GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc6279

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Liebsch, Ed. Request for Comments: 6279 NEC Category: Informational S. Jeong ISSN: 2070-1721 ETRI

                                                                 Q. Wu
                                                                Huawei
                                                             June 2011
   Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) Localized Routing Problem Statement

Abstract

 Proxy Mobile IPv6 is the IETF Standard for network-based mobility
 management.  In Proxy Mobile IPv6, mobile nodes are topologically
 anchored at a Local Mobility Anchor, which forwards all data for
 registered mobile nodes.  The setup and maintenance of localized
 routing, which allows forwarding of data packets between two mobile
 nodes' Mobility Access Gateways without involvement of their Local
 Mobility Anchor in forwarding, is not considered.  This document
 describes the problem space of localized routing in Proxy Mobile
 IPv6.

Status of This Memo

 This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
 published for informational purposes.
 This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
 (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
 received public review and has been approved for publication by the
 Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Not all documents
 approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
 Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
 Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
 and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
 http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6279.

Liebsch, et al. Informational [Page 1] RFC 6279 PMIPv6 Localized Routing PS June 2011

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
 document authors.  All rights reserved.
 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
 publication of this document.  Please review these documents
 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. Conventions and Terminology .....................................3
 3. Problem Statement for Localized Routing in PMIPv6 ...............4
    3.1. General Observation ........................................4
    3.2. Use Cases Analysis .........................................5
    3.3. IPv4 Considerations ........................................8
         3.3.1. Localized Routing for Communication between
                IPv4 Home Addresses .................................8
         3.3.2. IPv4 Transport Network Considerations ...............9
 4. Functional Requirements for Localized Routing ...................9
 5. Roaming Considerations .........................................10
 6. Security Considerations ........................................11
 7. Acknowledgments ................................................12
 8. References .....................................................13
    8.1. Normative References ......................................13
    8.2. Informative References ....................................13

1. Introduction

 The IETF has specified Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) [RFC5213] as the
 base protocol for network-based localized mobility management
 (NetLMM).  The scope of the base protocol covers the setup and
 maintenance of a tunnel between a Mobile Node's (MN's) Mobile Access
 Gateway (MAG) and its selected Local Mobility Anchor (LMA).  Data
 packets will always traverse the MN's MAG and its LMA, irrespective
 of the location of the MN's remote communication endpoint.  Even
 though an MN may be attached to the same MAG or a different MAG as
 its Correspondent Node (CN) within the same provider domain, packets
 being associated with their communication will traverse the MN's and
 the CN's LMA, which can be located topologically far away from the
 MN's and the CN's MAG or even in a separate provider domain.

Liebsch, et al. Informational [Page 2] RFC 6279 PMIPv6 Localized Routing PS June 2011

 [RFC5213] addresses the need to enable local routing of traffic
 between two nodes being attached to the same MAG, but does not
 specify the complete procedure to establish such localized routing
 state on the shared MAG.
 The NetLMM Extensions (NetExt) Working Group has an objective to
 design a solution for localized routing in PMIPv6.  This objective
 includes the specification of protocol messages and associated
 protocol operation between PMIPv6 components to support the setup of
 a direct routing path for data packets between the MN's and the CN's
 MAG, while both hosts receive mobility service according to the
 PMIPv6 protocol [RFC5213].  As a result of localized routing, these
 packets will be forwarded between the two associated MAGs without
 traversing the MN's and the CN's LMA(s).  In cases where one or both
 nodes hand over to a different MAG, the localized routing protocol
 maintains the localized routing path.  Relevant protocol interfaces
 may include the interface between associated MAGs, between a MAG and
 an LMA, and between LMAs.  The setup of localized routing with CNs
 not registered with a PMIPv6 network is out of scope of the NetExt
 solution and this problem statement.
 This document analyzes and discusses the problem space of always
 using the default route through two communicating mobile nodes' local
 mobility anchors.  Furthermore, the problem space of enabling
 localized routing in PMIPv6 is analyzed and described, while
 different communication and mobility scenarios are taken into
 account.  Based on the analysis, a list of key functional
 requirements is provided, serving as input to the design of the
 protocol solution.

2. Conventions and Terminology

 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
 This document uses the terminology of [RFC5213].  In addition, the
 following terms are used in the context of this problem statement:
 o  Mobile Node (MN): Mobile Node without IP mobility support, which
    is attached to a Mobile Access Gateway (MAG) and registered with a
    Local Mobility Anchor (LMA) according to the PMIPv6 specification
    [RFC5213].

