GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc7333

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) H. Chan, Ed. Request for Comments: 7333 Huawei Technologies Category: Informational D. Liu ISSN: 2070-1721 China Mobile

                                                              P. Seite
                                                                Orange
                                                             H. Yokota
                                                            Landis+Gyr
                                                           J. Korhonen
                                               Broadcom Communications
                                                           August 2014
          Requirements for Distributed Mobility Management

Abstract

 This document defines the requirements for Distributed Mobility
 Management (DMM) at the network layer.  The hierarchical structure in
 traditional wireless networks has led primarily to centrally deployed
 mobility anchors.  As some wireless networks are evolving away from
 the hierarchical structure, it can be useful to have a distributed
 model for mobility management in which traffic does not need to
 traverse centrally deployed mobility anchors far from the optimal
 route.  The motivation and the problems addressed by each requirement
 are also described.

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/rfc7333.

Chan, et al. Informational [Page 1] RFC 7333 DMM-Reqs August 2014

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (c) 2014 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 Used in This Document ...............................4
    2.1. Requirements Language ......................................4
    2.2. Terminology ................................................4
 3. Centralized versus Distributed Mobility Management ..............5
    3.1. Centralized Mobility Management ............................6
    3.2. Distributed Mobility Management ............................7
 4. Problem Statement ...............................................8
 5. Requirements ...................................................10
 6. Security Considerations ........................................16
 7. Contributors ...................................................17
 8. References .....................................................20
    8.1. Normative References ......................................20
    8.2. Informative References ....................................21

1. Introduction

 In the past decade, a fair number of network-layer mobility protocols
 have been standardized [RFC6275] [RFC5944] [RFC5380] [RFC6301]
 [RFC5213].  Although these protocols differ in terms of functions and
 associated message formats, they all employ a mobility anchor to
 allow a mobile node to remain reachable after it has moved to a
 different network.  Among other tasks that the anchor point performs,
 the anchor point ensures connectivity by forwarding packets destined
 to, or sent from, the mobile node.  It is a centrally deployed
 mobility anchor in the sense that the deployed architectures today
 have a small number of these anchors and the traffic of millions of
 mobile nodes in an operator network is typically managed by the same
 anchor.  Such a mobility anchor may still have to reside in the
 subscriber's provider network even when the subscriber is roaming to

Chan, et al. Informational [Page 2] RFC 7333 DMM-Reqs August 2014

 a visited network, in order that certain functions such as charging
 and billing can be performed more readily by the provider's network.
 An example provider network is a Third Generation Partnership Project
 (3GPP) network.
 Distributed mobility management (DMM) is an alternative to the above-
 mentioned centralized deployment.  The background behind the interest
 in studying DMM is primarily as follows.
 (1)  More than ever, mobile users are consuming Internet content,
      including that of local Content Delivery Networks (CDNs).  Such
      traffic imposes new requirements on mobile core networks for
      data traffic delivery.  To prevent exceeding the available core
      network capacity, service providers need to implement new
      strategies such as selective IPv4 traffic offload (e.g.,
      [RFC6909], 3GPP Local IP Access (LIPA) and Selected IP Traffic
      Offload (SIPTO) work items [TS.23.401]) through alternative
      access networks such as Wireless Local Area Networks (WLANs)
      [MOB-DATA-OFFLOAD].  In addition, a gateway selection mechanism
      takes user proximity into account within the Evolved Packet Core
      (EPC) [TS.29.303].  However, these mechanisms were not pursued
      in the past, owing to charging and billing considerations that
      require solutions beyond the mobility protocol.  Consequently,
      assigning a gateway anchor node from a visited network when
      roaming to the visited network has only recently been done and
      is limited to voice services.
      Both traffic offloading and CDN mechanisms could benefit from
      the development of mobile architectures with fewer hierarchical
      levels introduced into the data path by the mobility management
      system.  This trend of "flattening" the mobile networks works
      best for direct communications among peers in the same
      geographical area.  Distributed mobility management in the
      flattening mobile networks would anchor the traffic closer to
      the point of attachment of the user.
 (2)  Today's mobile networks present service providers with new
      challenges.  Mobility patterns indicate that mobile nodes often
      remain attached to the same point of attachment for considerable
      periods of time [LOCATING-USER].  Specific IP mobility
      management support is not required for applications that launch
      and complete their sessions while the mobile node is connected
      to the same point of attachment.  However, IP mobility support
      is currently designed for always-on operation, maintaining all
      parameters of the context for each mobile subscriber for as long
      as they are connected to the network.  This can result in a
      waste of resources and unnecessary costs for the service
      provider.  Infrequent node mobility coupled with application

