draft-ietf-dmm-requirements-02.txt   draft-ietf-dmm-requirements-03.txt 
Network Working Group H. Chan (Ed.) Network Working Group H. Chan (Ed.)
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies (more
Intended status: Informational September 7, 2012 Intended status: Informational co-authors on P. 17)
Expires: March 11, 2013 Expires: June 25, 2013 D. Liu
China Mobile
P. Seite
France Telecom - Orange
H. Yokota
KDDI Lab
J. Korhonen
Nokia Siemens Networks
December 22, 2012
Requirements for Distributed Mobility Management Requirements for Distributed Mobility Management
draft-ietf-dmm-requirements-02 draft-ietf-dmm-requirements-03
Abstract Abstract
This document defines the requirements for Distributed Mobility This document defines the requirements for Distributed Mobility
Management (DMM) in IPv6 deployments. The traditionally hierarchical Management (DMM) in IPv6 deployments. The traditionally hierarchical
structure of cellular networks has led to deployment models which are structure of cellular networks has led to deployment models which are
in practice centralized. Mobility management with logically in practice centralized. Mobility management with logically
centralized mobility anchoring in current mobile networks is prone to centralized mobility anchoring in current mobile networks is prone to
suboptimal routing and raises scalability issues. Such centralized suboptimal routing and raises scalability issues. Such centralized
functions can lead to single points of failure and inevitably functions can lead to single points of failure and inevitably
skipping to change at page 1, line 44 skipping to change at page 2, line 6
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 March 11, 2013. This Internet-Draft will expire on June 25, 2013.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2012 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
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Centralized versus distributed mobility management . . . . . . 5 3. Centralized versus distributed mobility management . . . . . . 6
3.1. Centralized mobility management . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1. Centralized mobility management . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Distributed mobility management . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.2. Distributed mobility management . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. Distributed deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.1. Distributed deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2. Transparency to Upper Layers when needed . . . . . . . . . 9 4.2. Transparency to Upper Layers when needed . . . . . . . . . 10
4.3. IPv6 deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.3. IPv6 deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.4. Existing mobility protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.4. Existing mobility protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.5. Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.5. Co-existence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.6. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.6. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.7. Flexible multicast distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Co-authors and Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7. Co-authors and Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
In the past decade a fair number of mobility protocols have been In the past decade a fair number of mobility protocols have been
standardized [RFC6275] [RFC5944] [RFC5380] [RFC6301] [RFC5213]. standardized [RFC6275] [RFC5944] [RFC5380] [RFC6301] [RFC5213].
Although the protocols differ in terms of functions and associated Although the protocols differ in terms of functions and associated
message formats, we can identify a few key common features: message formats, we can identify a few key common features:
a centralized mobility anchor providing global reachability and an a centralized mobility anchor providing global reachability and an
always-on experience to the user; always-on experience to the user;
skipping to change at page 3, line 45 skipping to change at page 4, line 45
are necessary when applications have stringent requirements in terms are necessary when applications have stringent requirements in terms
of delay. Notions of localization and distribution of local agents of delay. Notions of localization and distribution of local agents
have been introduced to reduce signaling overhead [Paper- have been introduced to reduce signaling overhead [Paper-
Distributed.Centralized.Mobility]. Unfortunately, today we witness Distributed.Centralized.Mobility]. Unfortunately, today we witness
difficulties in getting such protocols deployed, resulting in sub- difficulties in getting such protocols deployed, resulting in sub-
optimal choices for the network operators. optimal choices for the network operators.
Moreover, the availability of multi-mode devices and the possibility Moreover, the availability of multi-mode devices and the possibility
of using several network interfaces simultaneously have motivated the of using several network interfaces simultaneously have motivated the
development of even more protocol extensions to add more capabilities development of even more protocol extensions to add more capabilities
to the base protocol. In the end, deployment is further complicated and to combine IP multicasting to the base protocol. In the end,
with the multitude of extensions. deployment is further complicated with the multitude of extensions.
Mobile users are, more than ever, consuming Internet content; such Mobile users are, more than ever, consuming Internet content; such
traffic imposes new requirements on mobile core networks for data traffic imposes new requirements on mobile core networks for data
traffic delivery. When the traffic demand exceeds available traffic delivery. The presence of content providers closer to the
capacity, service providers need to implement new strategies such as mobile/fixed Internet Service Providers network requires taking into
selective traffic offload (e.g. 3GPP work items LIPA/SIPTO account local Content Delivery Networks (CDNs) while providing
mobility services. Moreover, when the traffic demand exceeds
[TS.23829]) through alternative access networks (e.g. WLAN) [Paper- available capacity, service providers need to implement new
Mobile.Data.Offloading]. Moreover, the presence of content providers strategies such as selective traffic offload (e.g. 3GPP work items
closer to the mobile/fixed Internet Service Providers network LIPA/SIPTO [TS.23829]) through alternative access networks (e.g.
requires taking into account local Content Delivery Networks (CDNs) WLAN) [Paper-Mobile.Data.Offloading]. Gateway selection mechanism is
while providing mobility services. also taking the user proximity into account within EPC [TS.29303].
These mechanisms were not pursued in the past owing to charging and
billing reasons. However assigning a gateway anchor node from a
visited network in roaming scenario has until recently been done and
are limited to voice services only. Issues such as charging and
billing require solutions beyond the mobility protocol.
When demand exceeds capacity, both traffic offloading and CDN When demand exceeds capacity, both traffic offloading and CDN
mechanisms could benefit from the development of mobile architectures mechanisms could benefit from the development of mobile architectures
with fewer levels of routing hierarchy introduced into the data path with fewer levels of routing hierarchy introduced into the data path
by the mobility management system. This trend towards so-called by the mobility management system. This trend towards so-called
"flat networks" is reinforced by a shift in user traffic behavior. "flat networks" is reinforced by a shift in user traffic behavior.
In particular, there is an increase in direct communications among In particular, there is an increase in direct communications among
peers in the same geographical area. Distributed mobility management peers in the same geographical area. Distributed mobility management
in a truly flat mobile architecture would anchor the traffic closer in a truly flat mobile architecture would anchor the traffic closer
to the point of attachment of the user, overcoming the suboptimal to the point of attachment of the user, overcoming the suboptimal
skipping to change at page 7, line 25 skipping to change at page 8, line 40
---- ----
| MN | | MN |
---- ----
Figure 2. Distributed mobility management. Figure 2. Distributed mobility management.
Mobility management may be partially or fully distributed. In the Mobility management may be partially or fully distributed. In the
former case only the data plane is distributed. Fully distributed former case only the data plane is distributed. Fully distributed
mobility management implies that both the data plane and the control mobility management implies that both the data plane and the control
plane are distributed. These different approaches are described in plane are distributed. These different approaches are described in
detail in [I-D.yokota-dmm-scenario]. detail in [I-D.yokota-dmm-scenario]. While mobility management can
be distributed, it is not necessary for other functions such as
subscription management, subscription database, and network access
authentication to be similarly distributed.
A distributed mobility management scheme for future flat IP-based A distributed mobility management scheme for future flat IP-based
mobile network architecture consisting of access nodes is proposed in mobile network architecture consisting of access nodes is proposed in
[Paper-Distributed.Dynamic.Mobility]. Its benefits over centralized [Paper-Distributed.Dynamic.Mobility]. Its benefits over centralized
mobility management are shown through simulations in [Paper- mobility management are shown through simulations in [Paper-
Distributed.Centralized.Mobility]. Moreover, the (re)use and Distributed.Centralized.Mobility]. Moreover, the (re)use and
extension of existing protocols in the design of both fully extension of existing protocols in the design of both fully
distributed mobility management [Paper-Migrating.Home.Agents] [Paper- distributed mobility management [Paper-Migrating.Home.Agents] [Paper-
Distributed.Mobility.SAE] and partially distributed mobility Distributed.Mobility.SAE] and partially distributed mobility
management [Paper-Distributed.Mobility.PMIP] [Paper- management [Paper-Distributed.Mobility.PMIP] [Paper-
skipping to change at page 8, line 31 skipping to change at page 9, line 44
in a distributed system; (d) threats against centrally in a distributed system; (d) threats against centrally
deployed anchors, e.g., home agent and local mobility anchor, deployed anchors, e.g., home agent and local mobility anchor,
are mitigated in a distributed system. are mitigated in a distributed system.
This requirement addresses problems PS1, PS2, PS3, and PS4 in the This requirement addresses problems PS1, PS2, PS3, and PS4 in the
following. following.
PS1: Non-optimal routes PS1: Non-optimal routes
Routing via a centralized anchor often results in a longer Routing via a centralized anchor often results in a longer
route. The problem is especially manifested when accessing a route. The problem is manifested, for example, when accessing
local server or servers of a Content Delivery Network (CDN). a local server or servers of a Content Delivery Network (CDN),
or when receiving locally available IP multicast or sending IP
multicast packets.
PS2: Divergence from other evolutionary trends in network PS2: Divergence from other evolutionary trends in network
architecture architectures such as distribution of content delivery.
Centralized mobility management can become non-optimal with a Centralized mobility management can become non-optimal with a
flat network architecture. flat network architecture.
PS3: Low scalability of centralized route and mobility context PS3: Low scalability of centralized tunnel management and mobility
maintenance context maintenance
Setting up routes through a central anchor and maintaining Setting up tunnels through a central anchor and maintaining
mobility context for each MN therein requires more resources is mobility context for each MN therein requires more resources in
more difficult to scale in a centralized design, thus reducing a centralized design, thus reducing scalability. Distributing
scalability. Distributing the route maintenance function and the tunnel maintenance function and the mobility context
the mobility context maintenance function among different maintenance function among different network entities can
network entities can increase scalability. increase scalability.
PS4: Single point of failure and attack PS4: Single point of failure and attack
Centralized anchoring may be more vulnerable to single points Centralized anchoring may be more vulnerable to single points
of failures and attacks than a distributed system. The impact of failures and attacks than a distributed system. The impact
of a successful attack on a system with centralized mobility of a successful attack on a system with centralized mobility
management can be far greater as well. management can be far greater as well.
4.2. Transparency to Upper Layers when needed 4.2. Transparency to Upper Layers when needed
REQ2: Transparency to Upper Layers when needed REQ2: Transparency to Upper Layers when needed
DMM solutions MUST provide transparent mobility support above DMM solutions MUST provide transparent mobility support above
the IP layer when needed. Such transparency is needed, for the IP layer when needed. Such transparency is needed, for
example, when, upon change of point of attachment to the example, when, upon change of point of attachment to the
Internet, an application flow cannot cope with a change in the Internet, an application flow cannot cope with a change in the
IP address. Otherwise, support for maintaining a stable home IP address. However, it is not always necessary to maintain a
IP address or prefix during handovers may be declined. stable home IP address or prefix for every application or at
all times for a mobile node.
Motivation: The motivation of this requirement is to enable Motivation: The motivation of this requirement is to enable
more efficient use of network resources and more efficient more efficient use of network resources and more efficient
routing by not maintaining context at the mobility anchor when routing by not maintaining context at the mobility anchor when
there is no such need. there is no such need.
This requirement addresses the problems PS5 as well as the other This requirement addresses the problem PS5 as well as the related
related problem O-PS1. problem PS6.
PS5: Wasting resources to provide mobility support to nodes that do PS5: Wasting resources to provide mobility support to nodes that do
not need such support not need such support
IP mobility support is not always required, and not every IP mobility support is not always required, and not every
parameter of mobility context is always used. For example, parameter of mobility context is always used. For example,
some applications do not need a stable IP address during a some applications do not need a stable IP address during a
handover to maintain IP session continuity. Sometimes, the handover to maintain IP session continuity. Sometimes, the
entire application session runs while the terminal does not entire application session runs while the terminal does not
change the point of attachment. change the point of attachment.
O-PS1: Mobility signaling overhead with peer-to-peer communication PS6: (Related problem) Mobility signaling overhead with peer-to-peer
communication
Wasting resources when mobility signaling (e.g., maintenance Wasting resources when mobility signaling (e.g., maintenance of
of the tunnel, keep alive, etc.) is not turned off for peer- the tunnel, keep alive, etc.) is not turned off for peer-to-
to-peer communication. Peer-to-peer communications have peer communication. Peer-to-peer communications have
particular traffic patterns that often do not benefit from particular traffic patterns that often do not benefit from
mobility support from the network. Thus, the assoicated mobility support from the network. Thus, the associated
mobility support signaling (e.g., maintenance of the tunnel, mobility support signaling (e.g., maintenance of the tunnel,
keep alives, etc.) wastes network resources for no keep alives, etc.) wastes network resources for no application
application gain. In such a case, it is better to enable gain. In such a case, it is better to enable mobility support
mobility support selectively. selectively.
4.3. IPv6 deployment 4.3. IPv6 deployment
REQ3: IPv6 deployment REQ3: IPv6 deployment
DMM solutions SHOULD target IPv6 as the primary deployment DMM solutions SHOULD target IPv6 as the primary deployment
environment and SHOULD NOT be tailored specifically to support environment and SHOULD NOT be tailored specifically to support
IPv4, in particular in situations where private IPv4 addresses IPv4, in particular in situations where private IPv4 addresses
and/or NATs are used. and/or NATs are used.
skipping to change at page 10, line 28 skipping to change at page 11, line 45
this problem for IPv4, as we will not be able to use some of this problem for IPv4, as we will not be able to use some of
the IPv6-specific features/tools. the IPv6-specific features/tools.
4.4. Existing mobility protocols 4.4. Existing mobility protocols
REQ4: Existing mobility protocols REQ4: Existing mobility protocols
A DMM solution SHOULD first consider reusing and extending A DMM solution SHOULD first consider reusing and extending
IETF-standardized protocols before specifying new protocols. IETF-standardized protocols before specifying new protocols.
Motivation: Using IETF protocols is easier to deploy and to 4.5. Co-existence
update.
4.5. Compatibility
REQ5: Compatibility REQ5: Co-existence with deployed networks and hosts
The DMM solution MUST be able to co-exist with existing The DMM solution MUST be able to co-exist with existing
network deployments and end hosts. For example, depending on network deployments and end hosts. For example, depending on
the environment in which DMM is deployed, DMM solutions may the environment in which DMM is deployed, DMM solutions may
need to be compatible with other deployed mobility protocols need to be compatible with other deployed mobility protocols
or may need to interoperate with a network or mobile hosts/ or may need to interoperate with a network or mobile hosts/
routers that do not support DMM protocols. Furthermore, a DMM routers that do not support DMM protocols. Furthermore, a DMM
solution SHOULD work across different networks, possibly solution SHOULD work across different networks, possibly
operated as separate administrative domains, when allowed by operated as separate administrative domains, when allowed by
the trust relationship between them. the trust relationship between them.
Motivation: The motivations of this requirement are (1) to Motivation: The motivations of this requirement are (1) to
preserve backwards compatibility so that existing networks and preserve backwards compatibility so that existing networks and
hosts are not affected and continue to function as usual, and hosts are not affected and continue to function as usual, and
(2) enable inter-domain operation if desired. (2) enable inter-domain operation if desired.
This requirement addresses the following related problem O-PS2. This requirement addresses the following related problem PS7.
O-PS2: Complicated deployment with too many MIP variants and PS7: (Related problem) Complicated deployment with too many MIP
extensions variants and extensions
Deployment is complicated with many variants and extensions Deployment is complicated with many variants and extensions of
of MIP. When introducing new functions which may add to the MIP. When introducing new functions which may add to the
complexity, existing solutions are more vulnerable to break. complexity, existing solutions are more vulnerable to break.
4.6. Security considerations 4.6. Security considerations
REQ6: Security considerations REQ6: Security considerations
DMM protocol solutions MUST consider security aspects, DMM protocol solutions MUST consider security aspects,
including confidentiality and integrity. Examples of aspects including confidentiality and integrity. Examples of aspects
to be considered are authentication and authorization to be considered are authentication and authorization
mechanisms that allow a legitimate mobile host/router to use mechanisms that allow a legitimate mobile host/router to use
the mobility support provided by the DMM solution; signaling the mobility support provided by the DMM solution; signaling
skipping to change at page 11, line 43 skipping to change at page 13, line 8
Signaling messages can be subject to various attacks since Signaling messages can be subject to various attacks since
they carry critical context information about a mobile node/ they carry critical context information about a mobile node/
router. For instance, a malicious node can forge a number of router. For instance, a malicious node can forge a number of
signaling messages thus redirecting traffic from its signaling messages thus redirecting traffic from its
legitimate path. Consequently, the specific node is under a legitimate path. Consequently, the specific node is under a
denial of service attack, whereas other nodes do not receive denial of service attack, whereas other nodes do not receive
their traffic. As signaling messages may travel over the their traffic. As signaling messages may travel over the
Internet, end-to-end security could be required. Internet, end-to-end security could be required.
4.7. Flexible multicast distribution
REQ7: DMM should enable multicast solutions in flexible distribution
scenario. This flexibility enables different IP multicast
flows with respect to a mobile host to be managed (e.g.,
subscribed, received and/or transmitted) using multiple
endpoints.
Motivation: The motivation of this requirement is to consider
multicast early so that solutions can be developed to overcome
performance issues in multicast distribution scenario. The
multicast solution may therefore avoid having multicast-
capable access routers being restricted to manage all IP
multicast traffic relative to a host via a single endpoint
(e.g., regular or tunnel interface), which would lead to the
problems described in PS1 and PS6.
This requirement addresses the problems PS1 and PS8.
PS8: Duplicate multicast traffic
IP multicast distribution over architectures using IP mobility
solutions (e.g. RFC6224) may lead to convergence of duplicated
multicast subscriptions towards the downstream tunnel entity
(e.g. MAG in PMIPv6). Concretely, when multicast subscription
for individual mobile nodes is coupled with mobility tunnels
(e.g. PMIPv6 tunnel), duplicate multicast subscription(s) is
prone to be received through different upstream paths. This
problem may also exist or be more severe in a distributed
mobility environment.
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
Distributed mobility management (DMM) requires two kinds of security Distributed mobility management (DMM) requires two kinds of security
considerations: First, access network security that only allows a considerations: First, access network security that only allows a
legitimate mobile host/router to access the DMM service; Second, end- legitimate mobile host/router to access the DMM service; Second, end-
to-end security that protects signaling messages for the DMM service. to-end security that protects signaling messages for the DMM service.
Access network security is required between the mobile host/router Access network security is required between the mobile host/router
and the access network providing the DMM service. End-to-end and the access network providing the DMM service. End-to-end
security is required between nodes that participate in the DMM security is required between nodes that participate in the DMM
protocol. protocol.
skipping to change at page 12, line 18 skipping to change at page 14, line 15
protocols to provide sufficient security protections. For instance, protocols to provide sufficient security protections. For instance,
EAP-based authentication can be used for access network security, EAP-based authentication can be used for access network security,
while IPsec can be used for end-to-end security. while IPsec can be used for end-to-end security.
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
None None
7. Co-authors and Contributors 7. Co-authors and Contributors
This problem statement document is a joint effort among the following This problem statement document is a joint effort among the numerous
participants. Each individual has made significant contributions to participants. Each individual has made significant contributions to
this work. this work and have been listed as co-authors.
Dapeng Liu: liudapeng@chinamobile.com
Pierrick Seite: pierrick.seite@orange-ftgroup.com
Hidetoshi Yokota: yokota@kddilabs.jp
Charles E. Perkins: charliep@computer.org
Melia Telemaco: telemaco.melia@alcatel-lucent.com
Elena Demaria: elena.demaria@telecomitalia.it
Peter McCann: Peter.McCann@huawei.com
Kostas Pentikousis: k.pentikousis@huawei.com
Tricci So: tso@zteusa.com
Jong-Hyouk Lee: jh.lee@telecom-bretagne.eu
Jouni Korhonen: jouni.korhonen@nsn.com
Sri Gundavelli: sgundave@cisco.com
Carlos J. Bernardos: cjbc@it.uc3m.es
Marco Liebsch: Marco.Liebsch@neclab.eu
Wen Luo: luo.wen@zte.com.cn
Georgios Karagiannis: g.karagiannis@utwente.nl
Julien Laganier: jlaganier@juniper.net
Wassim Michel Haddad: Wassam.Haddad@ericsson.com
Alexandru Petrescu: alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com
Seok Joo Koh: sjkoh@knu.ac.kr
Dirk von Hugo: Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de
Ahmad Muhanna: amuhanna@awardsolutions.com
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, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
8.2. Informative References 8.2. Informative References
skipping to change at page 15, line 16 skipping to change at page 16, line 18
[RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V., Chowdhury, K., [RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V., Chowdhury, K.,
and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 5213, August 2008. and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 5213, August 2008.
[RFC5380] Soliman, H., Castelluccia, C., ElMalki, K., and L. [RFC5380] Soliman, H., Castelluccia, C., ElMalki, K., and L.
Bellier, "Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 (HMIPv6) Mobility Bellier, "Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 (HMIPv6) Mobility
Management", RFC 5380, October 2008. Management", RFC 5380, October 2008.
[RFC5944] Perkins, C., "IP Mobility Support for IPv4, Revised", [RFC5944] Perkins, C., "IP Mobility Support for IPv4, Revised",
RFC 5944, November 2010. RFC 5944, November 2010.
[RFC6224] Schmidt, T., Waehlisch, M., and S. Krishnan, "Base
Deployment for Multicast Listener Support in Proxy Mobile
IPv6 (PMIPv6) Domains", RFC 6224, April 2011.
[RFC6275] Perkins, C., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support [RFC6275] Perkins, C., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support
in IPv6", RFC 6275, July 2011. in IPv6", RFC 6275, July 2011.
[RFC6301] Zhu, Z., Wakikawa, R., and L. Zhang, "A Survey of Mobility [RFC6301] Zhu, Z., Wakikawa, R., and L. Zhang, "A Survey of Mobility
Support in the Internet", RFC 6301, July 2011. Support in the Internet", RFC 6301, July 2011.
[TS.23829] [TS.23829]
3GPP, "Local IP Access and Selected IP Traffic Offload 3GPP, "Local IP Access and Selected IP Traffic Offload
(LIPA-SIPTO)", 3GPP TR 23.829 10.0.1, October 2011. (LIPA-SIPTO)", 3GPP TR 23.829 10.0.1, October 2011.
Author's Address [TS.29303]
3GPP, "Domain Name System Procedures; Stage 3", 3GPP
TR 23.303 11.2.0, September 2012.
Authors' Addresses
H Anthony Chan (editor) H Anthony Chan (editor)
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies (more co-authors on P. 17)
5340 Legacy Dr. Building 3, Plano, TX 75024, USA 5340 Legacy Dr. Building 3, Plano, TX 75024, USA
Email: h.a.chan@ieee.org Email: h.a.chan@ieee.org
-
Dapeng Liu Dapeng Liu
China Mobile China Mobile
Unit2, 28 Xuanwumenxi Ave, Xuanwu District, Beijing 100053, China Unit2, 28 Xuanwumenxi Ave, Xuanwu District, Beijing 100053, China
Email: liudapeng@chinamobile.com Email: liudapeng@chinamobile.com
-
Pierrick Seite Pierrick Seite
France Telecom - Orange France Telecom - Orange
4, rue du Clos Courtel, BP 91226, Cesson-Sevigne 35512, France 4, rue du Clos Courtel, BP 91226, Cesson-Sevigne 35512, France
Email: pierrick.seite@orange-ftgroup.com Email: pierrick.seite@orange-ftgroup.com
-
Hidetoshi Yokota Hidetoshi Yokota
KDDI Lab KDDI Lab
2-1-15 Ohara, Fujimino, Saitama, 356-8502 Japan 2-1-15 Ohara, Fujimino, Saitama, 356-8502 Japan
Email: yokota@kddilabs.jp Email: yokota@kddilabs.jp
-
Jouni Korhonen Jouni Korhonen
Nokia Siemens Networks Nokia Siemens Networks
Email: jouni.korhonen@nsn.com Email: jouni.korhonen@nsn.com
- -
Charles E. Perkins Charles E. Perkins
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
Email: charliep@computer.org Email: charliep@computer.org
- -
Melia Telemaco Melia Telemaco
Alcatel-Lucent Bell Labs Alcatel-Lucent Bell Labs
skipping to change at page 16, line 50 skipping to change at page 18, line 17
- -
Seok Joo Koh Seok Joo Koh
Kyungpook National University, Korea Kyungpook National University, Korea
Email: sjkoh@knu.ac.kr Email: sjkoh@knu.ac.kr
- -
Wen Luo Wen Luo
ZTE ZTE
No.68, Zijinhua RD,Yuhuatai District, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012, China No.68, Zijinhua RD,Yuhuatai District, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012, China
Email: luo.wen@zte.com.cn Email: luo.wen@zte.com.cn
- -
Sri Gundavelli
sgundave@cisco.com
-
Marco Liebsch Marco Liebsch
NEC Laboratories Europe NEC Laboratories Europe
Email: liebsch@neclab.eu Email: liebsch@neclab.eu
- -
Carl Williams Carl Williams
MCSR Labs MCSR Labs
Email: carlw@mcsr-labs.org Email: carlw@mcsr-labs.org
- -
Seil Jeon
Email: seiljeon@av.it.pt
-
Sergio Figueiredo
Email: sfigueiredo@av.it.pt
-
Stig Venaas
Email: stig@venaas.com
-
Luis Miguel Contreras Murillo
Email: lmcm@tid.es
-
Juan Carlos Zuniga
Email: JuanCarlos.Zuniga@InterDigital.com
-
Alexandru Petrescu
Email: alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com
-
Georgios Karagiannis
Email: g.karagiannis@utwente.nl
-
Julien Laganier
jlaganier@juniper.net
-
Wassim Michel Haddad
Wassam.Haddad@ericsson.com
-
Dirk von Hugo
Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de
-
Ahmad Muhanna
amuhanna@awardsolutions.com
-
 End of changes. 32 change blocks. 
124 lines changed or deleted 140 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/