Liebsch, et al. Informational [Page 3] RFC 6279 PMIPv6 Localized Routing PS June 2011

 o  Correspondent Node (CN): Correspondent Node according to its
    definition in [RFC3775] with or without IP mobility support.  The
    CN represents the communication peer of an MN that is attached to
    a MAG and registered with an LMA according to the PMIPv6
    specification.
 o  Localized Routing: Result of signaling to set up routing states on
    relevant network entities to allow forwarding of data packets
    between an MN and a CN, which are attached to MAGs sharing the
    same provider domain, without intervention of the MN's LMA and the
    CN's LMA in data forwarding.
 o  Localized Routing States: Information for localized routing on
    relevant forwarding entities on the optimized data path between an
    MN and a CN.  Such information includes route entries and tunnel
    endpoints and may include further information about the MN and the
    CN, such as the communicating nodes' Mobile Node Identifier and
    their assigned Home Network Prefix.
 o  Provider Domain: A network domain in which network components are
    administered by a single authority, e.g., the mobile operator.

3. Problem Statement for Localized Routing in PMIPv6

3.1. General Observation

 The Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6) protocol [RFC3775] has built-in mechanisms
 for direct communication between an MN and a CN.  Mechanisms for
 route optimization in MIPv6 cannot be directly applied in PMIPv6.
 Following the paradigm of PMIPv6, MNs are not involved in mobility
 signaling and hence cannot perform signaling to set up localized
 routes.  Instead, the solution for localized routing must consider
 functions in the network to find out whether or not a localized route
 is to be used and then control the setup and maintenance of localized
 routing states accordingly without any assistance from the MN and the
 CN.  In the case of communication between two nodes attached to the
 PMIPv6 network infrastructure and where each node is registered with
 an LMA, data packets between these two nodes will always traverse the
 responsible LMA(s).  At least some deployments would benefit from
 having such communication localized, rather than having packets
 traverse the core network to the LMA(s).  In the context of this
 document, such localized communication comprises offloading traffic
 from LMAs and establishing an optimized forwarding path between the
 two communication endpoints.
 Localized routing is understood in [RFC5213] as optimization of
 traffic between an MN and a CN that are attached to an access link
 connected to the same MAG.  In such a case, the MAG forwards traffic

Liebsch, et al. Informational [Page 4] RFC 6279 PMIPv6 Localized Routing PS June 2011

 directly between the MN and the CN, assuming the MAG is enabled to
 support this feature (setting of the EnableMAGLocalRouting flag on
 the MAG) and the MN's LMA enforces this optimization.  [RFC5213] does
 not specify how an LMA can enforce optimization for such local
 communication.  Maintaining local forwarding between the MN and the
 regular IPv6 CN gets more complex in the case where the MN performs a
 handover to a different MAG.  Such a use case is not considered in
 the specification and is out of scope of this problem statement.
 This document focuses on use cases where both nodes, the MN and the
 CN, are within a PMIPv6 network and served by an LMA in a domain of
 LMAs.
 With localized routing, operators have the possibility of offloading
 traffic from LMAs and from the core network.  Establishment of a
 direct path between the MN's and the CN's MAG can be beneficial for
 the following reasons: First, by limiting the communication to the
 access nodes, the data traffic traversing the MAG - LMA path
 (network) can be reduced.  This is significant, considering that the
 transport network between the access and the core is often the
 bottleneck in terms of costs and performance.  Second, there may be
 performance benefits for data flows between the MN and the CN in
 terms of delay and packet loss, especially when the MN and the CN are
 attached to the same MAG and the LMA is topologically far away from
 that MAG.  Even when the MN and the CN are attached to different
 MAGs, there could be benefit in limiting the communication to the
 access network only, rather than traversing the transport network to
 the LMA.  Furthermore, offloading traffic from the LMA by means of
 localized routing can improve scalability of the LMA, as it
 represents a bottleneck for traffic being forwarded by many MAGs.

