draft-ietf-dmm-requirements-16.txt   draft-ietf-dmm-requirements-17.txt 
Network Working Group H. Chan (Ed.) Network Working Group H. Chan (Ed.)
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Informational D. Liu Intended status: Informational D. Liu
Expires: October 20, 2014 China Mobile Expires: December 7, 2014 China Mobile
P. Seite P. Seite
Orange Orange
H. Yokota H. Yokota
KDDI Lab KDDI Lab
J. Korhonen J. Korhonen
Broadcom Communications Broadcom Communications
April 18, 2014 June 5, 2014
Requirements for Distributed Mobility Management Requirements for Distributed Mobility Management
draft-ietf-dmm-requirements-16 draft-ietf-dmm-requirements-17
Abstract Abstract
This document defines the requirements for Distributed Mobility This document defines the requirements for Distributed Mobility
Management (DMM) at the network layer. The hierarchical structure in Management (DMM) at the network layer. The hierarchical structure in
traditional wireless networks has led primarily to centrally deployed traditional wireless networks has led primarily to centrally deployed
mobility anchors. As some wireless networks are evolving away from mobility anchors. As some wireless networks are evolving away from
the hierarchical structure, it can be useful to have a distributed the hierarchical structure, it can be useful to have a distributed
model for mobility management in which traffic does not need to model for mobility management in which traffic does not need to
traverse centrally deployed mobility anchors far from the optimal traverse centrally deployed mobility anchors far from the optimal
skipping to change at page 2, line 4 skipping to change at page 2, line 4
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 October 20, 2014. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 7, 2014.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 3, line 15 skipping to change at page 3, line 15
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Centralized versus distributed mobility management . . . . . . 7 3. Centralized versus distributed mobility management . . . . . . 7
3.1. Centralized mobility management . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.1. Centralized mobility management . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Distributed mobility management . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.2. Distributed mobility management . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
In the past decade a fair number of network-layer mobility protocols In the past decade a fair number of network-layer mobility protocols
have been standardized [RFC6275] [RFC5944] [RFC5380] [RFC6301] have been standardized [RFC6275] [RFC5944] [RFC5380] [RFC6301]
[RFC5213]. Although these protocols differ in terms of functions and [RFC5213]. Although these protocols differ in terms of functions and
associated message formats, they all employ a mobility anchor to associated message formats, they all employ a mobility anchor to
allow a mobile node to remain reachable after it has moved to a allow a mobile node to remain reachable after it has moved to a
different network. The anchor point, among other tasks, ensures different network. The anchor point, among other tasks, ensures
connectivity by forwarding packets destined to, or sent from, the connectivity by forwarding packets destined to, or sent from, the
skipping to change at page 13, line 14 skipping to change at page 13, line 14
This requirement attempts to avoid the need of new protocols This requirement attempts to avoid the need of new protocols
development and therefore their potential problems of being development and therefore their potential problems of being
time-consuming and error-prone. time-consuming and error-prone.
REQ5: Coexistence with deployed networks/hosts and operability REQ5: Coexistence with deployed networks/hosts and operability
across different networks across different networks
A DMM solution may require loose, tight or no integration into A DMM solution may require loose, tight or no integration into
existing mobility protocols and host IP stack. Regardless of existing mobility protocols and host IP stack. Regardless of
the integration level, such a DMM solution MUST be able to the integration level, DMM implementations MUST be able to
coexist with existing network deployments, end hosts and coexist with existing network deployments, end hosts and
routers that may or may not implement existing mobility routers that may or may not implement existing mobility
protocols. Furthermore, a DMM solution SHOULD work across protocols. Furthermore, a DMM solution SHOULD work across
different networks, possibly operated as separate different networks, possibly operated as separate
administrative domains, when the needed mobility management administrative domains, when the needed mobility management
signaling, forwarding, and network access are allowed by the signaling, forwarding, and network access are allowed by the
trust relationship between them. trust relationship between them.
Motivation: (a) to preserve backwards compatibility so that Motivation: (a) to preserve backwards compatibility so that
existing networks and hosts are not affected and continue to existing networks and hosts are not affected and continue to
function as usual, and (b) enable inter-domain operation if function as usual, and (b) enable inter-domain operation if
desired. desired.
This requirement addresses the problem PS7 described in This requirement addresses the problem PS7 described in
Section 4. Section 4.
REQ6: Security considerations REQ6: Operation and Management considerations.
A DMM solution needs to consider configuring a device,
monitoring the current operational state of a device,
responding to events that impact the device, possibly by
modifying the configuration and storing the data in a format
that can be analyzed later. Different management protocols
are available. For example:
(a) SNMP [RFC1157] with definition of standardized management
information base MIB objects for DMM, that allows
monitoring traffic steering in a consistent manner across
different devices,
(b) NETCONF [RFC6241] with definition of standardized YANG
[RFC6020] modules for DMM to achieve a standardized
configuration,
(c) syslog [RFC3164] which is a one-way protocol allowing a
device to report significant events to a log analyzer in
a network management system.
(d) IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Protocol, which serves
as a means for transmitting traffic flow information over
the network [RFC7011], with a formal description of IPFIX
Information Elements [RFC7012].
It is not the goal of the requirements document to impose
which management protocol(s) should be used. An inventory of
the management protocols and data models is covered in RFC
6632.
The following lists the operation and management
considerations required for a DMM solution; the list may not
be exhaustive and may be expanded according to the needs of
the solutions:
A DMM solution MUST describe in what environment and how it
can be scalably deployed and managed.
A DMM solution MUST support mechanisms to test if the DMM
solution is working properly. For example, when a DMM
solution employs traffic indirection to support a mobility
session, implementations MUST support mechanisms to test that
the appropriate traffic indirection operations are in place,
including the setup of traffic indirection and the subsequent
teardown of the indirection to release the associated network
resources when the mobility session has closed.
A DMM solution SHOULD expose the operational state of DMM to
the administrators of the DMM entities. For example, when a
DMM solution employs separation between session identifier and
forwarding address, it should expose the association between
them.
When flow mobility is supported by a DMM solution, the
solution SHOULD support means to correlate the flow routing
policies and the observed forwarding actions.
A DMM solution SHOULD support mechanisms to check the liveness
of forwarding path. If the DMM solution sends periodic update
refresh messages to configure the forwarding path, the refresh
period SHOULD be configurable and a reasonable default
configuration value proposed. Information collected can be
logged or made available with protocols such as SNMP
[RFC1157], NETCONF [RFC6241], IPFIX [RFC7011], or syslog
[RFC3164].
A DMM solution MUST provide fault management and monitoring
mechanisms to manage situations where update of the mobility
session or the data path fails. The system must also be able
to handle situations where a mobility anchor with ongoing
mobility sessions fails.
A DMM solution SHOULD be able to monitor usage of DMM
protocol. When a DMM solution uses an existing protocol, the
techniques already defined for that protocol SHOULD be used to
monitor the DMM operation. When these techniques are
inadequate, new techniques MUST be developed.
In particular, the DMM solution SHOULD
(a) be able to monitor the number of mobility sessions per
user as well as their average duration.
(b) provide indication on DMM performance such as
1 the handover delay which includes the time necessary
to re-establish the forwarding path when the point of
attachment changes,
2 the protocol reactivity which is the time between
handover events such as the attachment to a new access
point and the completion of the mobility session
update.
(c) provide means to measure the signaling cost of the DMM
protocol.
(d) if tunneling is used for traffic redirection, monitor
1 the number of tunnels,
2 their transmission and reception information,
3 the used encapsulation method and overhead
4 the security used at a node level.
DMM solutions SHOULD support standardized configuration with
NETCONF [RFC6241], using YANG [RFC6020] modules, which SHOULD
be created for DMM when needed for such configuration.
However, if a DMM solution creates extensions to MIPv6 or
PMIPv6, the allowed addition of the definition of management
information base (MIB) objects to MIPv6 MIB [RFC4295] or
PMIPv6 MIB [RFC6475] needed for the control and monitoring of
the protocol extensions SHOULD be limited to read-only
objects.
Motivation: A DMM solution that is designed from the beginning
for operability and manageability can avoid difficulty or
incompatibility to implement efficient operations and
management solutions.
These requirements avoid DMM designs that make operations and
management difficult or costly.
REQ7: Security considerations
A DMM solution MUST support any security protocols and A DMM solution MUST support any security protocols and
mechanisms needed to secure the network and to make continuous mechanisms needed to secure the network and to make continuous
security improvements. In addition, with security taken into security improvements. In addition, with security taken into
consideration early in the design, a DMM solution MUST NOT consideration early in the design, a DMM solution MUST NOT
introduce new security risks, or amplify existing security introduce new security risks, or amplify existing security
risks, that cannot be mitigated by existing security protocols risks, that cannot be mitigated by existing security protocols
and mechanisms. and mechanisms.
Motivation: Various attacks such as impersonation, denial of Motivation: Various attacks such as impersonation, denial of
skipping to change at page 14, line 18 skipping to change at page 17, line 5
security protection, that candidate DMM solution is causing security protection, that candidate DMM solution is causing
uncontrollable security problems. uncontrollable security problems.
This requirement prevents a DMM solution from introducing This requirement prevents a DMM solution from introducing
uncontrollable problems of potentially insecure mobility uncontrollable problems of potentially insecure mobility
management protocols which make deployment infeasible because management protocols which make deployment infeasible because
platforms conforming to the protocols are at risk for data platforms conforming to the protocols are at risk for data
loss and numerous other dangers, including financial harm to loss and numerous other dangers, including financial harm to
the users. the users.
REQ7: Multicast considerations REQ8: Multicast considerations
DMM SHOULD enable multicast solutions to be developed to avoid DMM SHOULD enable multicast solutions to be developed to avoid
network inefficiency in multicast traffic delivery. network inefficiency in multicast traffic delivery.
Motivation: Existing multicast deployment have been introduced Motivation: Existing multicast deployment have been introduced
after completing the design of the reference mobility after completing the design of the reference mobility
protocol, often leading to network inefficiency and non- protocol, often leading to network inefficiency and non-
optimal forwarding for the multicast traffic. Instead DMM optimal forwarding for the multicast traffic. Instead DMM
should consider multicast early so that the multicast should consider multicast early so that the multicast
solutions can better consider efficiency nature in the solutions can better consider efficiency nature in the
multicast traffic delivery (such as duplicate multicast multicast traffic delivery (such as duplicate multicast
subscriptions towards the downstream tunnel entities). The subscriptions towards the downstream tunnel entities). The
multicast solutions should then avoid restricting the multicast solutions should then avoid restricting the
management of all IP multicast traffic to a single host management of all IP multicast traffic to a single host
through a dedicated (tunnel) interface on multicast-capable through a dedicated (tunnel) interface on multicast-capable
access routers. access routers.
This requirement addresses the problems PS1 and PS8 described This requirement addresses the problems PS1 and PS8 described
in Section 4. in Section 4.
REQ8: OAM considerations
DMM SHOULD support operations, administration and management
(OAM) solutions to reduce OAM complexity and operational
expenditure.
Motivation: A DMM solution that takes OAM into considerations
from the beginning of its design can avoid difficulty or
incompatibility to implement efficient OAM solutions.
This requirement avoids DMM designs that make OAM difficult or
costly.
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
Please refer to the discussion under Security requirement in Section Please refer to the discussion under Security requirement in Section
5. 5.
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
None None
8. Contributors 8. Contributors
skipping to change at page 17, line 43 skipping to change at page 20, line 16
Email: macsbug@research.att.com Email: macsbug@research.att.com
Hassan Ali-Ahmad Hassan Ali-Ahmad
Orange Orange
Email: hassan.aliahmad@orange.com Email: hassan.aliahmad@orange.com
Alper Yegin Alper Yegin
Samsung Samsung
Email: alper.yegin@partner.samsung.com Email: alper.yegin@partner.samsung.com
David Harrington
Effective Software
Email: ietfdbh@comcast.net
9. References 9. References
9.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[RFC1157] Case, J., Fedor, M., Schoffstall, M., and J. Davin,
"Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", STD 15,
RFC 1157, May 1990.
[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.
[RFC3164] Lonvick, C., "The BSD Syslog Protocol", RFC 3164,
August 2001.
[RFC3753] Manner, J. and M. Kojo, "Mobility Related Terminology", [RFC3753] Manner, J. and M. Kojo, "Mobility Related Terminology",
RFC 3753, June 2004. RFC 3753, June 2004.
[RFC4295] Keeni, G., Koide, K., Nagami, K., and S. Gundavelli,
"Mobile IPv6 Management Information Base", RFC 4295,
April 2006.
[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.
[RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for the
Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
October 2010.
[RFC6241] Enns, R., Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., and A.
Bierman, "Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)",
RFC 6241, June 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.
[RFC6475] Keeni, G., Koide, K., Gundavelli, S., and R. Wakikawa,
"Proxy Mobile IPv6 Management Information Base", RFC 6475,
May 2012.
[RFC6632] Ersue, M. and B. Claise, "An Overview of the IETF Network
Management Standards", RFC 6632, June 2012.
[RFC7011] Claise, B., Trammell, B., and P. Aitken, "Specification of
the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Protocol for the
Exchange of Flow Information", STD 77, RFC 7011,
September 2013.
[RFC7012] Claise, B. and B. Trammell, "Information Model for IP Flow
Information Export (IPFIX)", RFC 7012, September 2013.
9.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[I-D.bhandari-dhc-class-based-prefix] [I-D.bhandari-dhc-class-based-prefix]
Bhandari, S., Halwasia, G., Gundavelli, S., Deng, H., Bhandari, S., Halwasia, G., Gundavelli, S., Deng, H.,
Thiebaut, L., Korhonen, J., and I. Farrer, "DHCPv6 class Thiebaut, L., Korhonen, J., and I. Farrer, "DHCPv6 class
based prefix", draft-bhandari-dhc-class-based-prefix-05 based prefix", draft-bhandari-dhc-class-based-prefix-05
(work in progress), July 2013. (work in progress), July 2013.
[I-D.korhonen-6man-prefix-properties] [I-D.korhonen-6man-prefix-properties]
Korhonen, J., Patil, B., Gundavelli, S., Seite, P., and D. Korhonen, J., Patil, B., Gundavelli, S., Seite, P., and D.
Liu, "IPv6 Prefix Properties", Liu, "IPv6 Prefix Properties",
draft-korhonen-6man-prefix-properties-02 (work in draft-korhonen-6man-prefix-properties-02 (work in
progress), July 2013. progress), July 2013.
[I-D.wakikawa-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation] [I-D.wakikawa-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation]
Wakikawa, R., Pazhyannur, R., and S. Gundavelli, Wakikawa, R., Pazhyannur, R., Gundavelli, S., and C.
"Separation of Control and User Plane for Proxy Mobile Perkins, "Separation of Control and User Plane for Proxy
IPv6", draft-wakikawa-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation-00 Mobile IPv6",
(work in progress), February 2014. draft-wakikawa-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation-03 (work in
progress), April 2014.
[I-D.yokota-dmm-scenario] [I-D.yokota-dmm-scenario]
Yokota, H., Seite, P., Demaria, E., and Z. Cao, "Use case Yokota, H., Seite, P., Demaria, E., and Z. Cao, "Use case
scenarios for Distributed Mobility Management", scenarios for Distributed Mobility Management",
draft-yokota-dmm-scenario-00 (work in progress), draft-yokota-dmm-scenario-00 (work in progress),
October 2010. October 2010.
[Paper-Distributed.Centralized.Mobility] [Paper-Distributed.Centralized.Mobility]
Bertin, P., Bonjour, S., and J-M. Bonnin, "A Distributed Bertin, P., Bonjour, S., and J-M. Bonnin, "A Distributed
or Centralized Mobility", Proceedings of Global or Centralized Mobility", Proceedings of Global
 End of changes. 16 change blocks. 
31 lines changed or deleted 184 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/