--- 1/draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-07.txt 2016-11-28 12:13:29.835501482 -0800 +++ 2/draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-08.txt 2016-11-28 12:13:29.863502170 -0800 @@ -1,23 +1,25 @@ DMM Working Group A. Yegin Internet-Draft Actility Intended status: Informational D. Moses -Expires: January 7, 2017 Intel +Expires: June 1, 2017 Intel K. Kweon J. Lee J. Park Samsung - July 6, 2016 + S. Jeon + Sungkyunkwan University + November 28, 2016 On Demand Mobility Management - draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-07 + draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-08 Abstract Applications differ with respect to whether they need IP session continuity and/or IP address reachability. The network providing the same type of service to any mobile host and any application running on the host yields inefficiencies. This document describes a solution for taking the application needs into account in selectively providing IP session continuity and IP address reachability on a per- socket basis. @@ -30,21 +32,21 @@ Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - This Internet-Draft will expire on January 7, 2017. + This Internet-Draft will expire on June 1, 2017. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2016 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 publication of this document. Please review these documents @@ -56,46 +58,47 @@ Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. Types of IP Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2. Granularity of Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.3. On Demand Nature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.4. Conveying the Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 4. Backwards Compatibility Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 4.1. Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + 4. Backwards Compatibility Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + 4.1. Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.2. IP Stack in the Mobile Host . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 4.3. Network Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 5. Summary of New Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + 4.3. Network Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + 5. Summary of New Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 + 8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 + 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 + 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 + 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 + Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1. Introduction In the context of Mobile IP [RFC5563][RFC6275][RFC5213][RFC5944], following two attributes are defined for the IP service provided to the mobile hosts: IP session continuity: The ability to maintain an ongoing IP session by keeping the same local end-point IP address throughout the session - despite the mobile host chaging its point of attachment within the IP - network topology. The IP address of the host may change between two - independent IP sessions, but that does not jeopardize the IP session - continuity. IP session continuity is essential for mobile hosts to - maintain ongoing flows without any interruption. + despite the mobile host changing its point of attachment within the + IP network topology. The IP address of the host may change between + two independent IP sessions, but that does not jeopardize the IP + session continuity. IP session continuity is essential for mobile + hosts to maintain ongoing flows without any interruption. IP address reachability: The ability to maintain the same IP address for an extended period of time. The IP address stays the same across independent IP sessions, and even in the absence of any IP session. The IP address may be published in a long-term registry (e.g., DNS), and it is made available for serving incoming (e.g., TCP) connections. IP address reachability is essential for mobile hosts to use specific/published IP addresses. Mobile IP is designed to provide both IP session continuity and IP @@ -114,23 +117,22 @@ continuity is not required for all types of applications either. Applications performing brief communication (e.g., DNS client) can survive without having IP session continuity support. Achieving IP session continuity and IP address reachability by using Mobile IP incurs some cost. Mobile IP protocol forces the mobile host's IP traffic to traverse a centrally-located router (Home Agent, HA), which incurs additional transmission latency and use of additional network resources, adds to the network CAPEX and OPEX, and decreases the reliability of the network due to the introduction of a - single point of failure [I-D.ietf-dmm-requirements]. Therefore, IP - session continuity and IP address reachability should be be provided - only when needed. + single point of failure [RFC7333]. Therefore, IP session continuity + and IP address reachability should be be provided only when needed. Furthermore, when an application needs session continuity, it may be able to satisfy that need by using a solution above the IP layer, such as MPTCP [RFC6824], SIP mobility [RFC3261], or an application- layer mobility solution. Those higher-layer solutions are not subject to the same issues that arise with the use of Mobile IP since they can utilize the most direct data path between the end-points. But, if Mobile IP is being applied to the mobile host, those higher- layer protocols are rendered useless because their operation is inhibited by the Mobile IP. Since Mobile IP ensures the IP address @@ -339,20 +339,50 @@ getaddrinfo(), and inet6_is_srcaddr() functions [RFC5014]. Similar with the setsockopt()/getsockopt() calls, getaddrinfo() call shall also trigger configuration of the required type IP address, if one is not already available. When the new flags are used with getaddrinfo() and the triggered configuration fails, the getaddrinfo() call shall ignore that failure (i.e., not return an error code to indicate that failure). Only the setsockopt() shall return an error when configuration of the requested type IP address fails. + When the IP stack is required to assign a source IP address of a + specified type, it can perform one of the following: It can assigned + a preconfigured address (if one exists) or request a new one from the + network. Using an existing address is instantaneous but might yield + a less optimal route (if a hand-off event occurred since its + configuration), on the other hand, acquiring a new IP address from + the network may take some time (due to signaling exchange with the + network). + + An additional new flag - ON_NET flag - enables the application to + direct the IP stack whether to use a preconfigured source IP address + (if exists) or to request a new one from the current serving network: + + IPV6_REQUIRE_SRC_ON_NET /* Set IP stack address allocation behavior + */ + + If set, the IP stack will request a new IP address of the desired + type from the current serving network. If reset, the IP stack will + use a preconfigured one if exists. If there is no preconfigured IP + address of the desired type, the IP stack will request a new one from + the current serving network (regardless of whether this flag is set + or reset). + + The ON_NET flag must be used together with one of the 3 flags defined + above. If ON_NET flag is used without any of these flags, it must be + ignored. If the ON_NET flag is not used, the IP stack is free to + either use an existing IP address (if preconfigured) or access the + network to configure a new one (the decision is left to + implementation). + The following new error codes are also defined in the document and will be used in the Socket API in compliance with [RFC5014]. EAI_REQUIREDIPNOTSUPPORTED /* The network does not support the ability to request that specific IP address type */ EAI_REQUIREDIPFAILED /* The network could not assign that specific IP address type */ 4. Backwards Compatibility Considerations @@ -403,72 +433,92 @@ scope of this API specification. 5. Summary of New Definitions The following list summarizes the new constants definitions discussed in this memo: IPV6_REQUIRE_FIXED_IP IPV6_REQUIRE_SESSION_LASTING_IP IPV6_REQUIRE_NON_PERSISTENT_IP + IPV6_REQUIRE_SRC_ON_NET EAI_REQUIREDIPNOTSUPPORTED EAI_REQUIREDIPFAILED IPV6_REQUIRE_FIXED_IP IPV6_REQUIRE_SESSION_LASTING_IP IPV6_REQUIRE_NON_PERSISTENT_IP + IPV6_REQUIRE_SRC_ON_NET EAI_REQUIREDIPNOTSUPPORTED EAI_REQUIREDIPFAILED 6. Security Considerations The setting of certain IP address type on a given socket may be restricted to privileged applications. For example, a Fixed IP Address may be provided as a premium service and only certain applications may be allowed to use them. Setting and enforcement of such privileges are outside the scope of this document. 7. IANA Considerations This document has no IANA considerations. -8. Acknowledgements +8. Contributors - We would like to thank Alexandru Petrescu, John Kaippallimalil, Jouni - Korhonen, Seil Jeon, and Sri Gundavelli for their valuable comments - and suggestions on this work. + This document was merged with [I-D.sijeon-dmm-use-cases-api-source]. + We would like to acknowledge the contribution of the following people + to that document as well: -9. References + Sergio Figueiredo + Altran Research, France + Email: sergio.figueiredo@altran.com -9.1. Normative References + Younghan Kim + Soongsil University, Korea + Email: younghak@ssu.ac.kr + + John Kaippallimalil + Huawei, USA + Email: john.kaippallimalil@huawei.com + +9. Acknowledgements + + We would like to thank Alexandru Petrescu, Jouni Korhonen, and Sri + Gundavelli for their valuable comments and suggestions on this work. + +10. References + +10.1. 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, . [RFC5014] Nordmark, E., Chakrabarti, S., and J. Laganier, "IPv6 Socket API for Source Address Selection", RFC 5014, DOI 10.17487/RFC5014, September 2007, . [RFC6724] Thaler, D., Ed., Draves, R., Matsumoto, A., and T. Chown, "Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 6724, DOI 10.17487/RFC6724, September 2012, . -9.2. Informative References +10.2. Informative References - [I-D.ietf-dmm-requirements] - Chan, A., Liu, D., Seite, P., Yokota, H., and J. Korhonen, - "Requirements for Distributed Mobility Management", draft- - ietf-dmm-requirements-17 (work in progress), June 2014. + [I-D.sijeon-dmm-use-cases-api-source] + Jeon, S., Figueiredo, S., Kim, Y., and J. Kaippallimalil, + "Use Cases and API Extension for Source IP Address + Selection", draft-sijeon-dmm-use-cases-api-source-05 (work + in progress), October 2016. [RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, DOI 10.17487/RFC3261, June 2002, . [RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., Ed., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V., Chowdhury, K., and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 5213, DOI 10.17487/RFC5213, August 2008, @@ -485,29 +535,33 @@ [RFC6275] Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, DOI 10.17487/RFC6275, July 2011, . [RFC6824] Ford, A., Raiciu, C., Handley, M., and O. Bonaventure, "TCP Extensions for Multipath Operation with Multiple Addresses", RFC 6824, DOI 10.17487/RFC6824, January 2013, . + [RFC7333] Chan, H., Ed., Liu, D., Seite, P., Yokota, H., and J. + Korhonen, "Requirements for Distributed Mobility + Management", RFC 7333, DOI 10.17487/RFC7333, August 2014, + . + Authors' Addresses Alper Yegin Actility Istanbul Turkey Email: alper.yegin@actility.com - Danny Moses Intel Corporation Petah Tikva Israel Email: danny.moses@intel.com Kisuk Kweon Samsung Suwon @@ -520,10 +575,17 @@ South Korea Email: js81.lee@samsung.com Jungshin Park Samsung Suwon South Korea Email: shin02.park@samsung.com + + Seil Jeon + Sungkyunkwan University + Suwon + South Korea + + Email: seiljeon@skku.edu