3.2. Use Cases Analysis

 This problem statement focuses on local communication between PMIPv6
 managed nodes, which attach to MAGs sharing the same provider domain.
 The following list analyzes different use cases, which consider the
 existence of multiple LMAs.  Figure 1 depicts a PMIPv6-based network
 with two mobility anchors.  According to [RFC5213], the MN moves in
 the PMIPv6 domain being built by its LMA and MAG.  The same applies
 to the CN, which moves in the PMIPv6 domain built by the CN's LMA and
 MAG.  The analysis takes no assumption on whether the MN and the CN
 share the same PMIPv6 domain or not.

Liebsch, et al. Informational [Page 5] RFC 6279 PMIPv6 Localized Routing PS June 2011

                            Internet Backbone
                           :                  :
                           +------------------+
                           |                  |
                        +----+              +----+
                        |LMA1|              |LMA2|
                        +----+              +----+
                           |                  |
                           |                  |
                      +----+------------------+----+
                      |                            |
                   +----+                       +----+
                   |MAG1|                       |MAG2|
                   +----+                       +----+
                   :    :                          :
                 +---+ +---+                     +---+
                 |MN | |CN1|                     |CN2|
                 +---+ +---+                     +---+
   Figure 1: Reference Architecture for Localized Routing in PMIPv6
 All "A" use cases below assume that both the MN and the CN are
 registered with an LMA according to the PMIPv6 protocol.  Whereas
 MAG1 is always considered as the MN's current Proxy Care-of Address,
 the CN can be either connected to the same MAG or to a different MAG
 or LMA as the MN.  Accordingly, these topological differences are
 denoted as follows:
 A[number of MAGs][number of LMAs]
 A11: The MN and the CN (CN1) connect to the same MAG (MAG1) and are
    registered with the same LMA (LMA).  The common MAG may forward
    data packets between the MN and the CN directly without forwarding
    any packet to the LMA.  [RFC5213] addresses this use case, but
    does not specify the complete procedure to establish such
    localized routing state on the shared MAG.
 A12: The MN and the CN (CN1) connect to the same MAG (MAG1) and are
    registered with different LMAs (LMA1 and LMA2).  The common MAG
    may forward data packets between the MN and the CN directly
    without forwarding any packet to the LMAs.  Following the policy
    of [RFC5213] and enforcement of the setup of a localized
    forwarding path, potential problems exist in the case where LMA1
    and LMA2 differ in their policy to control the MAG.
 A21: The CN (CN2) connects to a different MAG (MAG2) than the MN
    (MAG1), but the MN and the CN are registered with the same LMA
    (LMA1).  The result of localized routing should be the existence

Liebsch, et al. Informational [Page 6] RFC 6279 PMIPv6 Localized Routing PS June 2011

    of routing information at MAG1 and MAG2, which allows direct
    forwarding of packets between the MN's MAG1 and the CN's MAG2.  As
    LMA1 is the common anchor for the MN and the CN and maintains
    location information for both nodes, no major race condition and
    instability in updating the states for localized routing is
    expected.
 A22: The CN (CN2) connects to a different MAG (MAG2) and a different
    LMA (LMA2) than the MN (MAG1, LMA1).  The result of localized
    routing should be the existence of routing information at MAG1 and
    MAG2, which allows direct forwarding of packets between the MN's
    MAG1 and the CN's MAG2.  As the location information of the CN and
    the MN is maintained at different LMAs, both LMAs need to be
    involved in the procedure to set up localized routing.  In the
    case of a handover of the MN and/or the CN to a different MAG,
    non-synchronized control of updating the states for localized
    routing may result in race conditions, superfluous signaling, and
    packet loss.
 The following list summarizes general problems with setting up and
 maintaining localized routing between an MN and a CN.  In the context
 of this problem statement, the MN and the CN are always assumed to be
 registered at an LMA according to the PMIPv6 protocol [RFC5213].
 o  MNs do not participate in mobility management and hence cannot
    perform binding registration at a CN on their own.  Rather,
    entities in the network infrastructure must take over the role of
    MNs to set up and maintain a direct route.  Accordingly, a
    solution for localized routing in PMIPv6 must specify protocol
    operation between relevant network components, such as between a
    MAG and an LMA, to enable localized routing for data traffic
    without traversing the MN's and the CN's LMA(s).
 o  In the case where the MN and the CN are both registered with
    different LMAs according to the PMIPv6 protocol, relevant
    information for the setup of a localized routing path, such as the
    current MAG of the MN and the CN, is distributed between these
    LMAs.  This may complicate the setup and stable maintenance of
    states enabling localized routing.
 o  In the case where localized routing between an MN and a CN has
    been successfully set up and both nodes move and attach to a new
    access router simultaneously, signaling the new location and
    maintenance of states for localized routing at relevant routers
    may run into a race condition situation.  This can happen in the
    case where coordination of signaling for localized routing and
    provisioning of relevant state information is distributed between
    different network entities, e.g., different LMAs.  In such a case,

Liebsch, et al. Informational [Page 7] RFC 6279 PMIPv6 Localized Routing PS June 2011

    as a result of the MN's handover, updated information about the
    MN's location may arrive at the CN's previous MAG, while the CN
    has already moved to a new MAG.  The same applies to the other
    direction, where the system may update the MN's previous MAG about
    the CN's new location, while the MN has moved to a new MAG in the
    meantime.  The protocol solution must deal with such exceptional
    handover cases efficiently to avoid or resolve such problems.

3.3. IPv4 Considerations

 According to [RFC5844], the basic configuration requirements for
 supporting IPv4 in PMIPv6 are that LMAs and MAGs are both IPv4 and
 IPv6 enabled.  Also, LMAs and MAGs must have a globally unique IPv6
 address configured, irrespective of enabled support for IPv6 routing
 between these components.  This requirement should also apply to
 configuration requirements of localized routing.
 Additional issues emerge when localized routing is considered for
 PMIPv6 with IPv4 support.  These can be classified into two general
 groups: issues with localized routing between an MN's and a CN's IPv4
 Home Addresses, and transport plane issues.  The following
 subsections analyze these two groups.

3.3.1. Localized Routing for Communication between IPv4 Home Addresses

 In the case where an LMA and a MAG hold a registration to support
 IPv4 Home Address mobility for an MN, the MAG and the LMA must
 support appropriate encapsulation of IPv4 packets.  To enable
 localized routing, the MN's MAG must encapsulate and forward routing
 path optimized packets to the CN's MAG and needs to ensure that the
 chosen encapsulation mode is supported by the correspondent MAG.
 Incompatibility in a selected encapsulation mode causes failure in
 setting up a localized route.
 When localized routing is used for IPv4 traffic, the conceptual data
 structures on associated MAGs must be augmented with appropriate
 parameters for forwarding localized traffic.  MAGs may need to
 maintain a routing state for each MN-CN-pair and make routing
 decisions for uplink traffic based on the packet's complete IPv4
 source and destination address.  Hence, conceptual data structures to
 handle states for localized routes need to comprise this address
 tuple for unique identification.

Liebsch, et al. Informational [Page 8] RFC 6279 PMIPv6 Localized Routing PS June 2011

 As a known constraint, IPv4 addresses of two nodes that hold
 addresses from a private address space may overlap.  To uniquely
 identify both nodes, the IPv4 address of the MN and the CN must not
 overlap.  To cope with overlapping address spaces, the localized
 routing solution could use additional mechanisms to tag and uniquely
 identify the MN and the CN.

3.3.2. IPv4 Transport Network Considerations

 The transport network between the LMA and the MAG may be based on
 IPv6 or IPv4.  Deployments may ensure that the same transport
 mechanism (i.e., IPv6 or IPv4) is used for operational consistency.
 Similar to the encapsulation requirement stated in the previous
 section, the IP version used for localized routing is also assumed,
 by configuration, to be consistent across all MAGs within the
 associated provider domain.  The design of optional mechanisms for
 negotiating the IP version to use as well as the encapsulation mode
 to use are outside the scope of the NetExt WG's solution for
 localized routing.

4. Functional Requirements for Localized Routing

 Several tasks need to be performed by the network infrastructure
 components before relevant information for such direct communication
 is discovered and associated states for localized routing can be set
 up.  The following list summarizes some key functions that need to be
 performed by the PMIPv6-enabled network infrastructure to substitute
 mobile nodes in setting up a direct route.
 o  Detection of the possibility to perform localized routing.  This
    function includes looking at a data packet's source and
    destination address.
 o  Initiation of a procedure that sets up a localized routing path.
 o  Discovery of stateful entities (i.e., the LMA(s) and/or the
    MAG(s)) that maintain and can provide relevant information needed
    to set up a localized routing path.  Such information may include
    the routable address of an LMA or MAG, where one or both mobile
    nodes are connected to and registered with that LMA or MAG.
 o  Control in setting up and maintaining (e.g., during handover) the
    localized routing path.  Control is also needed to terminate the
    use of a localized routing path and to delete associated states,
    whereas a trigger for the termination may come from a non-PMIPv6-
    related component.

