DMM D. Liu, Ed. Internet-Draft China Mobile Intended status: Informational JC. Zuniga, Ed. Expires: April 23, 2014 InterDigital P. Seite Orange H. Chan Huawei Technologies CJ. Bernardos UC3M October 20, 2013 Distributed Mobility Management: Current practices and gap analysis draft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-02 Abstract The present document analyses deplyment practices of existing mobility protocols in a distributed mobility management environment. It also identifies some limitations compared to the expected functionality of a fully distributed mobility management system. The comparison is made taking into account the identified DMM requirements. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." This Internet-Draft will expire on April 23, 2014. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2013 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 Liu, et al. Expires April 23, 2014 [Page 1] Internet-Draft DMM-best-practices-gap-analysis October 2013 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. Functions of existing mobility protocols . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. DMM practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.1. Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.2. IP flat wireless network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.2.1. Host-based IP DMM practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.2.2. Network-based IP DMM practices . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.3. 3GPP network flattening approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5. Gap analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5.1. Distributed processing - REQ1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5.2. Transparency to Upper Layers - REQ2 . . . . . . . . . . . 19 5.3. IPv6 deployment - REQ3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 5.4. Existing mobility protocols - REQ4 . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 5.5. Co-existence - REQ5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 5.6. Security considerations - REQ6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 5.7. Multicast - REQ7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 5.8. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Liu, et al. Expires April 23, 2014 [Page 2] Internet-Draft DMM-best-practices-gap-analysis October 2013 1. Introduction The distributed mobility management (DMM) WG has studied the problems of centralized deployment of mobility management protocols and the related requirements [I-D.ietf-dmm-requirements]. In order to guide the deployment and before defining any new DMM protocol, the DMM WG is chartered to investigate first whether it is feasible to deploy current IP mobility protocols in a DMM scenario in a way that can fullfil the requirements of DMM. This document discusses current deployment practices of existing mobility protocols in a distributed mobility management environment and identifies the limitations in these practices with respect to the expected functionality. The rest of this document is organized as follows. Section 3 analyzes existing IP mobility protocols by examining their functions and how these functions can be reconfigured to work in a DMM environment. Section 4 presents the current practices of IP flat wireless networks and 3GPP architectures. Both network- and host- based mobility protocols are considered. Section 5 presents the gap analysis with respect to the current practices. 2. 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]. All general mobility-related terms and their acronyms used in this document are to be interpreted as defined in the Mobile IPv6 base specification [RFC6275] and in the Proxy mobile IPv6 specification [RFC5213]. These terms include mobile node (MN), correspondent node (CN), home agent (HA), local mobility anchor (LMA), and mobile access gateway (MAG). In addition, this document uses the following terms: Mobility routing (MR) is the logical function that intercepts packets to/from the IP address/prefix delegated to the mobile node and forwards them, based on internetwork location information, either directly towards their destination or to some other network element that knows how to forward the packets to their ultimate destination. Liu, et al. Expires April 23, 2014 [Page 3] Internet-Draft DMM-best-practices-gap-analysis October 2013 Home address allocation is the logical function that allocates the IP address/prefix (e.g., home address or home network prefix) to a mobile node. Location management (LM) is the logical function that manages and keeps track of the internetwork location information of a mobile node, which includes the mapping of the IP address/prefix delegated to the MN to the MN routing address or another network element that knows where to forward packets destined for the MN. Home network of an application session (or an HoA IP address) is the network that has allocated the IP address used as the session identifier (home address) by the application being run in an MN. The MN may be attached to more than one home networks. In the document, several references to a distributed mobility management environment are made. By this term, we refer to an scenario in which the IP mobility, access network and routing solutions allow for setting up IP networks so that traffic is distributed in an optimal way and does not rely on centrally deployed anchors to manage IP mobility sessions. 3. Functions of existing mobility protocols The host-based Mobile IPv6 [RFC6275] and its network-based extension, PMIPv6 [RFC5213], are both logically centralized mobility management approaches addressing primarily hierarchical mobile networks. Although they are centralized approaches, they have important mobility management functions resulting from years of extensive work to develop and to extend these functions. It is therefore fruitful to take these existing functions and examine them in a DMM scenario in order to understand how to deploy the existing mobility protocols in a distributed mobility management environment. The existing mobility management functions of MIPv6, PMIPv6, and HMIPv6 are the following: 1. Anchoring function (AF): allocation to a mobile node of an IP addres/prefix (e.g., a HoA or HNP) topologically anchored by the delegating node (i.e., the anchor node is able to advertise a connected route into the routing infrastructure for the delegated IP prefixes). Liu, et al. Expires April 23, 2014 [Page 4] Internet-Draft DMM-best-practices-gap-analysis October 2013 2. Mobility Routing (MR) function: packets interception and forwarding to/from the IP address/prefix delegated to the MN, based on the internetwork location information, either to the destination or to some other network element that knows how to forward the packets to their destination; 3. Internetwork Location Management (LM) function: managing and keeping track of the internetwork location of an MN, which includes a mapping of the IP delegated address/prefix (e.g., HoA or HNP) to the mobility anchoring point where the MN is anchored to; 4. Location Update (LU): provisioning of MN location information to the LM function; In Mobile IPv6 [RFC6275], the home agent typically provides the anchoring function (AF), Mobility Routing (MR), and Internetwork Location Management (LM) functions, while the mobile node provides the Location Update (LU) function. Proxy Mobile IPv6 [RFC5213] relies on the function of the Local Mobility Anchor (LMA) to provide mobile nodes with mobility support, without requiring the involvement of the mobile nodes. The required functionality at the mobile node is provided in a proxy manner by the Mobile Access Gateway (MAG). With network-based IP mobility protocols, the local mobility anchor typically provides the anchoring function (AF), Mobility Routing (MR), and Internetwork Location Management (LM) functions, while the mobile access gateway provides the Location Update (LU) function. 4. DMM practices This section documents deployment practices of existing mobility protocols in a distributed mobility management environment. This description is divided into two main families of network architectures: i) IP flat wireless networks (e.g., evolved WiFi hotspots) and, ii) 3GPP network flattening approaches. While describing the current DMM practices, references to the generic mobility management functions described in Section 3 will be provided, as well as some initial hints on the identified gaps with respect to the DMM requirement documented in [I-D.ietf-dmm-requirements]. Liu, et al. Expires April 23, 2014 [Page 5] Internet-Draft DMM-best-practices-gap-analysis October 2013 4.1. Assumptions There are many different approaches that can be considered to implement and deploy a distributed anchoring and mobility solution. Since this document cannot be too exhaustive, the focus is on current mobile network architectures and standardized IP mobility solutions. In order to limit the scope of our analysis of current DMM practices, we consider the following list of technical assumptions: 1. Both host- and network-based solutions should be covered. 2. Solution should allow selecting and using the most appropriate IP anchor among a set of distributed ones. 3. Mobility management should be realized by the preservation of the IP address across the different points of attachment during the mobility (i.e., provision of IP address continuity). IP flows of applications which do not need a constant IP address should not be handled by DMM. Typically, the a connection manager together with the operating system configure the source address selection mechanism of the IP stack. This might involve identifying application capabilities and triggering the mobility support accordingly. Further considerations on application management and source address selection are out of the scope of this document. 4. Mobility management and traffic redirection should only be triggered due to IP mobility reasons, that is when the MN moves from the point of attachment where the IP flow was originally initiated. 4.2. IP flat wireless network This section focuses on common IP wireless network architectures and how they can be flattened from an IP mobility and anchoring point of view using common and standardized protocols. We take WiFi an exemplary wireless technology, as it is widely known and deployed nowadays. Some representative examples of WiFi deployed architectures are depicted on Figure 1. Liu, et al. Expires April 23, 2014 [Page 6] Internet-Draft DMM-best-practices-gap-analysis October 2013 +-------------+ _----_ +---+ | Access | _( )_ |AAA|. . . . . . | Aggregation |----------( Internet ) +---+ | Gateway | (_ _) +-------------+ '----' | | | | | +-------------+ | | | | | +-----+ +---------------+ | | AR | | | +--+--+ +-----+ +-----+ *----+----* | RG | | WLC | ( LAN ) +-----+ +-----+ *---------* . / \ / \ / \ +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ MN MN |WiFi| |WiFi| |WiFi| |WiFi| | AP | | AP | | AP | | AP | +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ . . / \ / \ MN MN MN MN Figure 1: IP WiFi network architectures In the figure, three typical deployment options are shown [I-D.gundavelli-v6ops-community-wifi-svcs]. On the left hand side of the figure, mobile nodes directly connect to a Residential Gateway (RG) which is a network device that is located in the customer premises and provides both wireless layer-2 access connectivity (i.e., it hosts the 802.11 Access Point function) with layer-3 routing functions. In the middle, mobile nodes connect to WiFi Access Points (APs) that are managed by a WLAN Controller (WLC), which performs radio resource management on the APs, system-wide mobility policy enforcement and centralized forwarding function for the user traffic. The WLC could also implement layer-3 routing functions, or attach to an access router (AR). Last, on the right- hand side of the figure, access points are directly connected to an access router, which can also be used a generic connectivity model. In some network architectures, such as the evolved Wi-Fi hotspot, operators might make use of IP mobility protocols to provide mobility support to users, for example to allow connecting the IP WiFi network to a mobile operator core and support roaming between WLAN and 3GPP accesses. Two main protocols can be used: Proxy Mobile IPv6 [RFC5213] or Mobile IPv6 [RFC6275], [RFC5555], with the anchor role (e.g., local mobility anchor or home agent) typically being played by the Access Aggregation Gateway or even by an entity placed on the Liu, et al. Expires April 23, 2014 [Page 7] Internet-Draft DMM-best-practices-gap-analysis October 2013 mobile operator's core network. Although we have adopted in this section the example of WiFi networks, there are other IP flat wireless network architectures specified, such as WiMAX [IEEE.802-16.2009], which integrates both host and network-based IP mobility functionality. Existing IP mobility protocols can also be deployed in a "flatter" way, so the anchoring and access aggregation functions are distributed. We next describe several practices for the deployment of existing mobility protocols in a distributed mobility management environment. We limit our analysis in this section to protocol solutions based on existing IP mobility protocols, either host- or network-based, such as Mobile IPv6 [RFC6275], [RFC5555], Proxy Mobile IPv6 [RFC5213], [RFC5844] and NEMO [RFC3963]. Extensions to these base protocol solutions are also considered. We pay special attention to the management of the use of care-of-addresses versus home addresses in an efficient manner for different types of communications. Finally, and in order to simplify the analysis, we divide it into two parts: host- and network-based practices. 4.2.1. Host-based IP DMM practices Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6) [RFC6275] and its extension to support mobile networks, the NEMO Basic Support protocol (hereafter, simply NEMO) [RFC3963] are well-known host-based IP mobility protocols. They heavily rely on the function of the Home Agent (HA), a centralized anchor, to provide mobile nodes (hosts and routers) with mobility support. In these approaches, the home agent typically provides the anchoring function (AF), Mobility Routing (MR), and Internetwork Location Management (LM) functions, while the mobile node provides the Location Update (LU) function. We next describe some practices on how Mobile IPv6/NEMO and several additional protocol extensions can be deployed in a distributed mobility management environment. One approach to distribute the anchors can be to deploy several HAs (as shown in Figure 2), and assign to each MN the one closest to its topological location [RFC4640], [RFC5026], [RFC6611]. In the example shown in Figure 2, MN1 is assigned HA1 (and a home address anchored by HA1), while MN2 is assigned HA2. Note that Mobile IPv6 / NEMO specifications do not prevent the simultaneous use of multiple home agents by a single mobile node. This deployment model could be exploited by a mobile node to meet assumption #4 and use several anchors at the same time, each of them anchoring IP flows initiated at different point of attachment. However there is no mechanism specified by the IETF to enable an efficient dynamic discovery of available anchors and the selection of the most suitable one. Note that some of these mechanisms have been defined outside the IETF Liu, et al. Expires April 23, 2014 [Page 8] Internet-Draft DMM-best-practices-gap-analysis October 2013 (e.g., 3GPP). <- INTERNET -> <- HOME NETWORK -> <---- ACCESS NETWORK ----> ------- ------- | CN1 | ------- | AR1 |-(o) zzzz (o) ------- | HA1 | ------- | ------- (MN1 anchored at HA1) ------- ------- | MN1 | | AR2 |-(o) ------- ------- ------- | HA2 | ------- ------- | AR3 |-(o) zzzz (o) ------- | ------- (MN2 anchored at HA2) ------- | CN2 | ------- | MN2 | ------- | AR4 |-(o) ------- ------- CN1 CN2 HA1 HA2 AR1 MN1 AR3 MN2 | | | | | | | | |<------------>|<=================+=====>| | | BT mode | | | | | | | | | |<----------------------------------------+----->| RO mode | | | | | | | | Figure 2: Distributed operation of Mobile IPv6 (BT and RO) / NEMO Since one of the goals of the deployment of mobility protocols in a distributed mobility management environment is to avoid the suboptimal routing caused by centralized anchoring, the Route Optimization (RO) support provided by Mobile IPv6 can also be used to achieve a flatter IP data forwarding. By default, Mobile IPv6 and NEMO use the so-called Bidirectional Tunnel (BT) mode, in which data traffic is always encapsulated between the MN and its HA before being directed to any other destination. The Route Optimization (RO) mode allows the MN to update its current location on the CNs, and then use the direct path between them. Using the example shown in Figure 2, MN1 is using BT mode with CN2 and MN2 is in RO mode with CN1. However, the RO mode has several drawbacks: o The RO mode is only supported by Mobile IPv6. There is no route optimization support standardized for the NEMO protocol because of the security problems posed by extending return routability tests for prefixes, although many different solutions have been proposed. Liu, et al. Expires April 23, 2014 [Page 9] Internet-Draft DMM-best-practices-gap-analysis October 2013 o The RO mode requires additional signaling, which adds some protocol overhead. o The signaling required to enable RO involves the home agent, and it is repeated periodically because of security reasons [RFC4225]. This basically means that the HA remains as single point of failure, because the Mobile IPv6 RO mode does not mean HA-less operation. o The RO mode requires additional support on the correspondent node (CN). Notwithstanding these considerations, the RO mode does offer the possibility of substantially reducing traffic through the Home Agent, in cases when it can be supported on the relevant correspondent nodes. Note that a mobile node can also use its CoA directly [RFC5014] when communicating with CNs on the same link or anywhere in the Internet, although no session continuity support would be provided by the IP stack in this case. Liu, et al. Expires April 23, 2014 [Page 10] Internet-Draft DMM-best-practices-gap-analysis October 2013 <- INTERNET -> <- HOME NETWORK -> <------- ACCESS NETWORK -------> ----- /|AR1|-(o) zz (o) -------- / ----- | | MAP1 |< ------- -------- \ ----- | MN1 | ------- \|AR2| ------- | CN1 | ----- HoA anchored ------- ----- at HA1 ------- /|AR3| RCoA anchored | HA1 | -------- / ----- at MAP1 ------- | MAP2 |< LCoA anchored -------- \ ----- at AR1 \|AR4| ------- ----- | CN2 | ----- ------- /|AR5| -------- / ----- | MAP3 |< -------- \ ----- \|AR6| ----- CN1 CN2 HA1 MAP1 AR1 MN1 | | | | ________|__________ | |<------------------>|<==============>|<________+__________>| HoA | | | | | | | |<-------------------------->|<===================>| RCoA | | | | | | Figure 3: Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 (HMIPv6) [RFC5380] is another host-based IP mobility extension that can be considered as a complement to provide a less centralized mobility deployment. It allows reducing the amount of mobility signaling as well as improving the overall handover performance of Mobile IPv6 by introducing a new hierarchy level to handle local mobility. The Mobility Anchor Point (MAP) entity is introduced as a local mobility handling node deployed closer to the mobile node. When HMIPv6 is used, the MN has two different temporal addresses: the Regional Care-of Address (RCoA) and the Local Care-of Address (LCoA). The RCoA is anchored at one MAP, that plays the role of local home agent, while the LCoA is anchored at the access router level. The mobile node uses the RCoA as the CoA signaled to its home agent. Therefore, while roaming within a local domain handled by the same MAP, the mobile node does not need to update its home agent (i.e., Liu, et al. Expires April 23, 2014 [Page 11] Internet-Draft DMM-best-practices-gap-analysis October 2013 the mobile node does not change RCoA). The use of HMIPv6 allows some route optimization, as a mobile node may decide to directly use the RCoA as source address for a communication with a given correspondent node, notably if the MN does not expect to move outside the local domain during the lifetime of the communication. This can be seen as a potential DMM mode of operation. In the example shown in Figure 3, MN1 is using its global HoA to communicate with CN1, while it is using its RCoA to communicate with CN2. Additionally, a local domain might have several MAPs deployed, enabling hence different kind of HMIPv6 deployments (e.g., flat and distributed). The HMIPv6 specification supports a flexible selection of the MAP (e.g., based on the distance between the MN and the MAP, taking into consideration the expected mobility pattern of the MN, etc.). An additional extension that can be used to help deploying a mobility protocol in a distributed mobility management environment is the the Home Agent switch specification [RFC5142], which defines a new mobility header for signaling a mobile node that it should acquire a new home agent. Even though the purposes of this specification do not include the case of changing the mobile node's home address, as that might imply loss of connectivity for ongoing persistent connections, it could be used to force the change of home agent in those situations where there are no active persistent data sessions that cannot cope with a change of home address. There other host-based approaches standardized within the IETF that can be used to provide mobility support. For example MOBIKE [RFC4555] allows a mobile node encrypting traffic through IKEv2 [RFC5996] to change its point of attachment while maintaining a Virtual Private Network (VPN) session. The MOBIKE protocol allows updating the VPN Security Associations (SAs) in cases where the base connection initially used is lost and needs to be re-established. The use of the MOBIKE protocol avoids having to perform an IKEv2 re- negotiation. Similar considerations to those made for Mobile IPv6 can be applied to MOBIKE; though MOBIKE is best suited for situations where the address of at least one endpoint is relatively stable and can be discovered using existing mechanisms such as DNS. 4.2.2. Network-based IP DMM practices Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) [RFC5213] is the main network-based IP mobility protocol specified for IPv6 ([RFC5844] defines some IPv4 extensions). Architecturally, PMIPv6 is similar to MIPv6, as it relies on the function of the Local Mobility Anchor (LMA) to provide Liu, et al. Expires April 23, 2014 [Page 12] Internet-Draft DMM-best-practices-gap-analysis October 2013 mobile nodes with mobility support, without requiring the involvement of the mobile nodes. The required functionality at the mobile node is provided in a proxy manner by the Mobile Access Gateway (MAG). With network-based IP mobility protocols, the local mobility anchor typically provides the anchoring function (AF), Mobility Routing (MR), and Internetwork Location Management (LM) functions, while the mobile access gateway provides the Location Update (LU) function. We next describe some practices on how network-based mobility protocols and several additional protocol extensions can be deployed in a distributed mobility management environment. <- INTERNET -><- HOME NET -><----------- ACCESS NETWORK ------------> ------- | CN1 | -------- -------- -------- ------- -------- | MAG1 | | MAG2 | | MAG3 | | LMA1 | ---+---- ---+---- ---+---- ------- -------- | | | | CN2 | (o) (o) (o) ------- -------- x x | LMA2 | x x ------- -------- (o) (o) | CN3 | | | ------- ---+--- ---+--- Anchored | MN1 | Anchored | MN2 | at LMA1 -> ------- at LMA2 -> ------- CN1 CN2 LMA1 LMA2 MAG1 MN1 MAG3 MN2 | | | | | | | | |<------------>|<================>|<---->| | | | | | | | | | | | |<------------>|<========================>|<----->| | | | | | | | | Figure 4: Distributed operation of Proxy Mobile IPv6 As with Mobile IPv6, plain Proxy Mobile IPv6 operation cannot be easily decentralized, as in this case there also exists a single network anchor point. One simple but still suboptimal approach, can be to deploy several local mobility anchors and use some selection criteria to assign LMAs to attaching mobile nodes (an example of this type of assignment is shown in Figure 4). As per the client based approach, a mobile node may use several anchors at the same time, each of them anchoring IP flows initiated at different point of attachment. This assignment can be static or dynamic (as described later in this document). The main advantage of this simple approach is that the IP address anchor (i.e., the LMA) could be placed closer to the mobile node, and therefore resulting paths are close-to- optimal. On the other hand, as soon as the mobile node moves, the Liu, et al. Expires April 23, 2014 [Page 13] Internet-Draft DMM-best-practices-gap-analysis October 2013 resulting path would start to deviate from the optimal one. As for host-based IP mobility, there are some extensions defined to mitigate the sub-optimal routing issues that might arise due to the use of a centralized anchor. The Local Routing extensions [RFC6705] enable optimal routing in Proxy Mobile IPv6 in three cases: i) when two communicating MNs are attached to the same MAG and LMA, ii) when two communicating MNs are attached to different MAGs but to the same LMA, and iii) when two communicating MNs are attached to the same MAG but have different LMAs. In these three cases, data traffic between the two mobile nodes does not traverse the LMA(s), thus providing some form of path optimization since the traffic is locally routed at the edge. The main disadvantage of this approach is that it only tackles the MN-to-MN communication scenario, and only under certain circumstances. An interesting extension that can also be used to facilitate the deployment of network-based mobility protocols in a distributes mobility management environment is the LMA runtime assignment [RFC6463]. This extension specifies a runtime local mobility anchor assignment functionality and corresponding mobility options for Proxy Mobile IPv6. This runtime local mobility anchor assignment takes place during the Proxy Binding Update / Proxy Binding Acknowledgment message exchange between a mobile access gateway and a local mobility anchor. While this mechanism is mainly aimed for load-balancing purposes, it can also be used to select an optimal LMA from the routing point of view. A runtime LMA assignment can be used to change the assigned LMA of an MN, for example in case when the mobile node does not have any session active, or when running sessions can survive an IP address change. Note that several possible dynamic local mobility anchor discovery solutions can be used, as described in [RFC6097]. 4.3. 3GPP network flattening approaches The 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) is the standard development organization that specifies the 3rd generation mobile network and LTE (Long Term Evolution). Architecturally, the 3GPP Evolved Packet Core (EPC) network is similar to an IP wireless network running PMIPv6 or MIPv6, as it relies on the Packet Data Gateway (PGW) anchoring services to provide mobile nodes with mobility support (see Figure 5). There are client- based and network-based mobility solutions in 3GPP, which for simplicity we will analyze together. We next describe how 3GPP mobility protocols and several additional completed or on-going extensions can be deployed to meet some of the DMM requirements [I-D.ietf-dmm-requirements]. Liu, et al. Expires April 23, 2014 [Page 14] Internet-Draft DMM-best-practices-gap-analysis October 2013 +---------------------------------------------------------+ | PCRF | +-----------+--------------------------+----------------+-+ | | | +----+ +-----------+------------+ +--------+-----------+ +-+-+ | | | +-+ | | Core Network | | | | | | +------+ |S|__ | | +--------+ +---+ | | | | | | |GERAN/|_|G| \ | | | HSS | | | | | | | +-----+ UTRAN| |S| \ | | +---+----+ | | | | E | | | | +------+ |N| +-+-+ | | | | | | | x | | | | +-+ /|MME| | | +---+----+ | | | | t | | | | +---------+ / +---+ | | | 3GPP | | | | | e | | +-----+ E-UTRAN |/ | | | AAA | | | | | r | | | | +---------+\ | | | SERVER | | | | | n | | | | \ +---+ | | +--------+ | | | | a | | | | 3GPP AN \|SGW+----- S5---------------+ P | | | l | | | | +---+ | | | G | | | | | | +------------------------+ | | W | | | I | | UE | | | | | | P | | | +------------------------+ | | +-----+ | | | |+-------------+ +------+| | | | | | n | | | || Untrusted +-+ ePDG +-S2b---------------+ | | | e | | +---+| non-3GPP AN | +------+| | | | | | t | | | |+-------------+ | | | | | | w | | | +------------------------+ | | | | | o | | | | | | | | r | | | +------------------------+ | | | | | k | | +---+ Trusted non-3GPP AN +-S2a--------------+ | | | s | | | +------------------------+ | | | | | | | | | +-+-+ | | | | +--------------------------S2c--------------------| | | | | | | | | | +----+ +--------------------+ +---+ Figure 5: EPS (non-roaming) architecture overview GPRS Tunnelling Protocol (GTP) [3GPP.29.060] [3GPP.29.281] [3GPP.29.274] is a network-based mobility protocol specified for 3GPP networks (S2a, S2b, S5 and S8 interfaces). Similar to PMIPv6, it can handle mobility without requiring the involvement of the mobile nodes. In this case, the mobile node functionality is provided in a proxy manner by the Serving Data Gateway (SGW), Evolved Packet Data Gateway (ePDG), or Trusted Wireless Access Gateway (TWAG). 3GPP specifications also include client-based mobility support, based on adopting the use of Dual-Stack Mobile IPv6 (DSMIPv6) [RFC5555] for the S2c interface. In this case, the UE implements the mobile node functionality, while the home agent role is played by the PGW. Liu, et al. Expires April 23, 2014 [Page 15] Internet-Draft DMM-best-practices-gap-analysis October 2013 A Local IP Access (LIPA) and Selected IP Traffic Offload (SIPTO) enabled network [3GPP.23.401] allows offloading some IP services at the local access network, above the Radio Access Network (RAN) or at the macro, without the need to traverse back to the PGW (see Figure 6. +---------+ IP traffic to mobile operator's CN | User |....................................(Operator's CN) | Equipm. |.................. +---------+ . Local IP traffic . +-----------+ |Residential| |enterprise | |IP network | +-----------+ Figure 6: LIPA scenario SIPTO enables an operator to offload certain types of traffic at a network node close to the UE's point of attachment to the access network, by selecting a set of GWs (SGW and PGW) that is geographically/topologically close to the UE's point of attachment. SIPTO Traffic | . . +------+ +------+ |L-PGW | ---- | MME | +------+ / +------+ | / +-------+ +------+ +------+/ +------+ | UE |.....|eNB |....| S-GW |........| P-GW |...> CN Traffic +-------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ Figure 7: SIPTO architecture LIPA, on the other hand, enables an IP capable UE connected via a Home eNB (HeNB) to access other IP capable entities in the same residential/enterprise IP network without the user plane traversing the mobile operator's network core. In order to achieve this, a Local GW (L-GW) collocated with the HeNB is used. LIPA is established by the UE requesting a new PDN connection to an access point name for which LIPA is permitted, and the network selecting the Local GW associated with the HeNB and enabling a direct user plane path between the Local GW and the HeNB. Liu, et al. Expires April 23, 2014 [Page 16] Internet-Draft DMM-best-practices-gap-analysis October 2013 +---------------+-------+ +----------+ +-------------+ ===== |Residential | |H(e)NB | | Backhaul | |Mobile | ( IP ) |Enterprise |..|-------|..| |..|Operator |..(Network) |Network | |L-GW | | | |Core network | ======= +---------------+-------+ +----------+ +-------------+ / | / +-----+ | UE | +-----+ Figure 8: LIPA architecture The 3GPP architecture specifications also provide mechanisms to allow discovery and selection of gateways [3GPP.29.303]. These mechanisms enable taking decisions taking into consideration topological location and gateway collocation aspects, using heavily the DNS as a "location database". