option.
   It responds back with SYN-ACK with the mobility options.  If
   destination CID is 0x0, as specified above it Chooses a unique CID.

   From this point TCB is looked-up by Source CID, Destination CID
   instead of [RFC0793] Section 2.7.

   3.  Source sends Sync-Ack-Ack segment and at source side TCB is
   established with look up parameters by Source CID, Destination CID,
   Source Port and Destination port instead of [RFC0793] Section 2.7.

   4.  TCP data segments exchanged from both Source and destination and
   these segments will have the TCP-SMO.

   5.  In the middle of the connection, a mobility event happened at the
   source and IP address is changed from IP1 to IP11.  When there is
   data to be sent immediately by source, data segment will be sent with
   the new Source IP address IP11 and TCB at both ends update the change
   in the Source IP address.  If there is no data segment to be sent by
   source during mobility event either a TCP keep alive segment or empty
   data packet needs to be sent with this new IP to allow TCB's at both
   end to know the new Source IP address.

   The security implications of continuing to use the same session after
   an IP address change are discussed in Section 4.2.

        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       | Kind          | Length        |DH |1|Flags    | SL    |DL     |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |    Source Connection Identifier (variable length)             |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |    Destination Connection Identifier (variable Length)        |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       | Checksum of the Generated Hash of SCID + fixed data(4 bytes)  |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      Figure 2: TCP Seamless Mobility Option Sent at IP Change Event

   6.  Destination receives TCP-SMO segment.  Verifies that IP1 sent the
   data for change to IP11 thru the Generated Hash, updates its TCB for



Pithawala & Chunduri    Expires January 17, 2018                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft    TCP Mobility Option with Identifiers         July 2017


   IP1 connections with Mobility flag set and starts to receive packets
   on source IP11 TCP segment sent by destination with new Source IP
   address.  If Destination cannot verify then it terminates the
   session, which is the same as existing behavior.

   7.  Data sent by source but a mobility event happens at destination
   before this event can be updated to source.  In this case the data is
   lost and would be retransmitted by source when changed IP address is
   notified by destination.

   8.  Either end can terminate the session by sending the TCP-FIN
   sequence which also uses TCP-SMO regardless who initiates the socket
   close.

4.2.  Security mechanisms during IP address change

4.2.1.  Security Option-1

   The TCP-SMO discussed does introduce a security issue as anybody can
   hijack the existing TCP connection by changing the source IP address
   (Connection Hijacking).  It is recommended to use security at IP
   (IPsec) or transport layer-Authentication Option (TCP-AO) [RFC5925]
   for securing the TCP connection including the TCP header.  When
   [RFC5925] is used TCP-SMO size MUST not be exceeded more than 12
   bytes to accommodate TCP-AO [RFC5925].

   Implication on Connection Identifiers:

   With the TCP AO option for authentication of an IP Address change,
   the Source and Destination connection Identifiers have to be fixed at
   4 bytes each for a valid TCP-SMO.

4.2.2.  Security Option-2

   In this option, security for TCP-SMO is done in-line with in the
   newly defined option by exchanging a DH public value and computing a
   shared secret at both ends, which can be used as a key to generate a
   hash value (pre-defined has algorithm) during mobility.  DH groups
   and the hash algorithms are pre-defined and MUST be implemented to
   use this mechanism to avail the needed security.

   This option relies on the "data" to be sent during 3 way handshake.
   This data is not application data but the ModP (DH public value) for
   selected DH group.  As the size of this is anywhere from 1024 bits
   (DH Group-1) to 2048 bits (DH Group-2)/200 bits (Elliptic curve DH
   groups) sending this as part of option data is not possible (limited
   option space in the TCP header).




Pithawala & Chunduri    Expires January 17, 2018                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft    TCP Mobility Option with Identifiers         July 2017


   Section 3.4 of [RFC0793] specifies and allows a mechanism to send
   application data during TCP 3 way hand shake but this "data" should
   not be sent to application until completion of handshake.  The data
   we send is not application data and will be consumed by TCP end host
   stack until handshake completion.

   The Sequence of data packet exchange:

   1.  The TCP-SMO DH flags will have non-zero value and particular DH
   group used by source to generate the ModP value.  This is sent as
   part of the data in the TCP SYN-Segment.

   2.  When destination receives this data and generates the ModP value
   of the destination and sends back in SYN-ACK segment data portion.
   At this point destination can compute the DH shared secret (would be
   used during mobility as a symmetric key for authentication
   information).

   3.  SYN-ACK-ACK segment is sent and also source computes the DH
   shared secret.

   4.  TCP data segments exchanged from both side with TCP-SMO.

   5.  Before this message mobility event happens at source and IP1
   changes to IP11.

   In this case source sends the data segment with TCP-SMO 'M' bit set
   with the 4 byte optional data, which is the checksum of the hash
   computed using the DH shared secret with data being the new IP
   address.

   Optional-data = Checksum (Hash((Source Connection Identifier + Fixed
   data normalizer), DH-Shared-Secret)).

   Fixed data Normalizer: 0xFEFEFEFEABABABABDEDEDEDE

   Length of optional data: first 4 bytes of the checksum.

   Hash algorithm to be used is AES-128-CMAC-96.

   6.  When the above segment arrives with M bit set, destination
   computes the checksum of the hash for the new IP address received and
   compares the same with the received value of "optional data" in the
   TCP-mobility-option.  If this matches, it ensures the mobility event
   is received indeed from Source and IP11 indicated is correct.

   It sends the TCP data segment to the newly received IP address from
   Source.  This time M bit will be cleared (only used for mobility).



Pithawala & Chunduri    Expires January 17, 2018                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft    TCP Mobility Option with Identifiers         July 2017


4.3.  Notifying IP Address Change Event

   An IP address change in the local stack MUST be notified to the local
   TCP layer.  This is to ensure that the local TCP layer can adjust to
   IP change and to indicate this change to the destination.  There are
   2 possibilities of change:

      Delete: If any IP address (connected route) is deleted, TCP should
      be notified of this change and TCP should find another source IP
      address for this existing connection only if sockets that are
      bound to the deleted IP address had their Mobility Flag ON.

      Modify: If IP address is changes, then both the old and new
      address should be updated to local TCP to identify the old
      connection and also to enable TCP to find new source IP for that
      connection (not necessarily the changed IP, but based on the route
      lookup on the destination IP).

   Once the above is done to intimate the destination about this change
   there are 3 possible option and one of the option has to be fulfilled
   by local TCP.

      Pending data from application: in this case TCB should use the new
      source IP address and send the segment with application data.

      Sending a keep-alive: If keep-alive are enabled on the TCP
      connection and asynchronous keep-alive can be sent to the
      destination with the new IP address.

      Sending zero-data segment: if the above 2 are not available, local
      TCP stack can send a zero-data segment to the destination with the
      new source IP address.

      In all 3 cases, the packet is sent with the TCP-SMO as in
      Section 4 step 6.

4.4.  Buffering the In-flight data

   During IP address change local host where the change happened can
   have a handshake mechanism with TCP stack and during that time
   received data can be buffered.  Though this is an implementation
   detail and it can be done many ways and this is out of scope for this
   document.








Pithawala & Chunduri    Expires January 17, 2018                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft    TCP Mobility Option with Identifiers         July 2017


4.5.  TCP-SMO with Unsupported Destination

   If a destination does not support the TCP-SMO then it MUST send a
   regular SYN-ACK as per [RFC0793].  If SYN-ACK is received without any
   TCP-SMO, source falls back to sending SYN segment without any option.
   At this point this will be a regular TCP connection and seamless
   mobility is not possible for this connection.

5.  Unsupported Middleboxes

   Any new TCP options are prone to be dropped by middle boxes and this
   is generally applies to 5% of TCP connections per [RFC7413] section
   7.1.  To cater this case, after the initial time out of the SYN with
   TCP-SMO, source MUST send SYN segment without this option, thus
   resorting to native TCBs and hence not having seamless mobility.

6.  Impact of NAT between Source and Destination

   This solution does not have any impact of NAT/NAPT devices between
   source and destination because:

   o  TCB uses only Source and destination connection identifiers

   o  During mobility the authentication data uses stable Source
      identifier to verify the hash on both sides (does not include new
      IP address or port).

   So even in the face NAT/NAPT device with M bit set peer can securely
   authenticate the change of IP address.

7.  Changes to host TCP Stack and Backward Compatibility

   This draft suggests changes to TCP host stack on both ends of the
   connection.  Main aspect of the change includes how TCB (Transmission
   Control Block) as defined in TCP [RFC0793] Section 2.7 can be looked
   up and subsequently used.  TCB is created when OPEN call is done at
   the host stack and it is a data structure which holds the state of
   the connection.  During connection OPEN time a flag can be indicated
   which suggests to use TCP-SMO with additional parameters as required.

   It is important to note, if the TCP option proposed in this document
   is not present, TCP connection should continue to identify TCB with
   connection identifiers as specified in TCP [RFC0793].  So,
   implementations supporting this option will have both old way of
   identifying the connection/TCB per [RFC0793] and with connection
   identifiers in the TCP-SMO.  How implementation can be done to have
   both these methods is beyond the scope of the document, while one




Pithawala & Chunduri    Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft    TCP Mobility Option with Identifiers         July 2017


   could easily perceive my maintaining two separate TCBs or harmonizing
   the keys to access the existing TCB with the proposal here.

   When a device or User Equipment (UE) connects to a TCP server, in
   majority of the cases TCP server will not change its location but to
   support device or UE mobility server TCP stack also MUST be updated
   to support this option.  One way to mitigate this update at server
   side is by using a TCP server proxy where this option is implemented.

8.  Relationship with other Identifier Protocols

   Proposal made in this document can be seen as a potential Data Plane
   alternative to existing Location/Identifier based protocols LISP
   [RFC6830] or HIP [RFC7401] with respective protocols control plane.
   This option doesn't specify any changes to control plane for existing
   identifier based protocols.  However, existing Location/Identifier
   based protocols will have some restrictions to use the data plane
   proposed in this document for example, limitation on the length of
   Identifier in TCP-SMO, which is variable and a maximum of 16 bytes.

   The mechanism proposed in this document also can be used with new
   Identity based common control plane protocol as specified in
   [I-D.padma-ideas-problem-statement] and this provides a data plane
   solution for applications using TCP transport.  UDP based
   applications can use mobility solution with QUIC protocol
   [I-D.tsvwg-quic-protocol], which allows similar functionality with
   respect to mobility.

9.  Previous and Related Efforts

   There were earlier efforts for TCP Mobility and one of those is
   described in [I-D.eddy-tcp-mobility].  Two of the main differences in
   this proposal is, how mobility event is notified to the peer (here
   no-3-way-handshake) and the security mechanisms during that event
   part from others.

   Multipath TCP (MPTCP) [RFC6182] [RFC6824]  was originally invented to
   distribute TCP load across multiple TCP connections but later
   mobility has been introduced by deleting the old connection.  The
   proposal in this draft can be seen as more simpler than the solution
   proposed with MPTCP.  Some of the other aspects, this proposal can be
   seen as different from MPTCP are in the area of performance
   [I-D.khalili-mptcp-performance-issues] and the host's ability to have
   insight into network topology in order to create multiple paths in
   some cases.






Pithawala & Chunduri    Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft    TCP Mobility Option with Identifiers         July 2017


10.  Acknowledgements

   TBD.

11.  IANA Considerations

   As specified in Section 3, this document requests new value for
   'kind' assignment from TCP IANA registry.

12.  Security Considerations

   Mechanisms to protect IP address change event is covered in
   Section 4.2.  Further security concerns TBD.

13.  References

13.1.  Normative References

   [RFC0793]  Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
              RFC 793, DOI 10.17487/RFC0793, September 1981,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc793>.

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

   [RFC5925]  Touch, J., Mankin, A., and R. Bonica, "The TCP
              Authentication Option", RFC 5925, DOI 10.17487/RFC5925,
              June 2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5925>.

13.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.eddy-tcp-mobility]
              Eddy, W., "Mobility Support For TCP", draft-eddy-tcp-
              mobility-00 (work in progress), April 2004.

   [I-D.khalili-mptcp-performance-issues]
              Khalili, R., Gast, N., Popovic, M., and J. Boudec,
              "Performance Issues with MPTCP", draft-khalili-mptcp-
              performance-issues-06 (work in progress), July 2014.

   [I-D.padma-ideas-problem-statement]
              Pillay-Esnault, P., Boucadair, M., Fioccola, G.,
              Jacquenet, C., and A. Nennker, "Problem Statement for
              Identity Enabled Networks", draft-padma-ideas-problem-
              statement-03 (work in progress), July 2017.




Pithawala & Chunduri    Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft    TCP Mobility Option with Identifiers         July 2017


   [I-D.tsvwg-quic-protocol]
              Hamilton, R., Iyengar, J., Swett, I., and A. Wilk, "QUIC:
              A UDP-Based Secure and Reliable Transport for HTTP/2",
              draft-tsvwg-quic-protocol-02 (work in progress), January
              2016.

   [RFC2631]  Rescorla, E., "Diffie-Hellman Key Agreement Method",
              RFC 2631, DOI 10.17487/RFC2631, June 1999,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2631>.

   [RFC6182]  Ford, A., Raiciu, C., Handley, M., Barre, S., and J.
              Iyengar, "Architectural Guidelines for Multipath TCP
              Development", RFC 6182, DOI 10.17487/RFC6182, March 2011,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6182>.

   [RFC6824]  Ford, A., Raiciu, C., Handley, M., and O. Bonaventure,
              "TCP Extensions for Multipath Operation with Multiple
              Addresses", RFC 6824, DOI 10.17487/RFC6824, January 2013,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6824>.

   [RFC6830]  Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The
              Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6830>.

   [RFC7401]  Moskowitz, R., Ed., Heer, T., Jokela, P., and T.
              Henderson, "Host Identity Protocol Version 2 (HIPv2)",
              RFC 7401, DOI 10.17487/RFC7401, April 2015,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7401>.

   [RFC7413]  Cheng, Y., Chu, J., Radhakrishnan, S., and A. Jain, "TCP
              Fast Open", RFC 7413, DOI 10.17487/RFC7413, December 2014,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7413>.

Authors' Addresses

   Burjiz Pithawala
   Huawei Technologies
   2330 Central Expressway
   Santa Clara, CA  95050
   USA

   Email: burjiz.pithawala1@huawei.com








Pithawala & Chunduri    Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft    TCP Mobility Option with Identifiers         July 2017


   Uma Chunduri (editor)
   Huawei Technologies
   2330 Central Expressway
   Santa Clara, CA  95050
   USA

   Email: uma.chunduri@huawei.com












































Pithawala & Chunduri    Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 14]

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.123, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/