Chan, et al. Informational [Page 3] RFC 7333 DMM-Reqs August 2014

      intelligence suggest that mobility support could be provided
      selectively, e.g., as described in [DHCPv6-CLASS-BASED-PREFIX]
      and [IPv6-PREFIX-PROPERTIES], thus reducing the amount of
      context maintained in the network.
 DMM may distribute the mobility anchors in the data plane in
 flattening the mobility network such that the mobility anchors are
 positioned closer to the user; ideally, mobility agents could be
 collocated with the first-hop router.  Facilitated by the
 distribution of mobility anchors, it may be possible to selectively
 use or not use mobility protocol support, depending on whether such
 support is needed or not.  DMM can thus reduce the amount of state
 information that must be maintained in various mobility agents of the
 mobile network and can then avoid the unnecessary establishment of
 mechanisms to forward traffic from an old mobility anchor to a new
 mobility anchor.
 This document compares distributed mobility management with
 centralized mobility management in Section 3.  The problems that can
 be addressed with DMM are summarized in Section 4.  The mandatory
 requirements as well as the optional requirements for network-layer
 distributed mobility management are given in Section 5.  Security
 considerations are mentioned in Section 6.
 The problem statement and use cases [DMM-SCENARIO] can be found in
 [DIST-MOB-REVIEW].

2. Conventions Used in This Document

2.1. Requirements Language

 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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

2.2. Terminology

 All of the general mobility-related terms, and their acronyms as used
 in this document, are to be interpreted as defined in the Mobile IPv6
 base specification [RFC6275], the Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6)
 specification [RFC5213], and "Mobility Related Terminology"
 [RFC3753].  These terms include the following: mobile node (MN),
 correspondent node (CN), and home agent (HA) as per [RFC6275]; local
 mobility anchor (LMA) and mobile access gateway (MAG) as per
 [RFC5213]; and context as per [RFC3753].

Chan, et al. Informational [Page 4] RFC 7333 DMM-Reqs August 2014

 In addition, this document introduces the following terms:
 Centrally deployed mobility anchors
    refers to the mobility management deployments in which there are
    very few mobility anchors and the traffic of millions of mobile
    nodes in an operator network is managed by the same anchor.
 Centralized mobility management
    makes use of centrally deployed mobility anchors.
 Distributed mobility management
    is not centralized, so that traffic does not need to traverse
    centrally deployed mobility anchors far from the optimal route.
 Hierarchical mobile network
    has a hierarchy of network elements arranged into multiple
    hierarchical levels that are introduced into the data path by the
    mobility management system.
 Flattening mobile network
    refers to the hierarchical mobile network that is going through
    the trend of reducing its number of hierarchical levels.
 Flatter mobile network
    has fewer hierarchical levels compared to a hierarchical mobile
    network.
 Mobility context
    is the collection of information required to provide mobility
    management support for a given mobile node.

3. Centralized versus Distributed Mobility Management

 Mobility management is needed because the IP address of a mobile node
 may change as the node moves.  Mobility management functions may be
 implemented at different layers of the protocol stack.  At the IP
 (network) layer, mobility management can be client-based or
 network-based.

Chan, et al. Informational [Page 5] RFC 7333 DMM-Reqs August 2014

 An IP-layer mobility management protocol is typically based on the
 principle of distinguishing between a session identifier and a
 forwarding address and maintaining a mapping between the two.  In
 Mobile IP, the new IP address of the mobile node after the node has
 moved is the forwarding address, whereas the original IP address
 before the mobile node moves serves as the session identifier.  The
 location management (LM) information is kept by associating the
 forwarding address with the session identifier.  Packets addressed to
 the session identifier will first route to the original network,
 which redirects them using the forwarding address to deliver to the
 session.  Redirecting packets this way can result in long routes.  An
 existing optimization routes directly, using the forwarding address
 of the host, and as such is a host-based solution.
 The next two subsections explain centralized and distributed mobility
 management functions in the network.

3.1. Centralized Mobility Management

 In centralized mobility management, the location information in terms
 of a mapping between the session identifier and the forwarding
 address is kept at a single mobility anchor, and packets destined to
 the session identifier are forwarded via this anchor.  In other
 words, such mobility management systems are centralized in both the
 control plane and the data plane (mobile node IP traffic).
 Many existing mobility management deployments make use of centralized
 mobility anchoring in a hierarchical network architecture, as shown
 in Figure 1.  Examples are the home agent (HA) and local mobility
 anchor (LMA) serving as the anchors for the mobile node (MN) and
 mobile access gateway (MAG) in Mobile IPv6 [RFC6275] and in Proxy
 Mobile IPv6 [RFC5213], respectively.  Cellular networks, such as 3GPP
 General Packet Radio System (GPRS) networks and 3GPP Evolved Packet
 System (EPS) networks, also employ centralized mobility management.
 In the 3GPP GPRS network, the Gateway GPRS Support Node (GGSN),
 Serving GPRS Support Node (SGSN), and Radio Network Controller (RNC)
 constitute a hierarchy of anchors.  In the 3GPP EPS network, the
 Packet Data Network Gateway (P-GW) and Serving Gateway (S-GW)
 constitute another hierarchy of anchors.

Chan, et al. Informational [Page 6] RFC 7333 DMM-Reqs August 2014

      3GPP GPRS                3GPP EPS                MIP/PMIP
       +------+                +------+                +------+
       | GGSN |                | P-GW |                |HA/LMA|
       +------+                +------+                +------+
          /\                      /\                      /\
         /  \                    /  \                    /  \
        /    \                  /    \                  /    \
       /      \                /      \                /      \
      /        \              /        \              /        \
     /          \            /          \            /          \
    /            \          /            \          /            \
+------+      +------+  +------+      +------+  +------+      +------+
| SGSN |      | SGSN |  | S-GW |      | S-GW |  |MN/MAG|      |MN/MAG|
+------+      +------+  +------+      +------+  +------+      +------+
   /\            /\
  /  \          /  \
 /    \        /    \

+—+ +—+ +—+ +—+

RNC RNC RNC RNC

+—+ +—+ +—+ +—+

               Figure 1: Centralized Mobility Management

3.2. Distributed Mobility Management

 Mobility management functions may also be distributed in the data
 plane to multiple networks as shown in Figure 2, so that a mobile
 node in any of these networks may be served by a nearby function with
 appropriate forwarding management (FM) capability.
                 +------+  +------+  +------+  +------+
                 |  FM  |  |  FM  |  |  FM  |  |  FM  |
                 +------+  +------+  +------+  +------+
                                        |
                                      +----+
                                      | MN |
                                      +----+
               Figure 2: Distributed Mobility Management
 DMM is distributed in the data plane, whereas the control plane may
 be either centralized or distributed [DMM-SCENARIO].  The former case
 implicitly assumes separation of data and control planes as described
 in [PMIP-CP-UP-SPLIT].  While mobility management can be distributed,
 it is not necessary for other functions such as subscription
 management, subscription databases, and network access authentication
 to be similarly distributed.

Chan, et al. Informational [Page 7] RFC 7333 DMM-Reqs August 2014

 A distributed mobility management scheme for a flattening mobile
 network consisting of access nodes is proposed in [DIST-DYNAMIC-MOB].
 Its benefits over centralized mobility management have been shown
 through simulations [DIST-CENTRAL-MOB].  Moreover, the (re)use and
 extension of existing protocols in the design of both fully
 distributed mobility management [MIGRATING-HAs] [DIST-MOB-SAE] and
 partially distributed mobility management [DIST-MOB-PMIP]
 [DIST-MOB-MIP] have been reported in the literature.  Therefore,
 before designing new mobility management protocols for a future
 distributed architecture, it is recommended to first consider whether
 existing mobility management protocols can be extended.

4. Problem Statement

 The problems that can be addressed with DMM are summarized as
 follows:
 PS1:  Non-optimal routes
       Forwarding via a centralized anchor often results in
       non-optimal routes, thereby increasing the end-to-end delay.
       The problem is manifested, for example, when accessing a nearby
       server or servers of a Content Delivery Network (CDN), or when
       receiving locally available IP multicast packets or sending IP
       multicast packets.  (Existing route optimization is only a
       host-based solution.  On the other hand, localized routing with
       PMIPv6 [RFC6705] addresses only a part of the problem where
       both the MN and the correspondent node (CN) are attached to the
       same MAG, and it is not applicable when the CN does not behave
       like an MN.)
 PS2:  Divergence from other evolutionary trends in network
       architectures such as distribution of content delivery
       Mobile networks have generally been evolving towards a flatter
       and flatter network.  Centralized mobility management, which is
       non-optimal with a flatter network architecture, does not
       support this evolution.

