draft-ietf-dmm-mag-multihoming-04.txt   draft-ietf-dmm-mag-multihoming-05.txt 
DMM WG P. Seite DMM WG P. Seite
Internet-Draft Orange Internet-Draft Orange
Intended status: Standards Track A. Yegin Intended status: Standards Track A. Yegin
Expires: January 1, 2018 Actility Expires: March 10, 2018 Actility
S. Gundavelli S. Gundavelli
Cisco Cisco
June 30, 2017 September 6, 2017
MAG Multipath Binding Option MAG Multipath Binding Option
draft-ietf-dmm-mag-multihoming-04.txt draft-ietf-dmm-mag-multihoming-05.txt
Abstract Abstract
This specification defines extensions to the Proxy Mobile IPv6 This specification defines extensions to the Proxy Mobile IPv6
protocol for allowing a mobile access gateway to register more than protocol for allowing a mobile access gateway to register more than
one proxy care-of-address with the local mobility anchor and to one proxy care-of-address with the local mobility anchor and to
simultaneously establish multiple IP tunnels with the local mobility simultaneously establish multiple IP tunnels with the local mobility
anchor. This capability allows the mobile access gateway to utilize anchor. This capability allows the mobile access gateway to utilize
all the available access networks for routing mobile node's IP all the available access networks for routing mobile node's IP
traffic. traffic.
skipping to change at page 1, line 39 skipping to change at page 1, line 39
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 1, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on March 10, 2018.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 18 skipping to change at page 2, line 18
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Conventions and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.1. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Example Call Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. Example Call Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Traffic distribution schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2. Traffic distribution schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. MAG Multipath-Binding Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1. MAG Multipath-Binding Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. MAG Identifier Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.2. MAG Identifier Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.3. New Status Code for Proxy Binding Acknowledgement . . . . 10 4.3. New Status Code for Proxy Binding Acknowledgement . . . . 11
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.4. Signaling Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Multihoming support on IP hosts can greatly improve the user Multihoming support on IP hosts can greatly improve the user
experience. With the simultaneoous use of multiple access networks, experience. With the simultaneoous use of multiple access networks,
multihoming brings better network connectivity, reliability and multihoming brings better network connectivity, reliability and
improved quality of communication. Following are some of the goals improved quality of communication. Following are some of the goals
and benefits of multihoming support: and benefits of multihoming support:
o Redundancy/Fault-Recovery o Redundancy/Fault-Recovery
skipping to change at page 4, line 27 skipping to change at page 4, line 27
| | +=====+ \ +=====+ _----_ | | +=====+ \ +=====+ _----_
| '-| | \ | | _( )_ | '-| | \ | | _( )_
'---| MAG | | LMA |-( Internet )-- '---| MAG | | LMA |-( Internet )--
.---| | | | (_ _) .---| | | | (_ _)
| .-| | / | | '----' | .-| | / | | '----'
| | +=====+ / +=====+ | | +=====+ / +=====+
| | | _----_ / | | | _----_ /
| | | CoA-2 _( )_ Tunnel-2 / | | | CoA-2 _( )_ Tunnel-2 /
| | .---=======( WLAN )========/ Flow-2 | | .---=======( WLAN )========/ Flow-2
| | (_ _) Flow-3 | | (_ _) Flow-3
| | '----' Flow-4 | | '----'
|Flow-3 |Flow-3
| |
Flow0-4 Flow0-4
Figure 1: Multihomed MAG using Proxy Mobile IPv6 Figure 1: Multihomed MAG using Proxy Mobile IPv6
The current version of Proxy Mobile IPv6 does not allow a MAG to The 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 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, can be used at words, only one MAG/LMA link, i.e. IP-in-IP tunnel, can be used at
the same time. This document overcomes this limitation by defining the same time. This document overcomes this limitation by defining
skipping to change at page 5, line 35 skipping to change at page 5, line 35
The MAG in this example scenario is equipped with both WLAN and LTE The MAG in this example scenario is equipped with both WLAN and LTE
interfaces and is also configured with the multihoming functionality. interfaces and is also configured with the multihoming functionality.
The steps of the callflow are as follows: The steps of the callflow are as follows:
Steps (1) and (2): the MAG attaches to both WLAN and LTE networks; Steps (1) and (2): the MAG attaches to both WLAN and LTE networks;
the MAG obtains respectively two different proxy care-of-addresses the MAG obtains respectively two different proxy care-of-addresses
(pCoA). (pCoA).
Step (3): The MAG sends, over the WLAN access, a Proxy Binding Update Step (3): The MAG sends, over the WLAN access, a Proxy Binding Update
(PBU) message, with the new MAG Multipath Binding (MMB) and MAG (PBU) message, with the new MAG Multipath Binding (MMB) and MAG
Identifier (MAG-NAI) options to the LMA. A logical-NAI (MAG-NAI) Identifier (MAG-NAI) options to the LMA. The request can be for a
with ALWAYS-ON configuration is enabled on the MAG. The mobility physical mobile node attached to the MAG, or for a logical mobile
node configured on the mobile node. A logical mobile node is ALWAYS-
ATTACHED mobile node configuration enabled on the MAG. The mobility
session that is created (i.e. create a Binding Cache Entry) on the session that is created (i.e. create a Binding Cache Entry) on the
LMA is for the logical-NAI. The LMA and allocates a Home Network LMA will be marked with multipath support.
Prefix (HNP), that shall be delegated to mobile nodes, to the MAG.
Step (4): the LMA sends back a Proxy Binding Acknowledgement (PBA) Step (4): the LMA sends back a Proxy Binding Acknowledgement (PBA)
including the HNP allocated to the MAG. including the HNP and other session parameters allocated for that
mobility session.
Step (5): IP tunnel (IP-in-IP, GRE ...) is created over the WLAN Step (5): IP tunnel (IP-in-IP, GRE ...) is created over the WLAN
access. access.
Steps (6) to (8): The MAG repeats steps (3) to (5) on the LTE access. Steps (6) to (8): The MAG repeats steps (3) to (5) on the LTE access.
The MAG includes the HNP, received on step (4) in the PBU. The LMA The MAG includes the HNP, received on step (4) in the PBU. The LMA
update its binding cache by creating a new mobility session for this update its binding cache by creating a new mobility session for this
MAG. MAG.
Steps (9) and (10): The IP hosts MN_1 and MN_2 are assigned IP Steps (9) and (10): The IP hosts MN_1 and MN_2 are assigned IP
skipping to change at page 6, line 17 skipping to change at page 6, line 19
+=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+
| MN_1| | MN_2| | MAG | | WLAN| | LTE | | LMA | | MN_1| | MN_2| | MAG | | WLAN| | LTE | | LMA |
+=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | (1) ATTACH | | | | | | (1) ATTACH | | |
| | | <--------> | | | | | | <--------> | | |
| | | (2) ATTACH | | | | | (2) ATTACH | |
| | | <---------------------->| | | | | <---------------------->| |
| | | (3) PBU (MAG-NAI, MMB) | | | | (3) PBU (MAG-NAI, MMB, ...) |
| | | ------------------------*-------------->| | | | ------------------------*-------------->|
| | | | | | | |
| | | Accept PBU | | | Accept PBU
| | | (allocate HNP, | | | (allocate HNP,
| | | create BCE) | | | create BCE)
| | | (4) PBA (MAG-NAI, HNP) | | | | (4) PBA (MAG-NAI, MMB, ...) |
| | | <-----------------------*---------------| | | | <-----------------------*---------------|
| | | (5) TUNNEL INTERFACE CREATION over WLAN | | | | (5) TUNNEL INTERFACE CREATION over WLAN |
| | |-============== TUNNEL ==*==============-| | | |-============== TUNNEL ==*==============-|
| | | | | | | |
| | | (6) PBU (MAG-NAI, HNP, MMB) | | | | (6) PBU (MAG-NAI, MMB, ...) |
| | | -----------*--------------------------->| | | | -----------*--------------------------->|
| | | | | | | |
| | | Accept PBU | | | Accept PBU
| | | (update BCE) | | | (update BCE)
| | | (7) PBA (MAG-NAI, HNP) | | | | (7) PBA (MAG-NAI, MMB, ...) |
| | | <----------*--------------------------- | | | | <----------*--------------------------- |
| | | (8) TUNNEL INTERFACE CREATION over LTE | | | | (8) TUNNEL INTERFACE CREATION over LTE |
| | |-===========*== TUNNEL =================-| | | |-===========*== TUNNEL =================-|
| (9) ATTACH | | | (9) ATTACH | |
| <---------------> | | | <---------------> | |
| |(10) ATTACH| | | |(10) ATTACH| |
| |<--------> | | | |<--------> | |
Figure 2: Functional Separation of the Control and User Plane Figure 2: Functional Separation of the Control and User Plane
3.2. Traffic distribution schemes 3.2. Traffic distribution schemes
When receiving packets from the MN, the MAG distributes packets over When the MAG has registered multipath binding with the LMA, there
tunnels that have been established. Traffic distribution can be will be multiple established overlay tunnels between them. The MAG
managed either on a per-flow or on a per-packet basis: and the LMA can use any one, or more of the available tunnels paths
for routing the mobile node's IP traffic. This specification does
not recommend, or define any specific traffic distribution scheme,
however it identifies two well-known approaches that implementations
can potentially use. These approaches are, Per-flow and Per-packet
Traffic distribution schemes.
o Per-flow traffic management: each IP flow (both upstream and Per-Flow Traffic Distribution:
downstream) is mapped to a given tunnel, corresponding to a given
WAN interface. Flow binding extension [RFC6089] is used to
exchange, and synchronize, IP flow management policies (i.e. rules
associating traffic selectors [RFC6088] to a tunnel).
o Per-packet management: the LMA and the MAG distribute packets, o In this approach the MAG and the LMA associate each of the IP
belonging to a same IP flow, over more than one bindings (i.e. flows (upstream and downstream) to a specific tunnel path. The
more than one WAN interface). Packet distribution can be done packets in a given IP flow are always routed on the same overlay
either at the transport level, e.g. using MPTCP or at When tunnel path; they are never split and routed concurrently on more
operating at the IP packet level, different packets distribution than one tunnel path. It is possible a given flow may be moved
algorithms are possible. For example, the algorithm may give from one tunnel path to another, but the flow is never split. The
precedence to one given access: the MAG overflows traffic from the decision to bind a given IP flow to a specific tunnel path is
primary access, e.g. WLAN, to the second one, only when load on based on traffic distribution policy. This traffic distribution
primary access reaches a given threshold. The distribution policy is either statically configured on both the MAG and the
algorithm is left to implementer but whatever the algorithm is, LMA, or dynamically negotiated over Proxy Mobile IPv6 signaling.
packets distribution likely introduces packet latency and out-of- The Flow Binding extension [RFC6089] and Traffic Selectors for
order delivery. LMA and MAG shall thus be able to make reordering Flow Bindings [RFC6088] defines the mechanism and the semantics
before packets delivery. Sequence number can be can be used for for exchanging the traffic policy between two tunnel peers and the
that purpose, for example using GRE with sequence number option same mechanism and the mobility options are used here.
[RFC5845]. However, more detailed considerations on reordering
and IP packet distribution scheme (e.g. definition of packets
distribution algorithm) are out the scope of this document.
Because latency introduced by per-packet can cause injury to some Per-Packet Traffic Distribution:
application, per-flow and per-packet distribution schemes could be
used in conjunction. For example, high throughput services (e.g. o In this approach, packets belonging a given IP flow will be split
video streaming) may benefit from per-packet distribution scheme, and routed across more than one tunnel paths. The exact approach
while latency sensitive applications (e.g. VoIP) are not be spread for traffic distribution, or the distribution weights is outside
over different WAN paths. IP flow mobility extensions, [RFC6089] and the scope of this specification. In a very simplistic approach,
[RFC6088], can be used to provision the MAG with such flow policies. assuming the established tunnel paths have symmetric
characteristics, the packets can be equally distributed on all the
available tunnel paths. In a different scenario when the links
have different speeds, the chosen approach can be based on
weighted distribution (Ex: n:m ratio). However, in any of these
chosen approaches, implementations have to be sensitive to issues
related to asymmetric link characteristics and the resulting
issues such as re-ordering, buffering and the impact to the
application performance. Care must be taken to ensure there is no
negative impact to the application performance due to the use of
this approach.
4. Protocol Extensions 4. Protocol Extensions
4.1. MAG Multipath-Binding Option 4.1. MAG Multipath-Binding Option
The MAG Multipath-Binding option is a new mobility header option The MAG Multipath-Binding option is a new mobility header option
defined for use with Proxy Binding Update and Proxy Binding defined for use with Proxy Binding Update and Proxy Binding
Acknowledgement messages exchanged between the local mobility anchor Acknowledgement messages exchanged between the local mobility anchor
and the mobile access gateway. and the mobile access gateway.
skipping to change at page 8, line 36 skipping to change at page 9, line 4
octets, excluding the type and length fields. octets, excluding the type and length fields.
Interface Access-Technology Type (If-ATT) Interface Access-Technology Type (If-ATT)
This 8-bit field identifies the Access-Technology type of the This 8-bit field identifies the Access-Technology type of the
interface through which the mobile node is connected. The interface through which the mobile node is connected. The
permitted values for this are from the Access Technology Type permitted values for this are from the Access Technology Type
registry defined in [RFC5213]. registry defined in [RFC5213].
Interface Label (If-Label) Interface Label (If-Label)
This 8-bit unsigned integer represents the interface label.
This 8-bit field represents the interface label represented as an The interface label is an identifier configured on the WAN
unsigned integer. The MAG identifies the label for each of the interface of the MAG. All the WAN interfaces of the MAG that are
interfaces through which it registers a pCoA with the LMA. When used for sending PBU messages are configured with a label. The
using static traffic flow policies on the mobile node and the LMA, labels merely identify the type of WAN interface and are primarily
the label can be used for generating forwarding rules. For used in Application routing policies. For example, a Wi-Fi
example, the operator may have policy which binds traffic for interfaces can be configured with a label RED and a LTE interface
Application "X" to an interface with Label "Y". When a with a label BLUE. Furthermore, the same label may be configured
registration through an interface matching Label "Y" gets on two WAN interfaces of similar characteristics (Ex: Two Ethernet
activated, the LMA and the mobile node can dynamically generate a interfaces with the same label).
forwarding policy for forwarding traffic for Application "X"
through the tunnel matching Label "Y". Both the LMA and the Interfaces labels are signaled from the MAG to LMA in the PBU
mobile node can route the Application-X traffic through that messages and both the LMA and MAG will be able to mark each of the
interface. The permitted values for If-Label are 1 through 255. dynamically created Binding/Tunnel with the associated label.
These labels are used in generating consistent application routing
rules on the both the LMA and the MAG. For example, there can be
a policy requiring HTTP packets to be routed over interface that
has Label RED, and if any of the RED interfaces are not available,
the traffic needs to be routed over the BLUE interface. The MAG
and the LMA will be able to apply this Routing Rule with the
exchange of Labels in PBU messages and by associating the
application flows to tunnels with the matching labels.
Binding-Identifier (BID) Binding-Identifier (BID)
This 8-bit field is used for carrying the binding identifier. It
uniquely identifies a specific binding of the mobile node, to This 8-bit unsigned integer is used for identifying the binding.
which this request can be associated. Each binding identifier is The permitted values are 1 through 254. The values, 0 and 255 are
represented as an unsigned integer. The permitted values are 1 reserved.
through 254. The BID value of 0 and 255 are reserved. The mobile
access gateway assigns a unique value for each of its interfaces The MAG identifies each of the mobile node's binding with a unique
and includes them in the message. identifier. The MAG includes the identifier in the PBU message
and when the PBU request is accepted by the LMA, the resulting
Binding is associated with this binding identifier.
Bulk Re-registration Flag (B) Bulk Re-registration Flag (B)
This flag, if set to a value of (1), is to notify the local 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 mobility anchor to consider this request as a request to update
the binding lifetime of all the mobile node's bindings, upon the binding lifetime of all the mobile node's bindings, upon
accepting this specific request. This flag MUST NOT be set to a accepting this specific request. This flag MUST NOT be set to a
value of (1), if the value of the Registration Overwrite Flag (O) value of (1), if the value of the Registration Overwrite Flag (O)
is set to a value of (1). is set to a value of (1).
skipping to change at page 11, line 4 skipping to change at page 11, line 24
This document defines the following new Status Code value for use in This document defines the following new Status Code value for use in
Proxy Binding Acknowledgement message. Proxy Binding Acknowledgement message.
The LMA SHOULD use this error code when rejecting a Proxy Binding The LMA SHOULD use this error code when rejecting a Proxy Binding
Update message from a MAG requesting a multipath binding. Following Update message from a MAG requesting a multipath binding. Following
is the potential reason for rejecting the request: is the potential reason for rejecting the request:
o The LMA does not support multipath binding. o The LMA does not support multipath binding.
CANNOT_SUPPORT_MULTIPATH_BINDING (Cannot Support Multipath Binding): CANNOT_SUPPORT_MULTIPATH_BINDING (Cannot Support Multipath Binding):
<IANA-4> <IANA-4>
4.4. Signaling Considerations
o The MAG when requesting multipath support MUST include the MAG
Multipath Binding Option (Section 4.1) in each of the PBU messages
that it sends through the different WAN interfaces. The inclusion
of this option serves as a hint that the MAG is requesting
Multipath support. Furthermore, the MAG Identifier option MUST
also be present in the PBU message.
o If the LMA is a legacy LMA that does not support this
specification, the LMA will skip the MAG Multipath Binding option
(and MAG NAI option) and process the rest of the message as
specified in the base Proxy Mobile IPv6 specification ([RFC5213]).
Furthermore, the LMA will not include the MAG Multipath Binding
option (or the MAG NAI Option)in the PBA message. The MAG on
receiving the PBA message without the MAG Multipath Binding option
SHOULD disable Multipath support for the mobile node.
o If the mobile node is not authorized for Multipath support, then
the LMA will reject the request by sending a PBA message with the
Status field value set to CANNOT_SUPPORT_MULTIPATH_BINDING
(Section 4.3). The LMA will echo the MAG Multipath Binding option
and the MAG NAI option in the PBA message. The MAG on receiving
this message SHOULD disable Multipath support for the mobile node.
o If the request for multipath support is accepted, then the LMA
SHOULD enable multipath support for the mobile node and SHOULD
also echo the MAG Multipath Binding option and the MAG NAI option
in the corresponding PBA message.
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
This document requires the following IANA actions. This document requires the following IANA actions.
o Action-1: This specification defines a new mobility option, the o Action-1: This specification defines a new mobility option, the
MAG Multipath-Binding option. The format of this option is MAG Multipath-Binding option. The format of this option is
described in Section 4.1. The type value <IANA-1> for this described in Section 4.1. The type value <IANA-1> for this
mobility option needs to be allocated from the Mobility Options mobility option needs to be allocated from the Mobility Options
registry at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters>. registry at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters>.
RFC Editor: Please replace <IANA-1> in Section 4.1 with the RFC Editor: Please replace <IANA-1> in Section 4.1 with the
skipping to change at page 11, line 33 skipping to change at page 12, line 36
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters>. RFC <http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters>. RFC
Editor: Please replace <IANA-2> in Section 4.2 with the assigned Editor: Please replace <IANA-2> in Section 4.2 with the assigned
value and update this section accordingly. value and update this section accordingly.
o Action-3: This document defines a new status value, o Action-3: This document defines a new status value,
CANNOT_SUPPORT_MULTIPATH_BINDING (<IANA-3>) for use in Proxy CANNOT_SUPPORT_MULTIPATH_BINDING (<IANA-3>) for use in Proxy
Binding Acknowledgement message, as described in Section 4.3. Binding Acknowledgement message, as described in Section 4.3.
This value is to be assigned from the "Status Codes" registry at This value is to be assigned from the "Status Codes" registry at
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters>. The <http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters>. The
allocated value has to be greater than 127. RFC Editor: Please allocated value has to be greater than 127. RFC Editor: Please
replace <IANA-4> in Section 4.3 with the assigned value and update replace <IANA-3> in Section 4.3 with the assigned value and update
this section accordingly. this section accordingly.
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
This specification allows a mobile access gateway to establish This specification allows a mobile access gateway to establish
multiple Proxy Mobile IPv6 tunnels with a local mobility anchor, by multiple Proxy Mobile IPv6 tunnels with a local mobility anchor, by
registering a care-of address for each of its connected access registering a care-of address for each of its connected access
networks. This essentially allows the mobile node's IP traffic to be networks. This essentially allows the mobile node's IP traffic to be
routed through any of the tunnel paths based on the negotiated flow routed through any of the tunnel paths based on the negotiated flow
policy. This new capability has no impact on the protocol security. policy. This new capability has no impact on the protocol security.
skipping to change at page 12, line 10 skipping to change at page 13, line 13
specified in [RFC5213]. Therefore, it inherits security guidelines specified in [RFC5213]. Therefore, it inherits security guidelines
from [RFC5213]. Thus, this specification does not weaken the from [RFC5213]. Thus, this specification does not weaken the
security of Proxy Mobile IPv6 Protocol, and does not introduce any security of Proxy Mobile IPv6 Protocol, and does not introduce any
new security vulnerabilities. new security vulnerabilities.
7. Acknowledgements 7. Acknowledgements
The authors of this draft would like to acknowledge the discussions The authors of this draft would like to acknowledge the discussions
and feedback on this topic from the members of the DMM working group. and feedback on this topic from the members of the DMM working group.
The authors would also like to thank Jouni Korhonen, Jong Hyouk Lee, The authors would also like to thank Jouni Korhonen, Jong Hyouk Lee,
Dirk Von-Hugo, Seil Jeon, Carlos Bernardos and Robert Sparks for Dirk Von-Hugo, Seil Jeon, Carlos Bernardos, Robert Sparks, Adam
their review feedback. Roach, Kathleen Moriarty, Hilarie Orman, Ben Campbell, Warren Kumari,
Mirja Kuehlewind, for their review feedback.
8. References 8. References
8.1. Normative References 8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/ Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/
RFC2119, March 1997, RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3963] Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., and P. [RFC3963] Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., and P.
Thubert, "Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol", Thubert, "Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol",
RFC 3963, DOI 10.17487/RFC3963, January 2005, RFC 3963, DOI 10.17487/RFC3963, January 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3963>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3963>.
[RFC5094] Devarapalli, V., Patel, A., and K. Leung, "Mobile IPv6 [RFC5094] Devarapalli, V., Patel, A., and K. Leung, "Mobile IPv6
Vendor Specific Option", RFC 5094, DOI 10.17487/RFC5094, Vendor Specific Option", RFC 5094, DOI 10.17487/RFC5094,
December 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5094>. December 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5094>.
[RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., Ed., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V., [RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., Ed., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V.,
Chowdhury, K., and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6", Chowdhury, K., and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6",
RFC 5213, DOI 10.17487/RFC5213, August 2008, RFC 5213, DOI 10.17487/RFC5213, August 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5213>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5213>.
[RFC5648] Wakikawa, R., Ed., Devarapalli, V., Tsirtsis, G., Ernst, [RFC5648] Wakikawa, R., Ed., Devarapalli, V., Tsirtsis, G., Ernst,
T., and K. Nagami, "Multiple Care-of Addresses T., and K. Nagami, "Multiple Care-of Addresses
Registration", RFC 5648, DOI 10.17487/RFC5648, Registration", RFC 5648, DOI 10.17487/RFC5648,
October 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5648>. October 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5648>.
[RFC5844] Wakikawa, R. and S. Gundavelli, "IPv4 Support for Proxy [RFC5844] Wakikawa, R. and S. Gundavelli, "IPv4 Support for Proxy
Mobile IPv6", RFC 5844, DOI 10.17487/RFC5844, May 2010, Mobile IPv6", RFC 5844, DOI 10.17487/RFC5844, May 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5844>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5844>.
[RFC5845] Muhanna, A., Khalil, M., Gundavelli, S., and K. Leung, [RFC5845] Muhanna, A., Khalil, M., Gundavelli, S., and K. Leung,
"Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) Key Option for Proxy "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) Key Option for Proxy
Mobile IPv6", RFC 5845, DOI 10.17487/RFC5845, June 2010, Mobile IPv6", RFC 5845, DOI 10.17487/RFC5845, June 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5845>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5845>.
[RFC6088] Tsirtsis, G., Giarreta, G., Soliman, H., and N. Montavont, [RFC6088] Tsirtsis, G., Giarreta, G., Soliman, H., and N. Montavont,
"Traffic Selectors for Flow Bindings", RFC 6088, "Traffic Selectors for Flow Bindings", RFC 6088,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6088, January 2011, DOI 10.17487/RFC6088, January 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6088>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6088>.
[RFC6089] Tsirtsis, G., Soliman, H., Montavont, N., Giaretta, G., [RFC6089] Tsirtsis, G., Soliman, H., Montavont, N., Giaretta, G.,
and K. Kuladinithi, "Flow Bindings in Mobile IPv6 and and K. Kuladinithi, "Flow Bindings in Mobile IPv6 and
Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support", RFC 6089, Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support", RFC 6089,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6089, January 2011, DOI 10.17487/RFC6089, January 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6089>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6089>.
[RFC6275] Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility [RFC6275] Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility
Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, DOI 10.17487/RFC6275, Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, DOI 10.17487/RFC6275,
July 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6275>. July 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6275>.
[RFC7148] Zhou, X., Korhonen, J., Williams, C., Gundavelli, S., and [RFC7148] Zhou, X., Korhonen, J., Williams, C., Gundavelli, S., and
CJ. Bernardos, "Prefix Delegation Support for Proxy Mobile CJ. Bernardos, "Prefix Delegation Support for Proxy Mobile
IPv6", RFC 7148, DOI 10.17487/RFC7148, March 2014, IPv6", RFC 7148, DOI 10.17487/RFC7148, March 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7148>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7148>.
8.2. Informative References 8.2. Informative References
[RFC2473] Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Generic Packet Tunneling in [RFC2473] Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Generic Packet Tunneling in
IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, DOI 10.17487/RFC2473, IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, DOI 10.17487/RFC2473,
December 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2473>. December 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2473>.
[RFC4213] Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms [RFC4213] Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms
for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213, DOI 10.17487/ for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213, DOI 10.17487/
RFC4213, October 2005, RFC4213, October 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4213>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4213>.
[RFC4908] Nagami, K., Uda, S., Ogashiwa, N., Esaki, H., Wakikawa, [RFC4908] Nagami, K., Uda, S., Ogashiwa, N., Esaki, H., Wakikawa,
R., and H. Ohnishi, "Multi-homing for small scale fixed R., and H. Ohnishi, "Multi-homing for small scale fixed
network Using Mobile IP and NEMO", RFC 4908, DOI 10.17487/ network Using Mobile IP and NEMO", RFC 4908, DOI 10.17487/
RFC4908, June 2007, RFC4908, June 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4908>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4908>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Pierrick Seite Pierrick Seite
Orange Orange
4, rue du Clos Courtel, BP 91226 4, rue du Clos Courtel, BP 91226
Cesson-Sevigne 35512 Cesson-Sevigne 35512
France France
Email: pierrick.seite@orange.com Email: pierrick.seite@orange.com
 End of changes. 38 change blocks. 
96 lines changed or deleted 148 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/