Liebsch, et al. Informational [Page 9] RFC 6279 PMIPv6 Localized Routing PS June 2011

 o  Enforcement of administrative policy rules to localized routing.
    Such policies allow operators to have further control of the setup
    of a localized route and enable the possibility to disallow
    localized routing, for example, to ensure that traffic traverses
    charging-related functions on the LMA.  Explicit authorization of
    localized routing is, for example, discussed in [PMIP6-LR].  As a
    further example, mobile-node- and operator-specific policy rules
    can be established on PMIPv6 components during PMIPv6
    bootstrapping according to [RFC5779].

5. Roaming Considerations

 Figure 2 shows PMIPv6 roaming cases where PMIPv6 components (e.g.,
 LMAs, MAGs) tied by the MN and the CN may be distributed between
 different provider domains (i.e., domain A, B, C) and the MN and/or
 CN moves from one provider domain to another one.  In order to
 support localized routing when roaming occurs, it is required that
 MAGs to which the MN and CN connect be within the same provider
 domain, and each MAG has a security relationship with the
 corresponding LMA, which maintains the registration of the MN or the
 CN, respectively.
 According to the roaming model as depicted in Figure 2, the MN's
 PMIPv6 domain is characterized by its MAG (MAG1/MAG1') and its LMA
 (LMA1), whereas the CN's PMIPv6 domain is characterized by the CN's
 MAG (MAG2/MAG2') and its LMA (LMA2/LMA2').  A solution for localized
 routing cannot take any assumption about whether or not the MN and CN
 share the same PMIPv6 domain; hence, MAG1/MAG1' may not share a
 security association with LMA2/LMA2', and MAG2/MAG2' may not share a
 security association with LMA1, respectively.
 It is not required that LMAs, which hold the registration for the MN
 and the CN, respectively, be part of the same provider domain as the
 MAGs where the MN and CN attach.  When the MN's MAG and LMA belong to
 different provider domains (A and C), localized routing is subject to
 policy governing the service level agreements between these domains.
 The same applies to the provider domains that provide the CN's MAG
 and LMA.  Based on the above requirements, four PMIPv6 roaming and
 non-roaming cases can be taken into account.
 o  Case 1: The MN's MAG (MAG1), the CN's MAG (MAG2), the MN's LMA
    (LMA1), and the CN's LMA (LMA2) are located in the same provider
    domain A.
 o  Case 2: The MN's MAG (MAG1), the CN's MAG (MAG2), and the MN's LMA
    (LMA1) are located in the same domain A, while the CN's LMA
    (LMA2') is located in provider domain B.

Liebsch, et al. Informational [Page 10] RFC 6279 PMIPv6 Localized Routing PS June 2011

 o  Case 3: The MN's MAG (MAG1') and the CN's MAG (MAG2') are located
    in domain C, while the MN's LMA (LMA1) and the CN's LMA (LMA2) are
    located in provider domain A.
 o  Case 4: The MN's MAG (MAG1') and the CN's MAG (MAG2') are located
    in provider domain C, while the MN's LMA (LMA1) is located in
    provider domain A and the CN's LMA (LMA2') is located in provider
    domain B.
 In these roaming cases, the MN can be allowed to roam within its
 domain (e.g., the MN's home domain in which the MN's LMA is located)
 or over different domains (e.g., the MN moves from its home domain to
 a visited domain).  During mobility, the CN and MN should remain
 attached to MAGs of the same provider domain to maintain efficient
 routing of traffic between their MAGs.
                                   |
         +-----+       +-----+     |      +-----+
         |LMA1 |       |LMA2 |     |      |LMA2'|
         +-----+       +-----+     |      +-----+
                                   |
                                   |
                                   |
                                   |
         +-----+       +-----+     |
         |MAG1 |       |MAG2 |     |
         +-----+       +-----+     |
                                   |
                                   |
                Provider Domain A  |  Provider Domain B
     ------------------------------+-------------------------------
                           Provider Domain C
                        +-----+        +-----+
                        |MAG1'|        |MAG2'|
                        +-----+        +-----+
    Figure 2: PMIPv6 Roaming Cases Considered for Localized Routing

6. Security Considerations

 A protocol solution for localized routing in a PMIPv6 network must
 counter unauthorized change of a routing path.  In particular, the
 control plane for localized routing must preclude the blocking or
 hijacking of mobile nodes' traffic by malicious or compromised
 network components.  A security solution must support suitable
 mechanisms for authentication of control plane components of the
 localized routing functional architecture for both roaming and

Liebsch, et al. Informational [Page 11] RFC 6279 PMIPv6 Localized Routing PS June 2011

 non-roaming scenarios.  Any possibility for Internet hosts to
 interfere with the localized routing procedure in a malicious manner
 must be precluded.
 Since network entities other than MNs and CNs perform signaling to
 set up localized routing, the MIPv6 return routability test [RFC3775]
 is not suitable to authenticate associated signaling messages in
 PMIPv6.  Solutions for localized routing in PMIPv6 need to mitigate,
 or to provide sufficient defense against, possible security threats.
 When PMIPv6 participants are administered within the same domain,
 infrastructure-based authorization mechanisms, such as IPsec, may be
 usable to protect signaling for localized routing.
 Existing security associations according to [RFC5213] can be re-used
 to protect signaling for localized routing on the interface between a
 MAG and an LMA.  In the case where a protocol solution for localized
 routing in PMIPv6 relies on protocol operation between MAGs, means
 for protection of signaling between these MAGs must be provided.  The
 same applies for signaling on a possible protocol interface between
 two LMAs of the same domain.

7. Acknowledgments

 Many aspects of the problem space for route optimization in PMIPv6
 have been discussed in the context of a PMIPv6 Route Optimization
 Design Goals document, which was submitted to the NetLMM WG in
 November 2007.  This group of contributors includes Sangjin Jeong,
 Christian Vogt, Ryuji Wakikawa, Marco Liebsch, Behcet Sarikaya,
 Shinta Sugimoto, Long Le, Alice Qinxia, and Jaehwoon Lee.  Many
 thanks to Rajeev Koodli for his comments about the structure and
 scope of this problem statement for the NetExt WG.
 This problem statement reflects the results of the discussion in the
 NetExt group.  Many thanks to Hidetoshi Yokota, Carlos Bernardos,
 Ashutosh Dutta, Sri Gundavelli, Mohana Jeyatharan, Jouni Korhonen,
 Glen Zorn, Dirk von Hugo, Frank Xia, Xiangsong Cui, and Basavaraj
 Patil for their comments and support to improve the quality of the
 problem statement.

Liebsch, et al. Informational [Page 12] RFC 6279 PMIPv6 Localized Routing PS June 2011

8. References

8.1. Normative References

 [RFC2119]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
             Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
 [RFC5213]   Gundavelli, S., Ed., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V.,
             Chowdhury, K., and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6",
             RFC 5213, August 2008.
 [RFC5844]   Wakikawa, R. and S. Gundavelli, "IPv4 Support for Proxy
             Mobile IPv6", RFC 5844, May 2010.

8.2. Informative References

 [PMIP6-LR]  Zorn, G., Wu, Q., Liebsch, M., and J. Korhonen, "Diameter
             Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6 Localized Routing", Work
             in Progress, May 2011.
 [RFC3775]   Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support
             in IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004.
 [RFC5779]   Korhonen, J., Ed., Bournelle, J., Chowdhury, K., Muhanna,
             A., and U. Meyer, "Diameter Proxy Mobile IPv6: Mobile
             Access Gateway and Local Mobility Anchor Interaction with
             Diameter Server", RFC 5779, February 2010.

Liebsch, et al. Informational [Page 13] RFC 6279 PMIPv6 Localized Routing PS June 2011

Authors' Addresses

 Marco Liebsch (editor)
 NEC Laboratories Europe
 NEC Europe Ltd.
 Kurfuersten-Anlage 36
 69115 Heidelberg
 Germany
 Phone: +49 6221 4342146
 EMail: liebsch@neclab.eu
 Sangjin Jeong
 ETRI
 218 Gajeongno, Yuseong
 Daejeon  305-700
 Korea
 Phone: +82 42 860 1877
 EMail: sjjeong@etri.re.kr
 Qin Wu
 Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
 101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
 Nanjing  210012
 China
 Phone: +86 25 56623633
 EMail: sunseawq@huawei.com

Liebsch, et al. Informational [Page 14]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc6279.txt · Last modified: 2011/06/22 01:40 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki