draft-ietf-dmm-mag-multihoming-07.txt   rfc8278.txt 
DMM WG P. Seite Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) P. Seite
Internet-Draft Orange Request for Comments: 8278 Orange
Intended status: Standards Track A. Yegin Category: Standards Track A. Yegin
Expires: March 29, 2018 Actility ISSN: 2070-1721 Actility
S. Gundavelli S. Gundavelli
Cisco Cisco
September 25, 2017 January 2018
MAG Multipath Binding Option Mobile Access Gateway (MAG) Multipath Options
draft-ietf-dmm-mag-multihoming-07.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 (PMIPv6) protocol that allow a mobile access gateway (MAG) to
one proxy care-of-address with the local mobility anchor and to register more than one proxy care-of address (pCoA) with the local
simultaneously establish multiple IP tunnels with the local mobility mobility anchor (LMA) and to simultaneously establish multiple IP
anchor. This capability allows the mobile access gateway to utilize tunnels with the LMA. This capability allows the MAG to utilize all
all the available access networks for routing mobile node's IP the available access networks to route the mobile node's IP traffic.
traffic. This document defines the following two new mobility header options:
the MAG Multipath Binding option and the MAG Identifier option.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the Status of This Memo
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering This is an Internet Standards Track document.
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 This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 29, 2018. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8278.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 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 (https://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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.2. Traffic Distribution Schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4. Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. MAG Multipath-Binding Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.1. MAG Multipath Binding Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. MAG Identifier Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.2. MAG Identifier Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.3. New Status Code for Proxy Binding Acknowledgement . . . . 11 4.3. New Status Code for Proxy Binding Acknowledgement . . . . 11
4.4. Signaling Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.4. Signaling Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
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 simultaneous 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. The following are some of the
and benefits of multihoming support: goals and benefits of multihoming support:
o Redundancy/Fault-Recovery o Redundancy/Fault-Recovery
o Load balancing o Load balancing
o Load sharing o Load sharing
o Preferences settings o Preference settings
According to [RFC4908], users of Small-Scale Networks can take According to [RFC4908], users of small-scale networks can benefit
benefit of multihoming using mobile IP [RFC6275] and Network Mobility from a mobile and fixed multihomed architecture using mobile IP
(NEMO) [RFC3963] architecture in a mobile and fixed networking [RFC6275] and Network Mobility (NEMO) [RFC3963].
environment. This document is introducing the concept of multiple
Care-of Addresses (CoAs) [RFC5648] that have been specified since
then.
The motivation for this work is to extend Proxy Mobile IPv6 protocol The motivation for this work is to extend the PMIPv6 protocol with
with multihoming extensions [RFC4908] for realizing the following multihoming extensions [RFC4908] for realizing the following
capabilities: capabilities:
o using GRE as mobile tuneling, possibly with its key extension o Using GRE as mobile tunneling, possibly with its key extension
[RFC5845] (a possible reason to use GRE is given on Section 3.2). [RFC5845].
o using UDP encapsulation [RFC5844] in order to support NAT o Using UDP encapsulation [RFC5844] in order to support NAT
traversal in IPv4 networking environment. traversal in an IPv4 networking environment.
o Prefix Delegation mechanism [RFC7148]. o Using the prefix delegation mechanism [RFC7148].
o Using the vendor specific mobility option [RFC5094], for example o Using the Vendor Specific Mobility Option [RFC5094], for example,
to allow the MAG and LMA to exchange information (e.g. WAN to allow the MAG and LMA to exchange information (e.g., WAN
interface QoS metrics) allowing to make appropriate traffic interface QoS metrics), which allows the appropriate traffic-
steering decision. steering decisions to be made.
Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) relies on two mobility entities: the PMIPv6 relies on two mobility entities: the MAG, which acts as the
mobile access gateway (MAG), which acts as the default gateway for default gateway for the end node (either a mobile or a fixed node)
the end-node and the local mobility anchor (LMA), which acts as the attached to the MAG's access links, and the LMA, which acts as the
topological anchor point. Point-to-point links are established, topological anchor point. IP tunnel is created with any one of the
using IP-in-IP tunnels, between MAG and LMA. Then, the MAG and LMA supported encapsulation mode between the MAG and the LMA. Then, the
are distributing traffic over these tunnels. All PMIPv6 operations MAG and LMA distribute the end node's traffic over these tunnels.
are performed on behalf of the end-node and its corespondent node, it All PMIPv6 operations are performed on behalf of the end node and its
thus makes PMIPv6 well adapted to multihomed architecture as correspondent node. Thus, it makes PMIPv6 well adapted to multihomed
considered in [RFC4908]. Taking the LTE and WLAN networking architecture as considered in [RFC4908]. Taking the LTE and WLAN
environments as an example, the PMIPv6 based multihomed architecture networking environments as examples, the PMIPv6-based multihomed
is depicted on Figure 1. Flow-1,2 and 3 are distributed either on architecture is depicted in Figure 1. In this example, IP flows,
Tunnel-1 (over LTE) or Tunnel-2 (over WLAN), while Flow-4 is spread Flow-1 and Flow-3 are routed over Tunnel-1 and Flow-2 is routed over
on both Tunnel-1 and 2. Tunnel-2. However, IP traffic belonging to Flow-4 is distributed on
both Tunnel-1 and Tunnel-2 paths.
Flow-1 Flow-1
| |
|Flow-2 _----_ |Flow-2 _----_
| | CoA-1 _( )_ Tunnel-1 | | CoA-1 _( )_ Tunnel-1 Flow-1
| | .---=======( LTE )========\ Flow-1 | | .---=======( LTE )========\ Flow-3
| | | (_ _) \Flow-4 | | | (_ _) \ Flow-4
| | | '----' \ | | | '----' \
| | +=====+ \ +=====+ _----_ | | +=====+ \ +=====+ _----_
| '-| | \ | | _( )_ | '-| | \ | | _( )_
'---| MAG | | LMA |-( Internet )-- '---| MAG | | LMA |-( Internet )--
.---| | | | (_ _) .---| | | | (_ _)
| .-| | / | | '----' | .-| | / | | '----'
| | +=====+ / +=====+ | | +=====+ / +=====+
| | | _----_ / | | | _----_ /
| | | CoA-2 _( )_ Tunnel-2 / | | | CoA-2 _( )_ Tunnel-2 /
| | .---=======( WLAN )========/ Flow-2 | | .---=======( WLAN )========/ Flow-2
| | (_ _) 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 PMIPv6 does not allow a MAG to register more
register more than one proxy Care-of-Adresse to the LMA. In other than one pCoA to the LMA. In other words, only one MAG/LMA link,
words, only one MAG/LMA link, i.e. IP-in-IP tunnel, can be used at i.e., IP-in-IP tunnel, can be used at the same time. This document
the same time. This document overcomes this limitation by defining overcomes this limitation by defining the multiple pCoAs extension
the multiple proxy Care-of Addresses (pCoAs) extension for Proxy for PMIPv6.
Mobile IPv6.
2. Conventions and Terminology 2. Conventions and Terminology
2.1. Conventions 2.1. Conventions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2.2. Terminology 2.2. Terminology
All mobility related terms used in this document are to be All mobility-related terms used in this document are to be
interpreted as defined in [RFC5213], [RFC5844] and [RFC7148]. interpreted as defined in [RFC5213], [RFC5844], and [RFC7148].
Additionally, this document uses the following terms: Additionally, this document uses the following term:
IP-in-IP IP-in-IP
IP-within-IP encapsulation [RFC2473], [RFC4213] IP-within-IP encapsulation [RFC2473] [RFC4213]
3. Overview 3. Overview
3.1. Example Call Flow 3.1. Example Call Flow
Figure 2 is the callflow detailing multi-access support with PMIPv6. Figure 2 is the call flow detailing multi-access support with PMIPv6.
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 call flow 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 Then, the MAG obtains two different pCoAs, respectfully.
(pCoA).
Step (3): The MAG sends, over the WLAN access, a Proxy Binding Update Step (3): The MAG sends, over the LTE 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. The request can be for a Network Access Identifier (MAG-NAI) options to the LMA. The request
physical mobile node attached to the MAG, or for a logical mobile can be for a physical mobile node attached to the MAG or for a
node configured on the mobile node. A logical mobile node is ALWAYS- logical mobile node configured on the mobile access gateway. A
ATTACHED mobile node configuration enabled on the MAG. The mobility logical mobile node is a logical representation of a mobile node in
session that is created (i.e. create a Binding Cache Entry) on the the form of a configuration that is always enabled on the MAG. The
LMA will be marked with multipath support. mobility session that is created (i.e., create a Binding Cache Entry
(BCE)) on the LMA will be marked with multipath support.
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 and other session parameters allocated for that including the Home Network Prefix (HNP) and other session parameters
mobility session. allocated for that mobility session.
Step (5): IP tunnel (IP-in-IP, GRE ...) is created over the WLAN Step (5): IP tunnel is created between the MAG and the LMA over LTE
access. access with any one of the supported encapsulation modes.
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 WLAN
The MAG includes the HNP, received on step (4) in the PBU. The LMA access. The MAG includes the HNP, received on step (4) in the PBU.
update its binding cache by creating a new mobility session for this The LMA updates its binding cache by creating a new mobility session
MAG. for this 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
addresses from the mobile network prefix delegated by the MAG. addresses from the mobile network prefix delegated to the MAG by the
LMA.
+=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+
| 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 (MMB, ...) | | | | (4) PBA (MMB, ...) |
| | | <-----------------------*---------------| | | | <-----------------------*---------------|
| | | (5) TUNNEL INTERFACE CREATION over WLAN | | | | (5) TUNNEL INTERFACE CREATION over LTE |
| | |-============== TUNNEL ==*==============-| | | |-============== TUNNEL ==*==============-|
| | | | | | | |
| | | (6) PBU (MAG-NAI, MMB, ...) | | | | (6) PBU (MAG-NAI, MMB, ...) |
| | | -----------*--------------------------->| | | | -----------*--------------------------->|
| | | | | | | |
| | | Accept PBU | | | Accept PBU
| | | (update BCE) | | | (update BCE)
| | | (7) PBA (MMB, ...) | | | | (7) PBA (MMB, ...) |
| | | <----------*--------------------------- | | | | <----------*--------------------------- |
| | | (8) TUNNEL INTERFACE CREATION over LTE | | | | (8) TUNNEL INTERFACE CREATION over WLAN |
| | |-===========*== 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 Planes
3.2. Traffic distribution schemes 3.2. Traffic Distribution Schemes
When the MAG has registered multipath binding with the LMA, there When the MAG has registered a multipath binding with the LMA, there
will be multiple established overlay tunnels between them. The MAG will be multiple established overlay tunnels between them. The MAG
and the LMA can use any one, or more of the available tunnels paths and the LMA can use any one, or more, of the available tunnel paths
for routing the mobile node's IP traffic. This specification does for routing the mobile node's IP traffic. This specification does
not recommend, or define any specific traffic distribution scheme, not recommend or define any specific traffic distribution scheme.
however it identifies two well-known approaches that implementations However, it identifies two well-known approaches that implementations
can potentially use. These approaches are, Per-flow and Per-packet can potentially use. These approaches are per-flow and per-packet
Traffic distribution schemes. traffic distribution schemes.
Per-Flow Traffic Distribution: Per-Flow Traffic Distribution:
o In this approach the MAG and the LMA associate each of the IP o In this approach, the MAG and the LMA associate each of the IP
flows (upstream and downstream) to a specific tunnel path. The flows (upstream and downstream) with a specific tunnel path. The
packets in a given IP flow are always routed on the same overlay packets in a given IP flow are always routed on the same overlay
tunnel path; they are never split and routed concurrently on more tunnel path; they are never split and routed concurrently on more
than one tunnel path. It is possible a given flow may be moved than one tunnel path. It is possible for a given flow to be moved
from one tunnel path to another, but the flow is never split. The from one tunnel path to another, but the flow is never split. The
decision to bind a given IP flow to a specific tunnel path is decision to bind a given IP flow to a specific tunnel path is
based on traffic distribution policy. This traffic distribution based on the traffic distribution policy. This traffic
policy is either statically configured on both the MAG and the distribution policy is either statically configured on both the
LMA, or dynamically negotiated over Proxy Mobile IPv6 signaling. MAG and the LMA or dynamically negotiated over PMIPv6 signaling.
The Flow Binding extension [RFC6089] and Traffic Selectors for The Flow Binding extension [RFC6089] and Traffic Selectors for
Flow Bindings [RFC6088] defines the mechanism and the semantics Flow Bindings [RFC6088] define the mechanism and the semantics for
for exchanging the traffic policy between two tunnel peers and the exchanging the traffic policy between two tunnel peers; the same
same mechanism and the mobility options are used here. mechanism and the mobility options are used here.
Per-Packet Traffic Distribution: Per-Packet Traffic Distribution:
o In this approach, packets belonging a given IP flow will be split o In this approach, packets belonging to a given IP flow will be
and routed across more than one tunnel paths. The exact approach split and routed across more than one tunnel path. The exact
for traffic distribution, or the distribution weights is outside approach for traffic distribution or the distribution weights is
the scope of this specification. In a very simplistic approach, outside the scope of this specification. In a very simplistic
assuming the established tunnel paths have symmetric approach, assuming that the established tunnel paths have
characteristics, the packets can be equally distributed on all the symmetric characteristics, the packets can be equally distributed
available tunnel paths. In a different scenario when the links on all the available tunnel paths. In a different scenario, when
have different speeds, the chosen approach can be based on the links have different speeds, the chosen approach can be based
weighted distribution (Ex: n:m ratio). However, in any of these on weighted distribution (e.g., n:m ratio). However, in any of
chosen approaches, implementations have to be sensitive to issues these chosen approaches, implementations have to be sensitive to
related to asymmetric link characteristics and the resulting issues related to asymmetric link characteristics and the
issues such as re-ordering, buffering and the impact to the resulting issues such as reordering, buffering, and the impact on
application performance. Care must be taken to ensure there is no application performance. Care must be taken to ensure that there
negative impact to the application performance due to the use of is no negative impact on the application performance due to the
this approach. 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 PBU and PBA messages exchanged between the LMA
Acknowledgement messages exchanged between the local mobility anchor and the MAG.
and the mobile access gateway.
This mobility header option is used for requesting multipath support. This mobility header option is used for requesting multipath support.
It indicates that the mobile access gateway is requesting the local It indicates that the MAG is requesting that the LMA register the
mobility anchor to register the current care-of address associated current CoA associated with the request as one of the many CoAs
with the request as one of the many care-addresses through which the through which the MAG can be reached. It is also used for carrying
mobile access gateway can be reached. It is also for carrying the the information related to the access network associated with the
information related to the access network associated with the care-of CoA.
address.
The MAG Multipath-Binding option has an alignment requirement of The MAG Multipath Binding option does not have any alignment
8n+2. Its format is as shown in Figure 3: requirement. Its format is as shown in Figure 3:
0 1 2 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 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 | | Type | Length | If-ATT | If-Label |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Binding-Id |B|O| RESERVED | | Binding ID |B|O| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: MAG Multipath Binding Option Figure 3: MAG Multipath Binding Option
Type Type
<IANA-1> To be assigned by IANA. Type: MAG Multipath Binding (63)
Length Length
8-bit unsigned integer indicating the length of the option in 8-bit unsigned integer indicating the length of the option in
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 <https://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters/>
defined in [RFC5213].
Interface Label (If-Label) Interface Label (If-Label)
This 8-bit unsigned integer represents the interface label. This 8-bit unsigned integer represents the interface label.
The interface label is an identifier configured on the WAN The interface label is an identifier configured on the WAN
interface of the MAG. All the WAN interfaces of the MAG that are interface of the MAG. All the WAN interfaces of the MAG that are
used for sending PBU messages are configured with a label. The used for sending PBU messages are configured with a label. The
labels merely identify the type of WAN interface and are primarily labels merely identify the type of WAN interface and are primarily
used in Application routing policies. For example, a Wi-Fi used in application-routing policies. For example, a Wi-Fi
interfaces can be configured with a label RED and a LTE interface interface can be configured with a label "9" and an LTE interface
with a label BLUE. Furthermore, the same label may be configured with a label "11". Furthermore, the same label may be configured
on two WAN interfaces of similar characteristics (Ex: Two Ethernet on two WAN interfaces of similar characteristics (e.g., two
interfaces with the same label). Ethernet interfaces with the same label).
Interfaces labels are signaled from the MAG to LMA in the PBU Interface labels are signaled from the MAG to the LMA in the PBU
messages and both the LMA and MAG will be able to mark each of the messages and both the LMA and MAG will be able to mark each of the
dynamically created Binding/Tunnel with the associated label. dynamically created Binding/Tunnel with the associated label.
These labels are used in generating consistent application routing These labels are used in generating consistent application-routing
rules on the both the LMA and the MAG. For example, there can be 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 a policy requiring HTTP packets to be routed over an interface
has Label RED, and if any of the RED interfaces are not available, that has the interface label of "9", and if any of the interfaces
the traffic needs to be routed over the BLUE interface. The MAG with interface label "9" are not available, the traffic needs to
and the LMA will be able to apply this Routing Rule with the be routed over the interface with the interface label "11". The
exchange of Labels in PBU messages and by associating the MAG and the LMA will be able to apply this routing rule with the
application flows to tunnels with the matching labels. exchange of interface labels in PBU messages and by associating
the application flows to tunnels with the matching interface
labels.
Binding-Identifier (BID) Binding Identifier (BID)
This 8-bit unsigned integer is used for identifying the binding. This 8-bit unsigned integer is used for identifying the binding.
The permitted values are 1 through 254. The values, 0 and 255 are The permitted values are 1 through 254. The values 0 and 255 are
reserved. reserved.
The MAG identifies each of the mobile node's binding with a unique The MAG identifies each of the mobile node's bindings with a
identifier. The MAG includes the identifier in the PBU message unique identifier. The MAG includes the identifier in the PBU
and when the PBU request is accepted by the LMA, the resulting message; when the PBU request is accepted by the LMA, the
Binding is associated with this binding identifier. resulting binding is associated with this BID in the mobile node's
Binding Cache entry.
Bulk Re-registration Flag (B) Bulk Re-registration Flag (B)
This flag, if set to a value of (1), is to notify the local If set to a value of (1), this flag notifies the LMA to consider
mobility anchor to consider this request as a request to update this as a request to update the binding lifetime of all the mobile
the binding lifetime of all the mobile node's bindings, upon node's bindings upon accepting this specific request. The (B)
accepting this specific request. This flag MUST NOT be set to a flag MUST NOT be set to a value of (1) if the value of the
value of (1), if the value of the Registration Overwrite Flag (O) Registration Overwrite (O) flag is set to a value of (1).
is set to a value of (1).
Binding Overwrite (O) Registration Overwrite (O)
This flag, if set to a value of (1), notifies the local mobility This flag, if set to a value of (1), notifies the LMA that upon
anchor that upon accepting this request, it should replace all of accepting this request, it should replace all of the mobile node's
the mobile node's existing bindings with this binding. This flag existing bindings with this binding. This flag MUST NOT be set to
MUST NOT be set to a value of (1), if the value of the Bulk Re- a value of (1) if the value of the Bulk Re-registration Flag (B)
registration Flag (B) is set to a value of (1). This flag MUST be is set to a value of (1). This flag MUST be set to a value of (0)
set to a value of (0), in de-registration requests. in De-Registration requests.
Reserved Reserved
This field is unused in this specification. The value MUST be set 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. to zero (0) by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.
4.2. MAG Identifier Option 4.2. MAG Identifier Option
The MAG Identifier option is a new mobility header option defined for The MAG Identifier option is a new mobility header option defined for
use with Proxy Binding Update and Proxy Binding Acknowledgement use with PBU and PBA messages exchanged between the LMA and the MAG.
messages exchanged between the local mobility anchor and the mobile This mobility header option is used for conveying the MAG's identity.
access gateway. This mobility header option is used for conveying
the MAG's identity.
This option does not have any alignment requirements. This option does not have any alignment requirements.
0 1 2 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 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 | | Type | Length | Subtype | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Identifier ... ~ | Identifier ... ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: MAG Identifier Option Figure 4: MAG Identifier Option
Type Type
<IANA-2> To be assigned by IANA. Type: MAG Identifier (64)
Length Length
8-bit unsigned integer indicating the length of the option in 8-bit unsigned integer indicating the length of the option in
octets, excluding the type and length fields. octets, excluding the Type and Length fields.
Subtype Subtype
One byte unsigned integer used for identifying the type of the One-byte unsigned integer used for identifying the type of the
Identifier field. Accepted values for this field are the Identifier field. Accepted values for this field are the
registered type values from the Mobile Node Identifier Option registered type values from the "Mobile Node Identifier Option
Subtypes registry. Subtypes" registry <https://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-
parameters/>.
Reserved Reserved
This field is unused in this specification. The value MUST be set 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. to zero (0) by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.
Identifier Identifier
A variable length identifier of type indicated in the Subtype A variable-length identifier of the type indicated in the Subtype
field. field.
4.3. New Status Code for Proxy Binding Acknowledgement 4.3. New Status Code for Proxy Binding Acknowledgement
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. PBA messages.
The LMA SHOULD use this error code when rejecting a Proxy Binding The LMA SHOULD use this error code when rejecting a PBU message from
Update message from a MAG requesting a multipath binding. Following a MAG requesting a multipath binding. The following is the potential
is the potential reason for rejecting the request: 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> 180
4.4. Signaling Considerations 4.4. Signaling Considerations
o The MAG when requesting multipath support MUST include the MAG o The MAG, when requesting multipath support, MUST include the MAG
Multipath Binding Option (Section 4.1) in each of the PBU messages Multipath Binding option (Section 4.1) in each of the PBU messages
that it sends through the different WAN interfaces. The inclusion that it sends through the different WAN interfaces. The inclusion
of this option serves as a hint that the MAG is requesting of this option serves as a hint that the MAG is requesting
Multipath support. Furthermore, the MAG Identifier option MUST multipath support. Furthermore, the MAG Identifier option MUST
also be present in the PBU message. also be present in the PBU message.
o If the MAG is aware that the LMA supports the multipath feature o If the MAG is aware that the LMA supports the multipath binding
defined in this specification and if it chooses to enable multiple option defined in this specification and if it chooses to use
path feature, then it can send the PBU packets for each of the multiple paths, then it can send the PBU packets for each of the
paths, either sequentially, or concurrently. However, if the MAG paths, either sequentially or concurrently. However, if the MAG
is not aware of the LMA capability, then it should first discover is not aware of the LMA capability, then it SHOULD first discover
the LMA capability by sending PBU packets with multipath on only the LMA capability by sending PBU packets with multipath on only
one path first. This will ensure the LMA will not be over-writing one path first. This will ensure that the LMA will not be
the binding of one path with the other path. overwriting the binding of one path with the other path.
o If the LMA supports multipath capability as defined in this o If the LMA supports multipath capability as defined in this
specification and if it enables the same for a mobile node's' specification and if it enables the same for a mobile node's
session per the MAG's request, then the LMA MUST include the session per the MAG's request, then the LMA MUST include the
Multipath Binding Option (Section 4.1), without the MAG NAI Option Multipath Binding option (Section 4.1) without the MAG-NAI option
Section 4.2 in the corresponding PBA reply. (Section 4.2) in the corresponding PBA reply.
o If the LMA is a legacy LMA that does not support this o If the LMA is a legacy LMA that does not support this
specification, the LMA will skip the MAG Multipath Binding option specification, the LMA will skip the MAG Multipath Binding option
(and MAG NAI option) and process the rest of the message as (and MAG-NAI option) and process the rest of the message as
specified in the base Proxy Mobile IPv6 specification ([RFC5213]). specified in the base PMIPv6 specification ([RFC5213]).
Furthermore, the LMA will not include the MAG Multipath Binding Furthermore, the LMA will not include the MAG Multipath Binding
option (or the MAG NAI Option)in the PBA message. The MAG on option (or the MAG-NAI option) in the PBA message. The MAG, upon
receiving the PBA message without the MAG Multipath Binding option receiving the PBA message without the MAG Multipath Binding
SHOULD disable Multipath support for the mobile node. option, SHOULD disable multipath support for the mobile node.
o If the mobile node is not authorized for Multipath support, then 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 the LMA will reject the request by sending a PBA message with the
Status field value set to CANNOT_SUPPORT_MULTIPATH_BINDING Status field value set to CANNOT_SUPPORT_MULTIPATH_BINDING
(Section 4.3). The LMA will echo the MAG Multipath Binding option (Section 4.3). The LMA MUST echo the MAG Multipath Binding option
and the MAG NAI option in the PBA message. The MAG on receiving (without the MAG-NAI option) in the PBA message. The MAG, upon
this message SHOULD disable Multipath support for the mobile node. 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 specification defines a new mobility option: the MAG Multipath
Binding option. The format of this option is described in
o Action-1: This specification defines a new mobility option, the Section 4.1. The type value 63 has been allocated for this mobility
MAG Multipath-Binding option. The format of this option is option from the "Mobility Options" registry at
described in Section 4.1. The type value <IANA-1> for this <http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters>.
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 This specification defines a new mobility option: the MAG Identifier
MAG Identifier option. The format of this option is described in option. The format of this option is described in Section 4.2. The
Section 4.2. The type value <IANA-2> for this mobility option type value 64 has been allocated for this mobility option from the
needs to be allocated from the Mobility Options registry at "Mobility Options" registry at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters>. RFC mobility-parameters>.
Editor: Please replace <IANA-2> in Section 4.2 with the assigned
value and update this section accordingly.
o Action-3: This document defines a new status value, This document defines a new status value:
CANNOT_SUPPORT_MULTIPATH_BINDING (<IANA-3>) for use in Proxy CANNOT_SUPPORT_MULTIPATH_BINDING (180) for use in PBA messages, as
Binding Acknowledgement message, as described in Section 4.3. described in Section 4.3. This value has been assigned from the
This value is to be assigned from the "Status Codes" registry at "Status Codes" registry at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters>. The parameters>.
allocated value has to be greater than 127. RFC Editor: Please
replace <IANA-3> in Section 4.3 with the assigned value and update
this section accordingly.
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
This specification allows a mobile access gateway to establish This specification allows a MAG to establish multiple PMIPv6 tunnels
multiple Proxy Mobile IPv6 tunnels with a local mobility anchor, by with an LMA by registering a care-of address for each of its
registering a care-of address for each of its connected access connected access networks. This essentially allows the mobile node's
networks. This essentially allows the mobile node's IP traffic to be IP traffic to be routed through any of the tunnel paths based on the
routed through any of the tunnel paths based on the negotiated flow negotiated flow policy. This new capability has no impact on the
policy. This new capability has no impact on the protocol security. protocol security. Furthermore, this specification defines two new
Furthermore, this specification defines two new mobility header mobility header options: the MAG Multipath Binding option and the MAG
options, MAG Multipath-Binding option and the MAG Identifier option. Identifier option. These options are carried like any other mobility
These options are carried like any other mobility header option as header option as specified in [RFC5213]. Therefore, it inherits
specified in [RFC5213]. Therefore, it inherits security guidelines security guidelines from [RFC5213]. Thus, this specification does
from [RFC5213]. Thus, this specification does not weaken the not weaken the security of the PMIPv6 Protocol and does not introduce
security of Proxy Mobile IPv6 Protocol, and does not introduce any any new security vulnerabilities.
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.
The authors would also like to thank Jouni Korhonen, Jong Hyouk Lee,
Dirk Von-Hugo, Seil Jeon, Carlos Bernardos, Robert Sparks, Adam
Roach, Kathleen Moriarty, Hilarie Orman, Ben Campbell, Warren Kumari,
for their review feedback. Special thanks to Mirja Kuehlewind for a
very thorugh review and suggesting many text improvements.
8. References 7. References
8.1. Normative References 7.1. 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,
RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://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,
<https://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, <https://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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5213>. <https://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, <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,
<https://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,
<https://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,
skipping to change at page 14, line 33 skipping to change at page 13, line 49
DOI 10.17487/RFC6088, January 2011, DOI 10.17487/RFC6088, January 2011,
<https://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,
<https://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
July 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6275>. 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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7148>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7148>.
8.2. Informative References [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
7.2. 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, <https://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,
RFC4213, October 2005, DOI 10.17487/RFC4213, October 2005,
<https://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,
RFC4908, June 2007, DOI 10.17487/RFC4908, June 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4908>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4908>.
Acknowledgements
The authors of this document would like to acknowledge the
discussions and feedback on this topic from the members of the
Distributed Mobility Management Working Group. The authors would
also like to thank Jouni Korhonen, Jong Hyouk Lee, Dirk Von-Hugo,
Seil Jeon, Carlos Bernardos, Robert Sparks, Adam Roach, Kathleen
Moriarty, Hilarie Orman, Ben Campbell, Warren Kumari, and Dhananjay
Patki for their review feedback. Special thanks to Mirja Kuehlewind
for a very thorough review and suggesting many text improvements.
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
Alper Yegin Alper Yegin
Actility Actility
Turkey Turkey
Email: alper.yegin@actility.com Email: alper.yegin@actility.com
Sri Gundavelli Sri Gundavelli
Cisco Cisco
170 West Tasman Drive 170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134 San Jose, CA 95134
USA United States of America
Email: sgundave@cisco.com Email: sgundave@cisco.com
 End of changes. 103 change blocks. 
314 lines changed or deleted 300 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.46. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/