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

Versions: 00 01 02 draft-ietf-dmm-mag-multihoming

DMM WG                                                          P. Seite
Internet-Draft                                                    Orange
Intended status: Standards Track                                A. Yegin
Expires: April 21, 2016                                          Samsung
                                                           S. Gundavelli
                                                                   Cisco
                                                        October 19, 2015


                      MAG Multipath Binding Option
                 draft-seite-dmm-rg-multihoming-02.txt

Abstract

   The document [RFC4908] proposes to rely on multiple Care-of Addresses
   (CoAs) capabilities of Mobile IP [RFC6275] an Network Mobility (NEMO;
   [RFC3963]) to enable Multihoming technology for Small-Scale Fixed
   Networks.  In the continuation of [RFC4908], this document specifies
   a multiple proxy Care-of Addresses (pCoAs) extension for Proxy Mobile
   IPv6 [RFC5213].  This extension allows a multihomed Mobile Access
   Gateway (MAG) to register more than one proxy care-of-address to the
   Local Mobility Anchor (LMA).

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 April 21, 2016.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 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



Seite, et al.            Expires April 21, 2016                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft        MAG Multipath Binding Option          October 2015


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

1.  Introduction

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

   o  Redundancy/Fault-Recovery

   o  Load balancing

   o  Load sharing

   o  Preferences settings

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



Seite, et al.            Expires April 21, 2016                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft        MAG Multipath Binding Option          October 2015


   In the continuation of [RFC4908], a Proxy Mobile IPv6 [RFC5213] based
   multihomed achitecture could be defined.  The motivation to update
   [RFC4908] with proxy Mobile IPv6 is to leverage on latest mobility
   working group achievments, namely:

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

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

   o  Prefix Delegation mechanism [RFC7148].

   Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) relies on two mobility entities: the
   mobile access gateway (MAG), which acts as the default gateway for
   the end-node and the local mobility anchor (LMA), which acts as the
   topological anchor point.  Point-to-point links are established,
   using IP-in-IP tunnels, between MAG and LMA.  Then, the MAG and LMA
   are distributing traffic over these tunnels.  All PMIPv6 operations
   are performed on behalf of the end-node and its corespondent node, it
   thus makes PMIPv6 well adapted to multihomed architecture, as
   considered in [RFC4908].  Taking the LTE and DSL networking
   environments as an example, the PMIPv6 based multihomed architecture
   is depicted on Figure 1.  Flow-1,2 and 3 are distributed either on
   Tunnel-1 (over LTE) or Tunnel-2 (ober DSL), while Flow-4 is spread on
   both Tunnel-1 and 2.

























Seite, et al.            Expires April 21, 2016                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft        MAG Multipath Binding Option          October 2015


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



             Figure 1: Multihomed MAG using Proxy Mobile IPv6

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

2.  Conventions and Terminology

2.1.  Conventions

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

2.2.  Terminology

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

   IP-in-IP



Seite, et al.            Expires April 21, 2016                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft        MAG Multipath Binding Option          October 2015


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

3.  Overview

3.1.  Example Call Flow

   Figure 2 is the callflow detailing hybrid access support with PMIPv6.
   The MAG in this example scenario is equipped with both WLAN and LTE
   interfaces and is also configured with the MAG functionality.  A
   logical-NAI with ALWAYS-ON configuration is enabled on the MAG.  The
   mobility session that is created on the LMA is for the logical-NAI.
   The IP hosts MN_1 and MN_2 are assigned IP addresses from the
   delegated mobile network prefix.


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


       Figure 2: Functional Separation of the Control and User Plane







Seite, et al.            Expires April 21, 2016                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft        MAG Multipath Binding Option          October 2015


3.2.  Traffic distribution schemes

   IP mobility protocols allow to establish the forwarding plane over
   the WAN interfaces of a multihomed RG.  Then, traffic distribution
   schemes define the way to distribute data packets over these paths
   (i.e.  IP tunnels).  Traffic distribution can be managed either on a
   per-flow or on a per-packet basis:

   o  per-flow traffic management: each IP flow (both upstream and
      downstream) is mapped to a given mobile IP tunnel, corresponding
      to a given WAN interface.  This scenario is based on IP flow
      mobility mechanism using the Flow binding extension [RFC6089].
      The mobility anchor provides IP session continuity when an IP flow
      is moved from one WAN interfaces to another.  The flow binding
      extension allows the IP mobility anchor and the RG to exchange,
      and synchronize, IP flow management policies (i.e. policy routing
      rules associating traffic selectors [RFC6088] to mobility
      bindings).

   o  Per-packet management: distribute the IP packets of a same IP
      flow, or of a group of IP flows, over more than one WAN interface.
      In this scenario, traffic management slightly differs from the
      default mobile IP behaviour; the mobility entities (mobility
      anchor and client) distribute packets, belonging to a same IP
      flow, over more than one bindings simultaneously.  The definition
      of control algorithm of a Per-packet distribution scheme (how to
      distribute packets) is out the scope of this document.  When
      operating at the packet level, traffic distribution scheme may
      introduce packet latency and out-of-order delivery.  It may
      require the aggeregation entities (RG and mobility anchor) to be
      able to reorder (ans thus, to buffer) received packets before
      delivering.  A possible implementation is to use GRE as mobile
      tunnelling mechanism, together with the GRE KEY option [RFC5845]
      to add sequence number to GRE packets, and so, to allow the
      receiver to perform reordering.  However, more detailed buffering
      and reordering considerations are out of the scope of this
      document.

   The traffic distribution scheme may require the RG and the to
   exchange interface metrics to make traffic steering decision.For
   example, the RG may sent its DSL synchronization rate to the mobility
   anchor, so that the latter can make traffic forwarding decision
   accordingly.  In this case, the vendor specific mobility option
   [RFC5094] can be used for that purpose.

   Per-flow and per-packet distribution schemes are not exclusive
   mechanisms; they can cohabit in the same hybrid access system.  For
   example, High throughput services (e.g. video streaming) may benefit



Seite, et al.            Expires April 21, 2016                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft        MAG Multipath Binding Option          October 2015


   from per-packet distribution scheme, while some other may not.
   Typically VoIP application are sensitive to latency and thus should
   not be split over different WAN paths.  In this situation, the
   aggregation entities (RG and mobility anchor) must exchange traffic
   management policies to associate distribution scheme, traffic and WAN
   interface (physical or virtual).  [RFC6088] and [RFC6089] define
   traffic management on a flow basis but there is no such policy on a
   per packet basis.

4.  Protocol Extensions

4.1.  MAG Multipath-Binding Option

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

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

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

   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |      Type     |   Length      |    If-ATT     |    If-Label   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Binding-Id   |B|O|             RESERVED                      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                  Figure 3: MAG Multipath Binding Option

   Type

      <IANA-1> To be assigned by IANA.

   Length

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




Seite, et al.            Expires April 21, 2016                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft        MAG Multipath Binding Option          October 2015


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

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

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

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

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

   Reserved

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






Seite, et al.            Expires April 21, 2016                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft        MAG Multipath Binding Option          October 2015


4.2.  MAG Identifier Option

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

   This option does not have any alignment requirements.

   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |      Type     |   Length      |  Subtype      |  Reserved     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           Identifier ...                      ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                      Figure 4: MAG Identifier Option

   Type

      <IANA-2> To be assigned by IANA.

   Length

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

   Subtype

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

   Reserved

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

   Identifier

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






Seite, et al.            Expires April 21, 2016                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft        MAG Multipath Binding Option          October 2015


4.3.  New Status Code for Proxy Binding Acknowledgement

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

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

5.  IANA Considerations

   This document requires the following IANA actions.

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

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

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

6.  Security Considerations

   This specification allows a mobile access gateway to establish
   multiple Proxy Mobile IPv6 tunnels with a local mobility anchor, by
   registering a care-of address for each of its connected access
   networks.  This essentially allows the mobile node's IP traffic to be
   routed through any of the tunnel paths and either based on a static
   or a dynamically negotiated flow policy.  This new capability has no
   impact on the protocol security.  Furthermore, this specification
   defines two new mobility header options, MAG Multipath-Binding option
   and the MAG Identifier option.  These options are carried like any



Seite, et al.            Expires April 21, 2016                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft        MAG Multipath Binding Option          October 2015


   other mobility header option as specified in [RFC5213].  Therefore,
   it inherits security guidelines from [RFC5213].  Thus, this
   specification does not weaken the security of Proxy Mobile IPv6
   Protocol, and does not introduce any new security vulnerabilities.

7.  Acknowledgements

   The authors of this draft would like to acknowledge the discussions
   and feedback on this topic from the members of the DMM working group.

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





Seite, et al.            Expires April 21, 2016                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft        MAG Multipath Binding Option          October 2015


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

   [RFC6089]  Tsirtsis, G., Soliman, H., Montavont, N., Giaretta, G.,
              and K. Kuladinithi, "Flow Bindings in Mobile IPv6 and
              Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support", RFC 6089,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6089, January 2011,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6089>.

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

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

8.2.  Informative References

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

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

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

Authors' Addresses

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

   Email: pierrick.seite@orange.com





Seite, et al.            Expires April 21, 2016                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft        MAG Multipath Binding Option          October 2015


   Alper Yegin
   Samsung
   Istanbul
   Turkey

   Email: alper.yegin@partner.samsung.com


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

   Email: sgundave@cisco.com




































Seite, et al.            Expires April 21, 2016                [Page 13]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.122, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/