Chan, et al. Informational [Page 8] RFC 7333 DMM-Reqs August 2014

 PS3:  Lack of scalability of centralized tunnel management and
       mobility context maintenance
       Setting up tunnels through a central anchor and maintaining
       mobility context for each MN usually requires more concentrated
       resources in a centralized design, thus reducing scalability.
       Distributing the tunnel maintenance function and the mobility
       context maintenance function among different network entities
       with proper signaling protocol design can avoid increasing the
       concentrated resources with an increasing number of MNs.
 PS4:  Single point of failure and attack
       Centralized anchoring designs may be more vulnerable to a
       single point of failure and attacks than a distributed system.
       The impact of a successful attack on a system with centralized
       mobility management can be far greater as well.
 PS5:  Unnecessary mobility support to clients that do not need it
       IP mobility support is usually provided to all MNs.  However,
       it is not always required, and not every parameter of mobility
       context is always used.  For example, some applications or
       nodes do not need a stable IP address during a handover to
       maintain session continuity.  Sometimes, the entire application
       session runs while the MN does not change the point of
       attachment.  Besides, some sessions, e.g., SIP-based sessions,
       can handle mobility at the application layer and hence do not
       need IP mobility support; it is then unnecessary to provide IP
       mobility support for such sessions.
 PS6:  Mobility signaling overhead with peer-to-peer communication
       Resources may be wasted when mobility signaling (e.g.,
       maintenance of the tunnel, keep-alive signaling, etc.) is not
       turned off for peer-to-peer communication.
 PS7:  Deployment with multiple mobility solutions
       There are already many variants and extensions of MIP as well
       as mobility solutions at other layers.  Deployment of new
       mobility management solutions can be challenging, and debugging
       difficult, when they coexist with solutions already deployed in
       the field.

Chan, et al. Informational [Page 9] RFC 7333 DMM-Reqs August 2014

 PS8:  Duplicate multicast traffic
       IP multicast distribution over architectures using IP mobility
       solutions (e.g., [RFC6224]) may lead to convergence of
       duplicated multicast subscriptions towards the downstream
       tunnel entity (e.g., MAG in PMIPv6).  Concretely, when
       multicast subscription for individual mobile nodes is coupled
       with mobility tunnels (e.g., a PMIPv6 tunnel), duplicate
       multicast subscription(s) is prone to be received through
       different upstream paths.  This problem may also exist or be
       more severe in a distributed mobility environment.

5. Requirements

 Now that distributed mobility management has been compared with
 centralized deployment (Section 3) and the problems have been
 described (Section 4), this section identifies the following
 requirements:
 REQ1:  Distributed mobility management
        IP mobility, network access solutions, and forwarding
        solutions provided by DMM MUST enable traffic to avoid
        traversing a single mobility anchor far from the optimal
        route.
        This requirement on distribution applies to the data plane
        only.  It does not impose constraints on whether the control
        plane should be distributed or centralized.  However, if the
        control plane is centralized while the data plane is
        distributed, it is implied that the control plane and data
        plane need to separate (Section 3.2).
        Motivation: This requirement is motivated by current trends in
        network evolution: (a) it is cost- and resource-effective to
        cache contents, and the caching (e.g., CDN) servers are
        distributed so that each user in any location can be close to
        one of the servers; (b) the significantly larger number of
        mobile nodes and flows call for improved scalability; (c)
        single points of failure are avoided in a distributed system;
        and (d) threats against centrally deployed anchors, e.g., a
        home agent and a local mobility anchor, are mitigated in a
        distributed system.
        This requirement addresses the problems PS1, PS2, PS3, and PS4
        described in Section 4.

Chan, et al. Informational [Page 10] RFC 7333 DMM-Reqs August 2014

 REQ2:  Bypassable network-layer mobility support for each application
        session
        DMM solutions MUST enable network-layer mobility, but it MUST
        be possible for any individual active application session
        (flow) to not use it.  Mobility support is needed, for
        example, when a mobile host moves and an application cannot
        cope with a change in the IP address.  Mobility support is
        also needed when a mobile router changes its IP address as it
        moves together with a host and, in the presence of ingress
        filtering, an application in the host is interrupted.
        However, mobility support at the network layer is not always
        needed; a mobile node can often be stationary, and mobility
        support can also be provided at other layers.  It is then not
        always necessary to maintain a stable IP address or prefix for
        an active application session.
        Different active sessions can also differ in whether network-
        layer mobility support is needed.  IP mobility, network access
        solutions, and forwarding solutions provided by DMM MUST then
        provide the possibility of independent handling for each
        application session of a user or mobile device.
        The handling of mobility management to the granularity of an
        individual session of a user/device SHOULD need proper session
        identification in addition to user/device identification.
        Motivation: The motivation of this requirement is to enable
        more efficient forwarding and more efficient use of network
        resources by selecting an IP address or prefix according to
        whether mobility support is needed and by not maintaining
        context at the mobility anchor when there is no such need.
        This requirement addresses the problems PS5 and PS6 described
        in Section 4.
 REQ3:  IPv6 deployment
        DMM solutions SHOULD target IPv6 as the primary deployment
        environment and SHOULD NOT be tailored specifically to support
        IPv4, particularly in situations where private IPv4 addresses
        and/or NATs are used.
        Motivation: This requirement conforms to the general
        orientation of IETF work.  DMM deployment is foreseen as "on
        the mid- to long-term horizon", when IPv6 is expected to be
        far more common than today.

Chan, et al. Informational [Page 11] RFC 7333 DMM-Reqs August 2014

        This requirement avoids the unnecessarily complex solution of
        trying to provide the same level of functionality to both IPv4
        and IPv6.  Some of the IPv6-specific features are not
        available for IPv4.
 REQ4:  Existing mobility protocols
        A DMM solution MUST first consider reusing and extending IETF
        standard protocols before specifying new protocols.
        Motivation: Reuse of existing IETF work is more efficient and
        less error-prone.
        This requirement attempts to avoid the need for development of
        new protocols and therefore their potential for being time-
        consuming and error-prone.
 REQ5:  Coexistence with deployed networks/hosts and operability
        across different networks
        A DMM solution may require loose, tight, or no integration
        into existing mobility protocols and host IP stacks.
        Regardless of the integration level, DMM implementations MUST
        be able to coexist with existing network deployments, end
        hosts, and routers that may or may not implement existing
        mobility protocols.  Furthermore, a DMM solution SHOULD work
        across different networks, possibly operated as separate
        administrative domains, when the needed mobility management
        signaling, forwarding, and network access are allowed by the
        trust relationship between them.
        Motivation: to (a) preserve backwards compatibility so that
        existing networks and hosts are not affected and continue to
        function as usual, and (b) enable inter-domain operation if
        desired.
        This requirement addresses the problem PS7 described in
        Section 4.

Chan, et al. Informational [Page 12] RFC 7333 DMM-Reqs August 2014

 REQ6:  Operation and management considerations
        A DMM solution needs to consider configuring a device,
        monitoring the current operational state of a device, and
        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)  the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) [RFC1157],
             with definitions of standardized management information
             base (MIB) objects for DMM that allow the monitoring of
             traffic steering in a consistent manner across different
             devices
        (b)  the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) [RFC6241],
             with definitions of standardized YANG [RFC6020] modules
             for DMM to achieve a standardized configuration
        (c)  syslog [RFC5424], which is a one-way protocol allowing a
             device to report significant events to a log analyzer in
             a network management system
        (d)  the 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 this requirements document to impose
        which management protocol(s) should be used.  An inventory of
        the management protocols and data models is covered in
        [RFC6632].
        The following paragraphs list the operation and management
        considerations required for a DMM solution; this list of
        considerations may not be exhaustive and may be expanded
        according to the needs of the solutions:
        A DMM solution MUST describe how, and in what types of
        environments, it can be scalably deployed and managed.
        A DMM solution MUST support mechanisms to test whether 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,

Chan, et al. Informational [Page 13] RFC 7333 DMM-Reqs August 2014

        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 a 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 a 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
        [RFC5424].
        A DMM solution MUST provide fault management and monitoring
        mechanisms to manage situations where an 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 the 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 an indication of DMM performance, such as
             (1)  handover delay, which includes the time necessary to
                  reestablish the forwarding path when the point of
                  attachment changes

Chan, et al. Informational [Page 14] RFC 7333 DMM-Reqs August 2014

             (2)  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 encapsulation method used, and its overhead
             (4)  the security used at the 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 definitions of management
        information base (MIB) objects to the MIPv6 MIB [RFC4295] or
        the PMIPv6 MIB [RFC6475] that are 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 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
        mechanisms needed to secure the network and to make continuous
        security improvements.  In addition, with security taken into
        consideration early in the design, a DMM solution MUST NOT
        introduce new security risks or amplify existing security
        risks that cannot be mitigated by existing security protocols
        and mechanisms.
        Motivation: Various attacks such as impersonation, denial of
        service, man-in-the-middle attacks, and so on may be launched
        in a DMM deployment.  For instance, an illegitimate node may

Chan, et al. Informational [Page 15] RFC 7333 DMM-Reqs August 2014

        attempt to access a network providing DMM.  Another example is
        that a malicious node can forge a number of signaling
        messages, thus redirecting traffic from its legitimate path.
        Consequently, the specific node or nodes to which the traffic
        is redirected may be under a denial-of-service attack and
        other nodes do not receive their traffic.  Accordingly,
        security mechanisms/protocols providing access control,
        integrity, authentication, authorization, confidentiality,
        etc. should be used to protect the DMM entities as they are
        already used to protect existing networks and existing
        mobility protocols defined in the IETF.  However, if a
        candidate DMM solution is such that these existing security
        mechanisms/protocols are unable to provide sufficient security
        protection even when properly used, then that candidate DMM
        solution is causing uncontrollable security problems.
        This requirement prevents a DMM solution from introducing
        uncontrollable problems of potentially insecure mobility
        management protocols that make deployment infeasible, because
        platforms conforming to such protocols are at risk for data
        loss and numerous other dangers, including financial harm to
        the users.
 REQ8:  Multicast considerations
        DMM SHOULD enable multicast solutions to be developed to avoid
        network inefficiency in multicast traffic delivery.
        Motivation: Existing multicast deployments have been
        introduced after completing the design of the reference
        mobility protocol, often leading to network inefficiency and
        non-optimal forwarding for the multicast traffic.  DMM should
        instead consider multicast early in the process, so that the
        multicast solutions can better consider the efficient nature
        of multicast traffic delivery (such as duplicate multicast
        subscriptions towards the downstream tunnel entities).  The
        multicast solutions should then avoid restricting the
        management of all IP multicast traffic to a single host
        through a dedicated (tunnel) interface on multicast-capable
        access routers.
        This requirement addresses the problems PS1 and PS8 described
        in Section 4.

6. Security Considerations

 Please refer to REQ7 in Section 5.

Chan, et al. Informational [Page 16] RFC 7333 DMM-Reqs August 2014

7. Contributors

 This requirements document is a joint effort among numerous
 participants working as a team.  Valuable comments and suggestions in
 various reviews from the following area directors and IESG members
 have also contributed to many improvements: Russ Housley, Catherine
 Meadows, Adrian Farrel, Barry Leiba, Alissa Cooper, Ted Lemon, Brian
 Haberman, Stephen Farrell, Joel Jaeggli, Alia Atlas, and Benoit
 Claise.
 In addition to the authors, each of the following has made very
 significant and important contributions to this work:
Charles E. Perkins
Huawei Technologies
EMail: charliep@computer.org
Melia Telemaco
Alcatel-Lucent Bell Labs
EMail: telemaco.melia@googlemail.com
Elena Demaria
Telecom Italia
via G. Reiss Romoli, 274, Torino, 10148, Italy
EMail: elena.demaria@telecomitalia.it
Jong-Hyouk Lee
Sangmyung University, Korea
EMail: jonghyouk@smu.ac.kr
Kostas Pentikousis
EICT GmbH
EMail: k.pentikousis@eict.de
Tricci So
ZTE
EMail: tso@zteusa.com
Carlos J. Bernardos
Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Av. Universidad, 30, Leganes, Madrid 28911, Spain
EMail: cjbc@it.uc3m.es
Peter McCann
Huawei Technologies
EMail: Peter.McCann@huawei.com

Chan, et al. Informational [Page 17] RFC 7333 DMM-Reqs August 2014

Seok Joo Koh
Kyungpook National University, Korea
EMail: sjkoh@knu.ac.kr
Wen Luo
ZTE
No. 68, Zijinhua Rd, Yuhuatai District, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012, China
EMail: luo.wen@zte.com.cn
Sri Gundavelli
Cisco
sgundave@cisco.com
Hui Deng
China Mobile
EMail: denghui@chinamobile.com
Marco Liebsch
NEC Laboratories Europe
EMail: liebsch@neclab.eu
Carl Williams
MCSR Labs
EMail: carlw@mcsr-labs.org
Seil Jeon
Instituto de Telecomunicacoes, Aveiro
EMail: seiljeon@av.it.pt
Sergio Figueiredo
Universidade de Aveiro
EMail: sfigueiredo@av.it.pt
Stig Venaas
EMail: stig@venaas.com
Luis Miguel Contreras Murillo
Telefonica I+D
EMail: lmcm@tid.es
Juan Carlos Zuniga
InterDigital
EMail: JuanCarlos.Zuniga@InterDigital.com
Alexandru Petrescu
EMail: alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com

Chan, et al. Informational [Page 18] RFC 7333 DMM-Reqs August 2014

Georgios Karagiannis
University of Twente
EMail: g.karagiannis@utwente.nl
Julien Laganier
Juniper
EMail: julien.ietf@gmail.com
Wassim Michel Haddad
Ericsson
EMail: Wassim.Haddad@ericsson.com
Dirk von Hugo
Deutsche Telekom Laboratories
EMail: Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de
Ahmad Muhanna
Award Solutions
EMail: asmuhanna@yahoo.com
Byoung-Jo Kim
ATT Labs
EMail: macsbug@research.att.com
Hassan Ali-Ahmad
Orange
EMail: hassan.aliahmad@orange.com
Alper Yegin
Samsung
EMail: alper.yegin@partner.samsung.com
David Harrington
Effective Software
EMail: ietfdbh@comcast.net

Chan, et al. Informational [Page 19] RFC 7333 DMM-Reqs August 2014

8. References

8.1. 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
            Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
 [RFC3753]  Manner, J. and M. Kojo, "Mobility Related Terminology",
            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.,
            and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 5213, August 2008.
 [RFC5424]  Gerhards, R., "The Syslog Protocol", RFC 5424, March 2009.
 [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
            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.

Chan, et al. Informational [Page 20] RFC 7333 DMM-Reqs August 2014

8.2. Informative References

 [DHCPv6-CLASS-BASED-PREFIX]
            Bhandari, S., Halwasia, G., Gundavelli, S., Deng, H.,
            Thiebaut, L., Korhonen, J., and I. Farrer, "DHCPv6 class
            based prefix", Work in Progress, July 2013.
 [DIST-CENTRAL-MOB]
            Bertin, P., Bonjour, S., and J-M. Bonnin, "Distributed or
            Centralized Mobility?", Proceedings of the 28th IEEE
            Conference on Global Telecommunications (GlobeCom),
            December 2009.
 [DIST-DYNAMIC-MOB]
            Bertin, P., Bonjour, S., and J-M. Bonnin, "A Distributed
            Dynamic Mobility Management Scheme Designed for Flat IP
            Architectures", Proceedings of 3rd International
            Conference on New Technologies, Mobility and Security
            (NTMS), 2008.
 [DIST-MOB-MIP]
            Chan, H., "Distributed Mobility Management with Mobile
            IP", Proceedings of IEEE International Communication
            Conference (ICC) Workshop on Telecommunications: from
            Research to Standards, June 2012.
 [DIST-MOB-PMIP]
            Chan, H., "Proxy Mobile IP with Distributed Mobility
            Anchors", Proceedings of GlobeCom Workshop on Seamless
            Wireless Mobility, December 2010.
 [DIST-MOB-REVIEW]
            Chan, H., Yokota, H., Xie, J., Seite, P., and D. Liu,
            "Distributed and Dynamic Mobility Management in Mobile
            Internet: Current Approaches and Issues", Journal of
            Communications, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 4-15, February 2011.
 [DIST-MOB-SAE]
            Fischer, M., Andersen, F., Kopsel, A., Schafer, G., and M.
            Schlager, "A Distributed IP Mobility Approach for 3G SAE",
            Proceedings of the 19th International Symposium on
            Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC),
            2008.
 [DMM-SCENARIO]
            Yokota, H., Seite, P., Demaria, E., and Z. Cao, "Use case
            scenarios for Distributed Mobility Management", Work in
            Progress, October 2010.

Chan, et al. Informational [Page 21] RFC 7333 DMM-Reqs August 2014

 [IPv6-PREFIX-PROPERTIES]
            Korhonen, J., Patil, B., Gundavelli, S., Seite, P., and
            D. Liu, "IPv6 Prefix Properties", Work in Progress,
            July 2013.
 [LOCATING-USER]
            Kirby, G., "Locating the User", Communications
            International, 1995.
 [MIGRATING-HAs]
            Wakikawa, R., Valadon, G., and J. Murai, "Migrating Home
            Agents Towards Internet-scale Mobility Deployments",
            Proceedings of the ACM 2nd CoNEXT Conference on Future
            Networking Technologies, December 2006.
 [MOB-DATA-OFFLOAD]
            Lee, K., Lee, J., Yi, Y., Rhee, I., and S. Chong, "Mobile
            Data Offloading: How Much Can WiFi Deliver?", Proceedings
            of the ACM SIGCOMM 2010 Conference, 2010.
 [PMIP-CP-UP-SPLIT]
            Wakikawa, R., Pazhyannur, R., and S. Gundavelli,
            "Separation of Control and User Plane for Proxy Mobile
            IPv6", Work in Progress, July 2013.
 [RFC5380]  Soliman, H., Castelluccia, C., ElMalki, K., and L.
            Bellier, "Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 (HMIPv6) Mobility
            Management", RFC 5380, October 2008.
 [RFC5944]  Perkins, C., "IP Mobility Support for IPv4, Revised",
            RFC 5944, November 2010.
 [RFC6224]  Schmidt, T., Waehlisch, M., and S. Krishnan, "Base
            Deployment for Multicast Listener Support in Proxy Mobile
            IPv6 (PMIPv6) Domains", RFC 6224, April 2011.
 [RFC6301]  Zhu, Z., Wakikawa, R., and L. Zhang, "A Survey of Mobility
            Support in the Internet", RFC 6301, July 2011.
 [RFC6705]  Krishnan, S., Koodli, R., Loureiro, P., Wu, Q., and A.
            Dutta, "Localized Routing for Proxy Mobile IPv6",
            RFC 6705, September 2012.
 [RFC6909]  Gundavelli, S., Zhou, X., Korhonen, J., Feige, G., and R.
            Koodli, "IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector Option for Proxy
            Mobile IPv6", RFC 6909, April 2013.

Chan, et al. Informational [Page 22] RFC 7333 DMM-Reqs August 2014

 [TS.23.401]
            3GPP, "General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) enhancements
            for Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network
            (E-UTRAN) access", 3GPP TS 23.401 12.5.0, June 2014,
            <http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html-info/23401.htm>.
 [TS.29.303]
            3GPP, "Domain Name System Procedures; Stage 3", 3GPP
            TS 29.303 12.3.0, June 2014, <http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/
            Specs/html-info/29303.htm>.

Chan, et al. Informational [Page 23] RFC 7333 DMM-Reqs August 2014

Authors' Addresses

 H. Anthony Chan (editor)
 Huawei Technologies
 5340 Legacy Dr. Building 3
 Plano, TX  75024
 USA
 EMail: h.a.chan@ieee.org
 Dapeng Liu
 China Mobile
 Unit 2, 28 Xuanwumenxi Ave, Xuanwu District
 Beijing  100053
 China
 EMail: liudapeng@chinamobile.com
 Pierrick Seite
 Orange
 4, rue du Clos Courtel, BP 91226
 Cesson-Sevigne  35512
 France
 EMail: pierrick.seite@orange.com
 Hidetoshi Yokota
 Landis+Gyr
 EMail: hidetoshi.yokota@landisgyr.com
 Jouni Korhonen
 Broadcom Communications
 Porkkalankatu 24
 Helsinki  FIN-00180
 Finland
 EMail: jouni.nospam@gmail.com

Chan, et al. Informational [Page 24]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc7333.txt · Last modified: 2014/08/21 01:24 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki