draft-ietf-mip6-dsmip-problem-01.txt   draft-ietf-mip6-dsmip-problem-02.txt 
INTERNET Draft George Tsirtsis INTERNET Draft George Tsirtsis
Expires: April 2006 Hesham Soliman
Flarion
October 2005
Expires: Jan 2007 Hesham Soliman
Qualcomm
Mobility management for Dual stack mobile nodes Mobility management for Dual stack mobile nodes
A Problem Statement A Problem Statement
<draft-ietf-mip6-dsmip-problem-01.txt> <draft-ietf-mip6-dsmip-problem-02.txt>
Status of this memo Status of this memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
skipping to change at page 1, line 21 skipping to change at page 1, line 21
Status of this memo Status of this memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
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 a "work in progress." material or cite them other than as "work in progress".
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html http://www.ietf.org/ietf/lid-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This document is a submission of the IETF MIP6 WG. Comments should be This document is a submission of the IETF MIP6 WG. Comments should be
directed to the IPv6 WG mailing list, mip6@ietf.org. directed to the IPv6 WG mailing list, mip6@ietf.org.
Abstract Abstract
This draft discusses the issues associated with mobility management This draft discusses the issues associated with mobility management
for dual stack mobile nodes. Currently, two mobility management for dual stack mobile nodes. Currently, two mobility management
protocols are defined for IPv4 and IPv6. Deploying both in a dual protocols are defined for IPv4 and IPv6. Deploying both in a dual
stack mobile node introduces a number of inefficiencies. Deployment stack mobile node introduces a number of inefficiencies. Deployment
and operational issues motivate the use of a single mobility and operational issues motivate the use of a single mobility
management protocol. This draft discusses such motivations. The draft management protocol. This draft discusses such motivations. The draft
skipping to change at page 2, line 35 skipping to change at page 2, line 38
be IPv6-capable. be IPv6-capable.
2. Introduction and motivation 2. Introduction and motivation
A MIPv4-capable node can use Mobile IPv4 [MIPv4] to maintain A MIPv4-capable node can use Mobile IPv4 [MIPv4] to maintain
connectivity while moving between IPv4 subnets. Similarly, a MIPv6- connectivity while moving between IPv4 subnets. Similarly, a MIPv6-
capable node can use Mobile IPv6 [MIPv6] to maintain connectivity capable node can use Mobile IPv6 [MIPv6] to maintain connectivity
while moving between IPv6 subnets. while moving between IPv6 subnets.
One of the ways of migrating to IPv6 is to deploy nodes that are both One of the ways of migrating to IPv6 is to deploy nodes that are both
IPv4 and IPv6 capable. Such nodes will be able to get both IPv4 and IPv4 and IPv6 capable. Such nodes will be able to get both IPv4 and
IPv6 addresses and thus can communicate with the current IPv4 IPv6 addresses and thus can communicate with the current IPv4
Internet as well as any IPv6 nodes and networks as they become Internet as well as any IPv6 nodes and networks as they become
available. available.
A node that is both IPv4 and IPv6 capable can use Mobile IPv4 for its A node that is both IPv4 and IPv6 capable can use Mobile IPv4 for its
IPv4 stack and Mobile IPv6 for its IPv6 stack so that it can move IPv4 stack and Mobile IPv6 for its IPv6 stack so that it can move
between IPv4 and IPv6 subnets. While this is possible, it is also between IPv4 and IPv6 subnets. While this is possible, it is also
clearly inefficient since it requires: clearly inefficient since it requires:
- Mobile nodes to be both MIPv4 and MIPv6 capable. - Mobile nodes to be both MIPv4 and MIPv6 capable.
- Mobile nodes to send two sets of signaling messages on every - Mobile nodes to send two sets of signaling messages on every
handoff. handoff.
- Network Administrators to run and maintain two sets of mobility - Network Administrators to run and maintain two sets of mobility
management systems on the same network. Each of these systems management systems on the same network. Each of these systems
requiring their own sets of optimizations that may include any of requiring their own sets of optimizations that may include
the following mechanisms, [FMIPv6], [HMIPv6] and [FMIPv4]. hierarchical Mobile IPv4, hierarchical Mobile IPv6 and Fast
Handoffs for Mobile IPv4, mechanisms that are currently in
development in the IETF.
This draft discusses the potential inefficiencies, IP connectivity This draft discusses the potential inefficiencies, IP connectivity
problems, and operational issues that are evident when running both problems, and operational issues that are evident when running both
mobility management protocols simultaneously. It also proposes a work mobility management protocols simultaneously. It also proposes a work
area to be taken up by the IETF on the subject and hints on a area to be taken up by the IETF on the subject and hints on a
possible direction for appropriate solutions. possible direction for appropriate solutions.
3.0 Problem description 3.0 Problem description
Mobile IP (v4 and v6) uses a signaling protocol (Registration Mobile IP (v4 and v6) uses a signaling protocol (Registration
requests in [MIPv4] and Binding updates in [MIPv6]) to set up tunnels requests in [MIPv4] and Binding updates in [MIPv6]) to set up tunnels
between two end points. At the moment Mobile IP signaling is tightly between two end points. At the moment Mobile IP signaling is tightly
coupled with the "address family (i.e., IPv4 or IPv6)" used in the coupled with the "address family (i.e., IPv4 or IPv6)" used in the
connections it attempts to manipulate. There are no fundamental connections it attempts to manipulate. There are no fundamental
technical reasons for such coupling. If Mobile IP were viewed as a technical reasons for such coupling. If Mobile IP were viewed as a
tunnel setup protocol, it should be able to setup IP in IP tunnels, tunnel setup protocol, it should be able to setup IP in IP tunnels,
independently of the IP version used in the outer and inner headers. independently of the IP version used in the outer and inner headers.
Other protocols, for example SIP, are able to use either IPv4 or IPv6 Other protocols, for example SIP, are able to use either IPv4 or IPv6
based signaling plane to manipulate IPv4 and IPv6 connections. based signaling plane to manipulate IPv4 and IPv6 connections.
A node that is both MIPv4 and MIPv6 capable, will require the A node that is both MIPv4 and MIPv6 capable, will require the
following to roam within the Internet: following to roam within the Internet:
- The network operator needs to ensure that the home agent supports - The network operator needs to ensure that the home agent supports
both protocols or that it has two separate Home Agents supporting both protocols or that it has two separate Home Agents supporting
the two protocols, each requiring its own management. the two protocols, each requiring its own management.
- Double the amount of configuration in the mobile node and the home - Double the amount of configuration in the mobile node and the home
agent (e.g., security associations).
agent (e.g., security associations).
- Local network optimizations for handovers will also need to be - Local network optimizations for handovers will also need to be
duplicated. duplicated.
We argue that all of the above will hinder the deployment of Mobile We argue that all of the above will hinder the deployment of Mobile
IPv6 as well as any dual stack solution in a mobile environment. We IPv6 as well as any dual stack solution in a mobile environment. We
will discuss some of the issues with the current approach separately will discuss some of the issues with the current approach separately
in the following sections. in the following sections.
3.1. Implementation burdens 3.1. Implementation burdens
skipping to change at page 4, line 5 skipping to change at page 4, line 6
support both protocols in either mobile nodes or home agents. support both protocols in either mobile nodes or home agents.
Although this is more of a commercial issue, it does affect the Although this is more of a commercial issue, it does affect the
large-scale deployment of mobile devices on the Internet. large-scale deployment of mobile devices on the Internet.
3.2. Operational burdens 3.2. Operational burdens
As mentioned earlier, deploying both protocols will require managing As mentioned earlier, deploying both protocols will require managing
both protocols in the mobile node and the home agent. This adds both protocols in the mobile node and the home agent. This adds
significant operational issues for the network operator. It would significant operational issues for the network operator. It would
certainly require the network operator to have deep knowledge in both certainly require the network operator to have deep knowledge in both
protocols, which is something an operator may not be able to justify
protocols which is something an operator may not be able to justify
due to the lack of substantial gains. due to the lack of substantial gains.
In addition, deploying both protocols will require duplication of In addition, deploying both protocols will require duplication of
security credentials on mobile nodes and home agents. This includes, security credentials on mobile nodes and home agents. This includes,
IPsec security associations, keying material, and new authentication IPsec security associations, keying material, and new authentication
protocols for Mobile IPv6, in addition to the security credentials protocols for Mobile IPv6, in addition to the security credentials
and associations required by Mobile IPv4. Such duplication is again and associations required by Mobile IPv4. Such duplication is again
significant with no gain to the operator or the mobile node. significant with no gain to the operator or the mobile node.
3.3. Mobility management inefficiencies 3.3. Mobility management inefficiencies
skipping to change at page 4, line 18 skipping to change at page 4, line 20
security credentials on mobile nodes and home agents. This includes, security credentials on mobile nodes and home agents. This includes,
IPsec security associations, keying material, and new authentication IPsec security associations, keying material, and new authentication
protocols for Mobile IPv6, in addition to the security credentials protocols for Mobile IPv6, in addition to the security credentials
and associations required by Mobile IPv4. Such duplication is again and associations required by Mobile IPv4. Such duplication is again
significant with no gain to the operator or the mobile node. significant with no gain to the operator or the mobile node.
3.3. Mobility management inefficiencies 3.3. Mobility management inefficiencies
Suppose that a mobile node is moving within a dual stack access Suppose that a mobile node is moving within a dual stack access
network. Every time the mobile node moves it needs to send two mobile network. Every time the mobile node moves it needs to send two mobile
IP messages to its home agent to allow its IPv4 and IPv6 connections IP messages to its home agent to allow its IPv4 and IPv6 connections
to survive. There is no reason for such duplication. If local to survive. There is no reason for such duplication. If local
mobility optimizations were deployed (e.g. HMIPv6) Fast handovers or mobility optimizations were deployed (e.g., hierarchical Mobile IP,
local MIPv4 HA), the mobile node will need to update the local agents Fast handovers or local MIPv4 HA), the mobile node will need to
running each protocol. Ironically, one local agent might be running update the local agents running each protocol. Ironically, one local
both HMIPv6 and local MIPv4 home agent. Clearly, it is not desirable agent might be running both HMIPv6 and local MIPv4 home agent.
to have to send two messages and complete two sets of transactions Clearly, it is not desirable to have to send two messages and
for the same fundamental optimization. complete two sets of transactions for the same fundamental
optimization.
Hence, such parallel operation of Mobile IPv4 and Mobile IPv6 will Hence, such parallel operation of Mobile IPv4 and Mobile IPv6 will
complicate mobility management within the Internet and increase the complicate mobility management within the Internet and increase the
amount of bandwidth needed at the critical handover time for no amount of bandwidth needed at the critical handover time for no
apparent gain. apparent gain.
3.4. The impossibility of maintaining IP connectivity 3.4. The impossibility of maintaining IP connectivity
A final point to consider is that even if a mobile node is both MIPv4 A final point to consider is that even if a mobile node is both MIPv4
and MIPv6 capable, connectivity across different networks would not and MIPv6 capable, connectivity across different networks would not
in fact be guaranteed since that also depends on the IPv4/IPv6 in fact be guaranteed since that also depends on the IPv4/IPv6
capabilities of the networks the mobile is visiting; i.e., a node capabilities of the networks the mobile is visiting; i.e., a node
attempting to connect via a IPv4 only network would not be able to attempting to connect via a IPv4 only network would not be able to
maintain connectivity of its IPv6 applications and vice versa. This maintain connectivity of its IPv6 applications and vice versa. This
is potentially the most serious problem discussed in this document. is potentially the most serious problem discussed in this document.
4. Conclusion and recommendations 4. Conclusion and recommendations
The points above highlight the tight coupling in both Mobile IPv4 and The points above highlight the tight coupling in both Mobile IPv4 and
skipping to change at page 5, line 45 skipping to change at page 5, line 46
addressing the transition scenarios that a mobile node is likely to addressing the transition scenarios that a mobile node is likely to
face when roaming within the Internet. face when roaming within the Internet.
Further work in this area, possibly independent of Mobile IP, may Further work in this area, possibly independent of Mobile IP, may
also be of interest to some parties in which case it should be dealt also be of interest to some parties in which case it should be dealt
with separately from the incremental Mobile IP based changes. with separately from the incremental Mobile IP based changes.
5. Authors Addresses 5. Authors Addresses
George Tsirtsis George Tsirtsis
Flarion Technologies Qualcomm Flarion Technologies
Phone: +1908 947 7059 Phone: +1908 947 7059
E-Mail: G.Tsirtsis@Flarion.com E-Mail: Tsirtsis@Qualcomm.com
E-Mail2: tsirtsisg@yahoo.com E-Mail2: tsirtsisg@yahoo.com
Hesham Soliman Hesham Soliman
Flarion Technologies Qualcomm Flarion Technologies
Phone: +1 908 997 9775 Phone: +1 908 997 9775
E-mail: H.Soliman@Flarion.com E-mail: HSoliman@Qualcomm.com
6. References 6. References
[KEYWORDS] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [KEYWORDS] 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.
[FMIPv6] Koodli, R. (Editor), " Fast Handovers for Mobile IPv6",
RFC 4068, July 2005.
[HMIPv6] Soliman, H., Castelluccia, C., ElMalki, K. and L.
Bellier, "Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 Mobility Management
(HMIPv6)", RFC 4140, August 2005.
[MIPv4] Perkins, C., "IP Mobility Support for IPv4", RFC 3344, [MIPv4] Perkins, C., "IP Mobility Support for IPv4", RFC 3344,
August 2002. August 2002.
[MIPv6] Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Generic Packet Tunneling in [MIPv6] Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Generic Packet Tunneling in
IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, December 1998. IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, December 1998.
[SIIT] Nordmark, E., "Stateless IP/ICMP Translator (SIIT)", RFC [SIIT] Nordmark, E., "Stateless IP/ICMP Translator (SIIT)", RFC
2765, February 2000. 2765, February 2000.
Intellectual Property Statement Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in IETF Documents can on the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in IETF Documents can
be found in RFC 3667 (BCP 78) and RFC 3668 (BCP 79). be found in RFC 3667 (BCP 78) and RFC 3668 (BCP 79).
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr. http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf- this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ipr@ietf.org. ipr@ietf.org.
Full Copyright Statement Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
Disclaimer of Validity Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
This Internet-Draft expires April, 2006. This Internet-Draft expires January, 2007.
 End of changes. 35 change blocks. 
29 lines changed or deleted 43 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.32. The latest version is available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/