GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc7847

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) T. Melia, Ed. Request for Comments: 7847 Kudelski Security Category: Informational S. Gundavelli, Ed. ISSN: 2070-1721 Cisco

                                                              May 2016
  Logical-Interface Support for IP Hosts with Multi-Access Support

Abstract

 A logical interface is a software semantic internal to the host
 operating system.  This semantic is available in all popular
 operating systems and is used in various protocol implementations.
 Logical-interface support is required on the mobile node attached to
 a Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain for leveraging various network-based
 mobility management features such as inter-technology handoffs,
 multihoming, and flow mobility support.  This document explains the
 operational details of the logical-interface construct and the
 specifics on how link-layer implementations hide the physical
 interfaces from the IP stack and from the network nodes on the
 attached access networks.  Furthermore, this document identifies the
 applicability of this approach to various link-layer technologies and
 analyzes the issues around it when used in conjunction with various
 mobility management features.

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/rfc7847.

Melia & Gundavelli Informational [Page 1] RFC 7847 Logical-Interface Support May 2016

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (c) 2016 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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
 2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
 3.  Hiding Link-Layer Technologies -- Approaches and
     Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.1.  Link-Layer Abstraction -- Approaches  . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.2.  Link-Layer Support  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.3.  Logical Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
 4.  Technology Use Cases  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
 5.  Logical-Interface Functional Details  . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.1.  Configuration of a Logical Interface  . . . . . . . . . .   8
   5.2.  Logical-Interface Conceptual Data Structures  . . . . . .   9
 6.  Logical-Interface Use Cases in Proxy Mobile IPv6  . . . . . .  11
   6.1.  Multihoming Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   6.2.  Inter-technology Handoff Support  . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   6.3.  Flow Mobility Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
 7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
 8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
 Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
 Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
 Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16

Melia & Gundavelli Informational [Page 2] RFC 7847 Logical-Interface Support May 2016

1. Introduction

 Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) [RFC5213] is a network-based mobility
 management protocol standardized by IETF.  One of the key goals of
 the PMIPv6 protocol is to enable a mobile node to perform handovers
 across access networks based on different access technologies.  The
 protocol was also designed with the goal to allow a mobile node to
 simultaneously attach to different access networks and perform flow-
 based access selection [RFC7864].  The base protocol features
 specified in [RFC5213] and [RFC5844] have support for these
 capabilities.  However, to support these features, the mobile node is
 required to be enabled with a specific software configuration known
 as logical-interface support.  The logical-interface configuration is
 essential for a mobile node to perform inter-access handovers without
 impacting the IP sessions on the host.
 A logical-interface construct is internal to the operating system.
 It is an approach of interface abstraction, where a logical link-
 layer implementation hides a variety of physical interfaces from the
 IP stack.  This semantic was used on a variety of operating systems
 to implement applications such as Mobile IP client [RFC6275] and
 IPsec VPN client [RFC4301].  Many host operating systems have support
 for some form of such logical-interface construct.  But, there is no
 specification that documents the behavior of these logical interfaces
 or the requirements of a logical interface for supporting the above-
 mentioned mobility management features.  This specification attempts
 to document these aspects.
 The rest of the document provides a functional description of a
 logical interface on the mobile node and the interworking between a
 mobile node using a logical interface and the network elements in the
 Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain.  It also analyzes the issues involved with
 the use of a logical interface and characterizes the contexts in
 which such usage is appropriate.

2. Terminology

 All the mobility-related terms used in this document are to be
 interpreted as defined in the Proxy Mobile IPv6 specifications
 [RFC5213] and [RFC5844].  In addition, this document uses the
 following terms:
 PIF (Physical Interface):  A network interface module on the host
    that is used for connecting to an access network.  A host
    typically has a number of network interface modules, such as
    Ethernet, Wireless LAN, LTE, etc.  Each of these network
    interfaces can support specific link technology.

Melia & Gundavelli Informational [Page 3] RFC 7847 Logical-Interface Support May 2016

 LIF (Logical Interface):  A virtual interface in the IP stack.  A
    logical interface appears to the IP stack just as any other
    physical interface and provides similar semantics with respect to
    packet transmit and receive functions to the upper layers of the
    IP stack.  However, it is only a logical construct and is not a
    representation of an instance of any physical hardware.
 SIF (Sub-Interface):  A physical or logical interface that is part of
    a logical-interface construct.  For example, a logical interface
    may have been created by abstracting two physical interfaces, LTE
    and WLAN.  These physical interfaces, LTE and WLAN, are referred
    to as sub-interfaces of that logical interface.  In some cases, a
    sub-interface can also be another logical interface, such as an
    IPsec tunnel interface.

3. Hiding Link-Layer Technologies – Approaches and Applicability

 There are several techniques that allow hiding changes in access
 technology changes from the host layer.  These changes in access
 technology are primarily due to the host's movement between access
 networks.  This section classifies these existing techniques into a
 set of generic approaches, according to their most representative
 characteristics.  Later sections of this document analyze the
 applicability of these solution approaches for supporting features,
 such as inter-technology handovers and IP flow mobility support for a
 mobile node.

3.1. Link-Layer Abstraction – Approaches

 The following generic mechanisms can hide access technology changes
 from the host IP layer:
 o  Link-Layer Support -- Certain link-layer technologies are able to
    hide physical media changes from the upper layers.  For example,
    IEEE 802.11 is able to seamlessly change between IEEE 802.11a/b/g
    physical layers.  Also, an 802.11 Station (STA) can move between
    different access points within the same domain without the IP
    stack being aware of the movement.  In this case, the IEEE 802.11
    Media Access Control (MAC) layer takes care of the mobility,
    making the media change invisible to the upper layers.  Another
    example is IEEE 802.3, which supports changing the rate from 10
    Mbps to 100 Mbps and to 1000 Mbps.  Another example is the
    situation in the 3GPP Evolved Packet System [TS23401] where the
    User Equipment (UE) can perform inter-access handovers between
    three different access technologies (2G GSM/EDGE Radio Access
    Network (GERAN), 3G Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network
    (UTRAN), and 4G Evolved UTRAN (E-UTRAN)) that are invisible to the
    IP layer at the UE.

Melia & Gundavelli Informational [Page 4] RFC 7847 Logical-Interface Support May 2016

 o  A logical interface denotes a mechanism that logically groups
    several physical interfaces so they appear to the IP layer as a
    single interface (see Figure 1).  Depending on the type of access
    technologies, it might be possible to use more than one physical
    interface at a time -- such that the node is simultaneously
    attached via different access technologies -- or just perform
    handovers across a variety of physical interfaces.  Controlling
    the way the different access technologies are used (simultaneous,
    sequential attachment, etc.) is not trivial and requires
    additional intelligence and/or configuration within the logical-
    interface implementation.  The configuration is typically handled
    via a connection manager, and it is based on a combination of user
    preferences on one hand and operator preferences such as those
    provisioned by the Access Network Discovery and Selection Function
    (ANDSF) [TS23402] on the other hand.  The IETF Interfaces MIB
    specified in [RFC2863] and the YANG data model for interface
    management specified in [RFC7223] treat a logical interface just
    like any other type of network interface on the host.  This
    essentially makes the logical interface a natural operating system
    construct.

3.2. Link-Layer Support

 Link-layer mobility support applies to cases in which the same link-
 layer technology is used and mobility can be fully handled at that
 layer.  One example is the case where several 802.11 access points
 are deployed in the same subnet with a common IP-layer configuration
 (DHCP server, default router, etc.).  In this case, the handover
 across access points need not be hidden to the IP layer since the IP-
 layer configuration remains the same after a handover.  This type of
 scenario is applicable to cases when the different points of
 attachment (i.e., access points) belong to the same network domain,
 e.g., enterprise, hotspots from same operator, etc.
 Since this type of link-layer technology does not typically allow for
 simultaneous attachment to different access networks of the same
 technology, the logical interface would not be used to provide
 simultaneous access for purposes of multihoming or flow mobility.
 Instead, the logical interface can be used to provide inter-access
 technology handover between this type of link-layer technology and
 another link-layer technology, e.g., between IEEE 802.11 and IEEE
 802.16.

Melia & Gundavelli Informational [Page 5] RFC 7847 Logical-Interface Support May 2016

3.3. Logical Interface

 The use of a logical interface allows the mobile node to provide a
 single-interface perspective to the IP layer and its upper layers
 (transport and application).  Doing so allows inter-access technology
 handovers or application flow handovers to be hidden across different
 physical interfaces.
 The logical interface may support simultaneous attachment in addition
 to sequential attachment.  It requires additional support at the node
 and the network in order to benefit from simultaneous attachment.
 For example, special mechanisms are required to enable addressing a
 particular interface from the network (e.g., for flow mobility).  In
 particular, extensions to PMIPv6 are required in order to enable the
 network (i.e., the mobile access gateway (MAG) and local mobility
 anchor (LMA)) to deal with the logical interface, instead of using
 extensions to IP interfaces as currently specified in RFC 5213.  RFC
 5213 assumes that each physical interface capable of attaching to a
 MAG is an IP interface, while the logical-interface solution groups
 several physical interfaces under the same IP logical interface.
 It is therefore clear that the logical-interface approach satisfies
 the requirement of multi-access technology and supports both
 sequential and simultaneous access.

4. Technology Use Cases

 3GPP has defined the Evolved Packet System (EPS) for heterogeneous
 wireless access.  A mobile device equipped with 3GPP and non-3GPP
 wireless technologies can simultaneously or sequentially connect to
 any of the available access networks and receive IP services through
 any of them.  This document focuses on employing a logical interface
 for simultaneous and sequential use of a variety of access
 technologies.
 As mentioned in the previous sections, the logical-interface
 construct is able to hide from the IP layer the specifics of each
 technology in the context of network-based mobility (e.g., in multi-
 access technology networks based on PMIPv6).  The LIF concept can be
 used with at least the following technologies: 3GPP access
 technologies (3G and LTE), IEEE 802.16 access technology, and IEEE
 802.11 access technology.
 In some UE implementations, the wireless connection setup is based on
 creation of a PPP interface between the IP layer and the wireless
 modem that is configured with the IP Control Protocol (IPCP) and IPv6
 Control Protocol (IPv6CP) [RFC5072].  In this case, the PPP interface
 does not have any layer 2 (L2) addresses assigned.  In some other

Melia & Gundavelli Informational [Page 6] RFC 7847 Logical-Interface Support May 2016

 implementations, the wireless modem is presented to the IP layer as a
 virtual Ethernet interface.

5. Logical-Interface Functional Details

 This section identifies the functional details of a logical interface
 and provides some implementation considerations.
 On most operating systems, a network interface is associated with a
 physical device that offers the services for transmitting and
 receiving IP packets from the network.  In some configurations, a
 network interface can also be implemented as a logical interface,
 which does not have the inherent capability to transmit or receive
 packets on a physical medium, but relies on other physical interfaces
 for such services.  An example of such configuration is an IP tunnel
 interface.
 An overview of a logical interface is shown in Figure 1.  The logical
 interface allows heterogeneous attachment while making changes in the
 underlying media transparent to the IP stack.  Simultaneous and
 sequential network attachment procedures are therefore possible,
 enabling inter-technology and flow mobility scenarios.
                                +----------------------------+
                                |          TCP/UDP           |
         Session-to-IP    +---->|                            |
         Address Binding  |     +----------------------------+
                          +---->|             IP             |
         IP Address       +---->|                            |
         Binding          |     +----------------------------+
                          +---->|     Logical Interface      |
         Logical-to-      +---->|      IPv4/IPv6 Address     |
         Physical         |     +----------------------------+
         Interface        +---->|  L2  |  L2  |       |  L2  |
         Binding                |(IF#1)|(IF#2)| ..... |(IF#n)|
                                +------+------+       +------+
                                |  L1  |  L1  |       |  L1  |
                                |      |      |       |      |
                                +------+------+       +------+
            Figure 1: General Overview of Logical Interface
 From the perspective of the IP stack and the applications, a logical
 interface is just another interface.  In fact, the logical interface
 is only visible to the IP and upper layers when enabled.  A host does
 not see any operational difference between a logical and a physical
 interface.  As with physical interfaces, a logical interface is
 represented as a software object to which IP address configuration is

Melia & Gundavelli Informational [Page 7] RFC 7847 Logical-Interface Support May 2016

 bound.  However, the logical interface has some special properties
 that are essential for enabling inter-technology handover and flow-
 mobility features.  Following are those properties:
 1.  The logical interface has a relation to a set of physical
     interfaces (sub-interfaces) on the host that it is abstracting.
     These sub-interfaces can be attached or detached from the logical
     interface at any time.  The sub-interfaces attached to a logical
     interface are not visible to the IP and upper layers.
 2.  The logical interface may be attached to multiple access
     technologies.
 3.  The Transmit/Receive functions of the logical interface are
     mapped to the Transmit/Receive services exposed by the sub-
     interfaces.  This mapping is dynamic, and any change is not
     visible to the upper layers of the IP stack.
 4.  The logical interface maintains IP flow information for each of
     its sub-interfaces.  A conceptual data structure is maintained
     for this purpose.  The host may populate this information based
     on tracking each of the sub-interfaces for the active flows.

5.1. Configuration of a Logical Interface

 A host may be statically configured with the logical-interface
 configuration, or an application such as a connection manager on the
 host may dynamically create it.  Furthermore, the set of sub-
 interfaces that are part of a logical-interface construct may be a
 fixed set or may be kept dynamic, with the sub-interfaces getting
 added or deleted as needed.  The specific details related to these
 configuration aspects are implementation specific and are outside the
 scope of this document.
 The IP layer should be configured with a default router reachable via
 the logical interface.  The default router can be internal to the
 logical interface, i.e., it is a logical router that in turn decides
 which physical interface is to be used to transmit packets.

Melia & Gundavelli Informational [Page 8] RFC 7847 Logical-Interface Support May 2016

5.2. Logical-Interface Conceptual Data Structures

 Every logical interface maintains a list of sub-interfaces that are
 part of that logical-interface construct.  This is a conceptual data
 structure, called the LIF table.  Figure 2 shows an example LIF table
 where logical interface LIF-1 has three sub-interfaces, ETH-0,
 WLAN-0, and LTE-0, and logical interface LIF-2 has two sub-
 interfaces, ETH-1 and WLAN-1.  For each LIF entry, the table should
 store the associated link status and policy associated with that sub-
 interface (e.g., active or not active).  The method by which the
 routing policies are configured on the host is out of scope for this
 document.
 +=======================+========================+==================+
 |   Logical_Interface   |     Sub_Interface      |  Status/Policy   |
 +=======================+========================+==================+
 |       LIF-1           |          ETH-0         |         UP       |
 +=======================+========================+==================+
 |       LIF-1           |          WLAN-0        |         DOWN     |
 +=======================+========================+==================+
 |       LIF-1           |          LTE-0         |         UP       |
 +=======================+========================+==================+
 |       LIF-2           |          ETH-1         |         UP       |
 +=======================+========================+==================+
 |       LIF-2           |          WLAN-1        |         UP       |
 +=======================+========================+==================+
                   Figure 2: Logical-Interface Table
 The logical interface also maintains the list of flows associated
 with a given sub-interface, and this conceptual data structure is
 called the Flow table.  Figure 3 shows an example Flow table, where
 flows FID-1, FID-2, FID-3, FID-4, and FID-5 are associated with sub-
 interfaces ETH-0, WLAN-0, LTE-0, ETH-1, and WLAN-1, respectively.

Melia & Gundavelli Informational [Page 9] RFC 7847 Logical-Interface Support May 2016

          +=======================+========================+
          |       Flow            |     Sub_Interface      |
          +=======================+========================+
          |       FID-1           |          ETH-0         |
          +=======================+========================+
          |       FID-2           |          WLAN-0        |
          +=======================+========================+
          |       FID-3           |          LTE-0         |
          +=======================+========================+
          |       FID-4           |          ETH-1         |
          +=======================+========================+
          |       FID-5           |          WLAN-1        |
          +=======================+========================+
                         Figure 3: Flow Table
 The Flow table allows the logical interface to properly route each IP
 flow over a specific sub-interface.  The logical interface can
 identify the flows arriving on its sub-interfaces and associate them
 to those sub-interfaces.  This approach is similar to reflective QoS
 performed by the IP routers.  For locally generated traffic (e.g.,
 unicast flows), the logical interface should perform interface
 selection based on the Flow Routing Policies.  In case traffic of an
 existing flow is suddenly received from the network on a different
 sub-interface from the one locally stored, the logical interface
 should interpret the event as an explicit flow mobility trigger from
 the network, and it should update the corresponding entry in the Flow
 table.  Similarly, locally generated events from the sub-interfaces
 or configuration updates to the local policy rules can cause updates
 to the table and hence trigger flow mobility.

Melia & Gundavelli Informational [Page 10] RFC 7847 Logical-Interface Support May 2016

6. Logical-Interface Use Cases in Proxy Mobile IPv6

 This section explains how the logical-interface support on the mobile
 node can be used for enabling some of the Proxy Mobile IPv6 protocol
 features.

6.1. Multihoming Support

 Figure 4 shows a mobile node with multiple interfaces attached to a
 Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain.  In this scenario, the mobile node is
 configured to use a logical interface over the physical interfaces
 through which it is attached.
                                       LMA Binding Table
                                  +========================+
                         +----+   | HNP   MN-ID  CoA   ATT |
                         |LMA |   +========================+
                         +----+   | HNP-1 MN-1  PCoA-1  5  |
                          //\\    | HNP-1 MN-1  PCoA-2  4  |
               +---------//--\\-----------+
              (         //    \\           )
              (        //      \\          )
               +------//--------\\--------+
                     //          \\
             PCoA-1 //            \\ PCoA-2
                 +----+          +----+
          (WLAN) |MAG1|          |MAG2| (3GPP)
                 +----+          +----+
                    \               /
                     \             /
                      \           /
                       \         /
                        \       /
                   +-------+ +-------+
                   | if_1  | | if_2  |
                   |(WLAN) | |(3GPP) |
                   +-------+-+-------+
                   |     Logical     |
                   |    Interface    |
                   |     (HNP-1)     |
                   +-----------------|
                   |       MN        |
                   +-----------------+
                     Figure 4: Multihoming Support

Melia & Gundavelli Informational [Page 11] RFC 7847 Logical-Interface Support May 2016

6.2. Inter-technology Handoff Support

 The Proxy Mobile IPv6 protocol enables a mobile node with multiple
 network interfaces to move between access technologies but still
 retain the same address configuration on its attached interface.
 Figure 5 shows a mobile node performing an inter-technology handoff
 between access networks.  The protocol enables a mobile node to
 achieve address continuity during handoffs.  If the host is
 configured to use a logical interface over the physical interface
 through which it is attached, following are the related
 considerations.
                                         LMA's Binding Table
                                  +==========================+
                         +----+   | HNP   MN-ID  CoA   ATT   |
                         |LMA |   +==========================+
                         +----+   | HNP-1   MN-1  PCoA-1  5  |
                          //\\                   (pCoA-2)(4) <--change
               +---------//--\\-----------+
              (         //    \\           )
              (        //      \\          )
               +------//--------\\--------+
                     //          \\
             PCoA-1 //            \\ PCoA-2
                 +----+          +----+
          (WLAN) |MAG1|          |MAG2| (3GPP)
                 +----+          +----+
                    \               /
                     \   Handoff   /
                      \           /
                       \         /
                   +-------+ +-------+
                   | if_1  | | if_2  |
                   |(WLAN) | |(3GPP) |
                   +-------+-+-------+
                   |     Logical     |
                   |    Interface    |
                   |     (HNP-1)     |
                   +-----------------|
                   |       MN        |
                   +-----------------+
              Figure 5: Inter-technology Handoff Support
 o  When the mobile node performs a handoff between if_1 and if_2, the
    change will not be visible to the applications of the mobile node.

Melia & Gundavelli Informational [Page 12] RFC 7847 Logical-Interface Support May 2016

 o  The protocol signaling between the network elements will ensure
    the local mobility anchor will switch the forwarding for the
    advertised prefix set from MAG1 to MAG2.

6.3. Flow Mobility Support

 To support IP flow mobility, there is a need to support vertical
 handoff scenarios such as transferring a subset of a prefix(es)
 (hence the flows associated to it/them) from one interface to
 another.  The mobile node can support this scenario by using the
 logical-interface support.  This scenario is similar to the inter-
 technology handoff scenario defined in Section 6.2; only a subset of
 the prefixes are moved between interfaces.
 Additionally, IP flow mobility in general initiates when the LMA
 decides to move a particular flow from its default path to a
 different one.  The LMA can decide the best MAG to be used to forward
 a particular flow when the flow is initiated (e.g., based on
 application policy profiles) and/or during the lifetime of the flow
 upon receiving a network-based or a mobile-based trigger.  However,
 the specific details on how the LMA can formulate such flow policy is
 outside the scope of this document.

7. Security Considerations

 This specification explains the operational details of a logical
 interface on an IP host.  The logical-interface implementation on the
 host is not visible to the network and does not require any special
 security considerations.
 Different layer 2 interfaces and the access networks to which they
 are connected have different security properties.  For example, the
 layer 2 network security of a Wireless LAN network operated by an end
 user is in the control of the home user whereas an LTE operator has
 control of the layer 2 security of the LTE access network.  An
 external entity using lawful means, or through other means, obtains
 the security keys from the LTE operator, but the same may not be
 possible in the case of a Wireless LAN network operated by a home
 user.  Therefore, grouping interfaces with such varying security
 properties into one logical interface could have negative
 consequences in some cases.  Such differences, though subtle, are
 entirely hidden by logical interfaces and are unknown to the upper
 layers.

Melia & Gundavelli Informational [Page 13] RFC 7847 Logical-Interface Support May 2016

8. References

8.1. Normative References

 [RFC5213]  Gundavelli, S., Ed., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V.,
            Chowdhury, K., and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6",
            RFC 5213, DOI 10.17487/RFC5213, August 2008,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5213>.
 [RFC5844]  Wakikawa, R. and S. Gundavelli, "IPv4 Support for Proxy
            Mobile IPv6", RFC 5844, DOI 10.17487/RFC5844, May 2010,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5844>.

8.2. Informative References

 [RFC2863]  McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group
            MIB", RFC 2863, DOI 10.17487/RFC2863, June 2000,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2863>.
 [RFC4301]  Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
            Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, DOI 10.17487/RFC4301,
            December 2005, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4301>.
 [RFC5072]  Varada, S., Ed., Haskins, D., and E. Allen, "IP Version 6
            over PPP", RFC 5072, DOI 10.17487/RFC5072, September 2007,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5072>.
 [RFC6275]  Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility
            Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, DOI 10.17487/RFC6275, July
            2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6275>.
 [RFC7223]  Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface
            Management", RFC 7223, DOI 10.17487/RFC7223, May 2014,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7223>.
 [RFC7864]  Bernardos, CJ., Ed., "Proxy Mobile IPv6 Extensions to
            Support Flow Mobility", RFC 7864, DOI 10.17487/RFC7864,
            May 2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7864>.
 [TS23401]  3rd Generation Partnership Project, "Technical
            Specification Group Services and System Aspects; General
            Packet Radio Service (GPRS) enhancements for Evolved
            Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network (E-UTRAN)
            access", TS 23.401, V13.6.0, March 2016.

Melia & Gundavelli Informational [Page 14] RFC 7847 Logical-Interface Support May 2016

 [TS23402]  3rd Generation Partnership Project, "Technical
            Specification Group Services and System Aspects;
            Architecture enhancements for non-3GPP accesses", TS
            23.402, V13.5.0, March 2016.

Acknowledgements

 The authors would like to acknowledge all the discussions on this
 topic in the NETLMM and NETEXT working groups.  The authors would
 also like to thank Joo-Sang Youn, Pierrick Seite, Rajeev Koodli,
 Basavaraj Patil, Peter McCann, Julien Laganier, Maximilian Riegel,
 Georgios Karagian, Stephen Farrell, and Benoit Claise for their input
 to the document.

Contributors

 This document reflects contributions from the following individuals
 (listed in alphabetical order):
 Carlos Jesus Bernardos Cano
 Email: cjbc@it.uc3m.es
 Antonio De la Oliva
 Email: aoliva@it.uc3m.es
 Yong-Geun Hong
 Email: yonggeun.hong@gmail.com
 Kent Leung
 Email: kleung@cisco.com
 Tran Minh Trung
 Email: trungtm2909@gmail.com
 Hidetoshi Yokota
 Email: yokota@kddilabs.jp
 Juan Carlos Zuniga
 Email: JuanCarlos.Zuniga@InterDigital.com

Melia & Gundavelli Informational [Page 15] RFC 7847 Logical-Interface Support May 2016

Authors' Addresses

 Telemaco Melia (editor)
 Kudelski Security
 Geneva
 Switzerland
 Email: telemaco.melia@gmail.com
 Sri Gundavelli (editor)
 Cisco
 170 West Tasman Drive
 San Jose, CA  95134
 United States
 Email: sgundave@cisco.com

Melia & Gundavelli Informational [Page 16]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc7847.txt · Last modified: 2016/05/09 23:54 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki