[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02

DMM Working Group                                                 Z. Yan
Internet-Draft                                                   G. Geng
Intended status: Standards Track                                   CNNIC
Expires: May 2, 2018                                              J. Lee
                                                    Sangmyung University
                                                                 H. Chan
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                        October 29, 2017


         Mobility Capability Negotiation and Protocol Selection
                          draft-yan-dmm-man-02

Abstract

   The draft analyzes the issue that multiple mobility management
   protocols have been developed according to different requirements.
   These different protocols have different functional requirements on
   the network element or the host.  A scheme is then proposed to
   support the negotiation and selection of adopted mobility management
   protocol when a host accesses a new network.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   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 https://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 May 2, 2018.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 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
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents



Yan, et al.                Expires May 2, 2018                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                   MCN-PS                     October 2017


   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Motivations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Possible Cases  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Principles and Possible Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   5.  Extensions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12

1.  Introduction

   A large number of multiple protocols have been developed.  In order
   to clearly analyze the possible cases, these mobility management
   protocols can be categorized as follows:

   o  Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6) protocol: the mobility management scheme based
      on [RFC6275].
   o  Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) protocol: the mobility management
      scheme based on [RFC5213].
   o  MIPv6 suite protocols: based on MIPv6, there are multiple
      extension protocols have been standardized.  These protocols can
      be classified into two types: protocols for functional extension
      and protocols for performance enhancement.  The protocols for
      functional extension are proposed to support some specific
      scenarios or functions, such as Dual-stack Mobile IPv6 (DSMIPv6)
      [RFC5555] for mobility of the dual-stack nodes, Multiple Care-of-
      address (MCoA) [RFC5648] for hosts with multiple access interfaces
      and Network Mobility (NEMO) [RFC3963] for mobility of sub-network.
      The other type is proposed to enhance performance of the mobility
      management, such as Fast Mobile IPv6 (FMIP6) [RFC5268] for fast
      handover, Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 (HMIPv6) [RFC5380] for
      hierarchical mobility optimization.  In the MIPv6 suite protocols,
      location update is initiated by the host and the tunnel is also
      terminated at the host.
   o  PMIPv6 suite protocols: in order to reduce the protocol cost and
      enhance the handover performance further, the network-based
      mobility management protocols were proposed and PMIPv6 was



Yan, et al.                Expires May 2, 2018                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                   MCN-PS                     October 2017


      standardized as a base protocol.  Based on PMIPv6, a series of its
      extensions were proposed, such as Dual-stack Proxy Mobile IPv6
      (DS-PMIPv6) [RFC5844], and Distributed Mobility Management Proxy
      Mobile IPv6 (DMM-PMIPv6) [RFC7333].  Being different from the
      MIPv6 suite protocols, the location update in PMIPv6 suite
      protocols is triggered by the network entity and the tunnel is
      established between network entities.  Then the host needs to do
      nothing about signaling exchange during the movement,
      particularly, the mobility support is transparent to the IP layer
      of the host.
   o  Network-based protocols: generally, they refer to the mobility
      management protocols which do not require the involvement of the
      host to support mobility.  They include the PMIPv6 suite protocols
      and other network-based solutions, such as GPRS Tunnelling
      Protocol (GTP) [TS.29274][TS.29281].
   o  Host-based protocols: generally, they refer to the mobility
      management protocols which require the involvement of the host in
      order to support mobility.  They include the MIPv6 suite protocols
      and other host-based solutions, such as Host Identity Protocol
      (HIP) [RFC7401] and IKEv2 Mobility and Multihoming Protocol
      (MOBIKE) [RFC4555].

   Figure 1 illustrates the scopes of the above different categories.

       +----------------+        +----------------+
       | Network-based  |        | Host-based     |
       |+--------------+|        |+--------------+|
       ||PMIPv6 suite  ||        ||MIPv6 suite   ||
       ||+------------+||        ||+------------+||
       |||PMIPv6      |||        |||MIPv6       |||
       ||+------------+||        ||+------------+||
       |+--------------+|        |+--------------+|
       +----------------+        +----------------+


             Figure 1: Scopes of different protocol categories

   In deployment, the host-based protocols and network-based protocols
   will be co-existing and multiple protocol deamons will be configured
   on the network entities or host.  There is then a gap in how to
   determine which protocol to use.  A scheme is therefore needed to
   support the negotiation and selection of mobility management protocol
   when the host initially attaches or hands over to a new network
   [Paper-CombiningMobilityStandards].

   This document tries to present the principles for the protocol
   selection and analyze the possible scenarios which should be
   supported by the subsequent mobility solution.



Yan, et al.                Expires May 2, 2018                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                   MCN-PS                     October 2017


2.  Motivations

   As illustrated above, these protocols may co-exist in practice and
   may simultaneously be used in an access network or even the same
   entity.  Due to their different requirements on the network entity or
   host, a scheme is needed to support the negotiation and selection of
   adopted mobility management protocol when the host accesses to a new
   network.  Generally, two problems should be solved:

   o  What principles should be followed for the protocol negotiation
      and selection?
   o  What procedure should be adopted for the protocol negotiation and
      selection?

   This scheme is needed because the network entity and the host may
   have different capabilities and preferences (may be decided by the
   capability and mobility pattern of the host).  This scheme aims to
   guarantee that the optimum and most suitable protocol will be used.

3.  Possible Cases

   From both host and network aspects, there are multiple cases in their
   capacities of mobility management as shown in Figure 2.  We mainly
   analyze the cases where that host and network support a single
   protocol.  If multiple protocols are supported simultaneously by the
   host or network side, multiple cases exist at the same time but the
   logic is the same as that in the case with single protocol supported.
   Specifically, the following cases should be considered.

   1) Network supports network-based protocol, host supports network-
   based protocol

   In this case, there are the following sub-cases:

   a) Host supports PMIPv6 suite protocol, Network supports PMIPv6 suite
   protocol

   o  if host supports PMIPv6 and network supports PMIPv6, PMIPv6 will
      be selected.
   o  if host supports PMIPv6 and network supports extended PMIPv6
      protocol, extended PMIPv6 is selected if no host involvement is
      needed, otherwise the plain PMIPv6 is selected (we assume that the
      extension protocols are backward-compatible with the related plain
      protocol).
   o  if host supports extended PMIPv6 protocol and network supports
      PMIPv6, PMIPv6 is selected (we assume that the extension protocols
      are backward-compatible with the related plain protocol).




Yan, et al.                Expires May 2, 2018                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                   MCN-PS                     October 2017


   o  if host supports extended PMIPv6 protocol and network supports
      extended PMIPv6 protocol, the identical extension protocol is
      selected, otherwise, the plain PMIPv6 is selected (we assume that
      the extension protocols are backward-compatible with the related
      plain protocol).

       +----------------+-------------+--------------------------------+
       |                |             |PMIPv6                          |
       |                |             |-------------------+------------+
       | Network-based  | PMIPv6 suite|                   | DS-PMIPv6  |
       |                |             |                   +------------+
       |                |             |PMIPv6 extensions  | FPMIPv6    |
       |                |             |                   +------------+
       |                |             |                   | DMM-PMIPv6 |
       |                |             |                   +------------+
       |                |             |                   | ...        |
       |                |-------------+-------------------+------------+
       |                | Others      |GTP                             |
       |                |             |--------------------------------+
       |                |             |...                             |
       +----------------+-------------+--------------------------------+
       |                |             |MIPv6                           |
       |                |             |-------------------+------------+
       | Host-based     | MIPv6 suite |                   | DS-MIPv6   |
       |                |             |                   +------------+
       |                |             |                   | FMIPv6     |
       |                |             |                   +------------+
       |                |             |MIPv6 extensions   | HMIPv6     |
       |                |             |                   +------------+
       |                |             |                   | NEMO       |
       |                |             |                   +------------+
       |                |             |                   | DMM-MIPv6  |
       |                |             |                   +------------+
       |                |             |                   | ...        |
       |                |-------------+-------------------+------------+
       |                | Others      |HIP                             |
       |                |             |--------------------------------+
       |                |             |MOBIKE                          |
       |                |             |--------------------------------+
       |                |             |...                             |
       +----------------+-------------+--------------------------------+

     Figure 2: Possible capacities of mobility support by the host and
                                  network

   b) Host supports PMIPv6 suite protocol, Network supports other
   network-based protocol




Yan, et al.                Expires May 2, 2018                  [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                   MCN-PS                     October 2017


   o  if host supports PMIPv6 and network supports other network-based
      protocol, other network-based protocol is selected if no host
      involvement is needed, otherwise failure.
   o  if host supports extended PMIPv6 protocol and network supports
      other network-based protocol, other network-based protocol is
      selected if no host involvement is needed, otherwise failure.

   c) Host supports other network-based protocol, Network supports
   PMIPv6 suite protocol

   o  if host supports other network-based protocol and network supports
      PMIPv6, PMIPv6 is selected.
   o  if host supports other network-based protocol and network supports
      extended PMIPv6 protocol, extended PMIPv6 protocol is selected if
      no host involvement is needed, otherwise failure.

   d) Host supports other network-based protocol, Network supports other
   network-based protocol

   o  the identical protocol is selected, otherwise follow network
      ability if the protocols are different.

   2) Network supports network-based protocol, host supports host-based
   protocol

   In this case, there are the following sub-cases:

   a) Host supports PMIPv6 suite protocol, Network supports MIPv6 suite
   protocol

   o  if host supports PMIPv6 and network supports MIPv6, failure.
   o  if host supports PMIPv6 and network supports extended MIPv6
      protocol, failure.
   o  if host supports extended PMIPv6 protocol and network supports
      MIPv6, failure.
   o  if host supports extended PMIPv6 protocol and network supports
      extended MIPv6 protocols, failure.

   b) Host supports PMIPv6 suite protocol, Network supports other host-
   based protocol

   o  if host supports PMIPv6 and network supports other host-based
      protocol, failure.
   o  if host supports extended PMIPv6 protocol and network supports
      other host-based protocol, failure.

   c) Host supports other network-based protocol, Network supports MIPv6
   suite protocol



Yan, et al.                Expires May 2, 2018                  [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                   MCN-PS                     October 2017


   o  if host supports other network-based protocol and network supports
      MIPv6, failure.
   o  if host supports other network-based protocol and network supports
      extended MIPv6 protocol, failure.

   d) Host supports other network-based protocol, Network supports other
   host-based protocol

   o  failure.

   3) Network supports host-based protocol, host supports network-based
   protocol

   In this case, there are the following sub-cases:

   a) Host supports MIPv6 suite protocol, Network supports PMIPv6 suite
   protocol

   o  if host supports MIPv6 and network supports PMIPv6, PMIPv6 is
      selected in default and MIPv6 is selected if host prefers it.
   o  if host supports MIPv6 and network supports extended PMIPv6
      protocol, extended PMIPv6 is selected in default, then PMIPv6 is
      selected with the lower priority and MIPv6 is selected if host
      prefers it.
   o  if host supports extended MIPv6 protocol and network supports
      PMIPv6, PMIPv6 will be selected in default, then extended MIPv6 is
      selected if host prefers it and network also supports, otherwise
      MIPv6 is selected with the lowest priority.
   o  if host supports extended MIPv6 protocol and network supports
      extended PMIPv6 protocol, extended PMIPv6 is selected in default,
      then PMIPv6 is selected, then extended MIPv6 is selected if host
      prefers and network also supports, otherwise MIPv6 is selected
      with the lowest priority.

   b) Host supports MIPv6 suite protocol, Network supports other
   network-based protocol

   o  if host supports MIPv6 and network supports other network-based
      protocol, other network-based protocol is selected if no host
      involvement is needed, otherwise failure.
   o  if host supports extended MIPv6 protocol and network supports
      other network-based protocol, other network-based protocol is
      selected if no host involvement is needed, otherwise failure.

   c) Host supports other host-based protocol, Network supports PMIPv6
   suite protocol





Yan, et al.                Expires May 2, 2018                  [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                   MCN-PS                     October 2017


   o  if host supports other host-based protocol and network supports
      PMIPv6, PMIPv6 is selected in default, otherwise failure.
   o  if host supports other host-based protocol and network supports
      extended PMIPv6 protocol, extended PMIPv6 protocol is selected if
      no host involvement is needed, otherwise failure.

   d) Host supports other host-based protocol, Network supports other
   network-based protocol

   o  other network-based protocol is selected if no host involvement is
      needed, otherwise failure.

   4) Network supports host-based protocol, host supports host-based
   protocol

   In this case, there are the following sub-cases:

   a) Host supports MIPv6 suite protocol, Network supports MIPv6 suite
   protocol

   o  if host supports MIPv6 and network supports MIPv6, MIPv6 is
      selected.
   o  if host supports MIPv6 and network supports extended MIPv6
      protocol, MIPv6 is selected.
   o  if host supports extended MIPv6 protocol and network supports
      MIPv6, MIPv6 is selected.
   o  if host supports extended MIPv6 protocol and network supports
      extended MIPv6 protocols, the identical protocol is selected,
      otherwise MIPv6 is selected.

   b) Host supports MIPv6 suite protocol, Network supports other host-
   based protocol

   o  if host supports MIPv6 and network supports other host-based
      protocol, failure.
   o  if host supports extended MIPv6 protocol and network supports
      other host-based protocol, failure.

   c) Host supports other host-based protocol, Network supports MIPv6
   suite protocol

   o  if host supports other host-based protocol and network supports
      MIPv6, failure.
   o  if host supports other host-based protocol and network supports
      extended MIPv6 protocol, failure.

   d) Host supports other host-based protocol, Network supports other
   host-based protocol



Yan, et al.                Expires May 2, 2018                  [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                   MCN-PS                     October 2017


   o  the identical other host-based protocol is selected, otherwise
      failure.

   5) Network supports host-based protocol and network-based protocol,
   host supports host-based protocol and network-based protocol

   o  follow the network based protocol in default if the host can
      support, otherwise select the protocol both network and host can
      support if host prefers.

4.  Principles and Possible Procedure

   Two different schemes may be used for the protocol negotiation and
   selection: host-initiated and network-initiated.  Within the MIP/PMIP
   protocols, the priority of the function-extension protocols should be
   higher than the performance-enhancement protocols.  Generally, the
   following principles should be followed:

   o  Priority 1: Follow network ability
   o  Priority 2: Follow host preference
   o  Priority 3: Support the functional extensions
   o  Priority 4: Support the performance enhancements
   o  In default: network based scheme if it can be supported

   And the general procedure for the protocol selection should be:

   o  During initiation, network-based protocol may be used as a default
      mobility management protocol once the network supports it.
   o  If the host prefers host-based protocols, a negotiation is
      executed to handover from network-based protocol to host-based
      protocol.
   o  After initial attachment, a profile will be generated in the
      management store to record the selected or preferred protocol of
      this host.
   o  When the handover happens, the network will check the selected or
      preferred protocol during the authentication process.  But the
      network also needs to notify the host if the selected protocol
      cannot be supported herein.

5.  Extensions

   In order to fulfill the above principles, some extensions should be
   supported, for example:

   1) Extended negotiation messages

   The protocol negotiation may be included in the MN_ATTACH Function
   [MN-AR.IF] and the implementation may be based on a new signaling



Yan, et al.                Expires May 2, 2018                  [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                   MCN-PS                     October 2017


   message or extended messages (e.g., ICMPv6, Diameter, and RADIUS).
   Besides these, some other protocols may also be used in some
   specified scenarios, such as extended IEEE 802.21 primitives.

   2) Extended management store

   When the host accesses the network, authentication should be executed
   before the mobility management service is provided.  In order to
   support the mobility management protocol selection, a new information
   should be recorded by the network after the successful authentication
   during the initial attachment.  The newly introduced information
   shows the selected mobility management protocol and should be updated
   when the used protocol changes.

6.  Security Considerations

   Generally, this function will not incur additional security issues.
   The detailed influence should be analyzed in the future.

7.  IANA Considerations

   A new ICMP option or authentication option or other signaling message
   may be used with a new code number.

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [MN-AR.IF]
              Laganier, J., Narayanan, S., and P. McCann, "Interface
              between a Proxy MIPv6 Mobility Access Gateway and a Mobile
              Node",  draft-ietf-netlmm-mn-ar-if-03, February 2008.

   [RFC3963]  Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., and P.
              Thubert, "Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol",
              RFC 3963, DOI 10.17487/RFC3963, January 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3963>.

   [RFC4555]  Eronen, P., "IKEv2 Mobility and Multihoming Protocol
              (MOBIKE)", RFC 4555, DOI 10.17487/RFC4555, June 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4555>.

   [RFC5213]  Gundavelli, S., Ed., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V.,
              Chowdhury, K., and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6",
              RFC 5213, DOI 10.17487/RFC5213, August 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5213>.





Yan, et al.                Expires May 2, 2018                 [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                   MCN-PS                     October 2017


   [RFC5268]  Koodli, R., Ed., "Mobile IPv6 Fast Handovers", RFC 5268,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5268, June 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5268>.

   [RFC5380]  Soliman, H., Castelluccia, C., ElMalki, K., and L.
              Bellier, "Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 (HMIPv6) Mobility
              Management", RFC 5380, DOI 10.17487/RFC5380, October 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5380>.

   [RFC5555]  Soliman, H., Ed., "Mobile IPv6 Support for Dual Stack
              Hosts and Routers", RFC 5555, DOI 10.17487/RFC5555, June
              2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5555>.

   [RFC5648]  Wakikawa, R., Ed., Devarapalli, V., Tsirtsis, G., Ernst,
              T., and K. Nagami, "Multiple Care-of Addresses
              Registration", RFC 5648, DOI 10.17487/RFC5648, October
              2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5648>.

   [RFC5844]  Wakikawa, R. and S. Gundavelli, "IPv4 Support for Proxy
              Mobile IPv6", RFC 5844, DOI 10.17487/RFC5844, May 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5844>.

   [RFC6275]  Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility
              Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, DOI 10.17487/RFC6275, July
              2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6275>.

   [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,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7333>.

   [RFC7401]  Moskowitz, R., Ed., Heer, T., Jokela, P., and T.
              Henderson, "Host Identity Protocol Version 2 (HIPv2)",
              RFC 7401, DOI 10.17487/RFC7401, April 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7401>.

   [TS.29274]
              "3GPP Evolved Packet System (EPS); Evolved General Packet
              Radio Service (GPRS) Tunnelling Protocol for Control plane
              (GTPv2-C); Stage 3",  3GPP TS 29.274 8.10.0, June 2011.

   [TS.29281]
              "General Packet Radio System (GPRS) Tunnelling Protocol
              User Plane (GTPv1-U)",  3GPP TS 29.281 10.3.0, September
              2011.






Yan, et al.                Expires May 2, 2018                 [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                   MCN-PS                     October 2017


8.2.  Informative References

   [Paper-CombiningMobilityStandards]
              Oliva, A., Soto, I., Calderon, M., Bernardos, C., and M.
              Sanchez, "The costs and benefits of combining different IP
              mobility standards",  Computer Standards and Interfaces,
              February 2013.

Authors' Addresses

   Zhiwei Yan
   CNNIC
   No.4 South 4th Street, Zhongguancun
   Beijing  100190
   China

   Email: yan@cnnic.cn


   Guanggang Geng
   CNNIC
   No.4 South 4th Street, Zhongguancun
   Beijing  100190
   China

   Email: ggg@cnnic.cn


   Jong-Hyouk Lee
   Sangmyung University
   31, Sangmyeongdae-gil, Dongnam-gu
   Cheonan
   Republic of Korea

   Email: jonghyouk@smu.ac.kr


   H. Anthony Chan
   Huawei Technologies
   5340 Legacy Dr. Building 3
   Plano, TX 75024
   USA

   Email: h.a.chan@ieee.org







Yan, et al.                Expires May 2, 2018                 [Page 12]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.126, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/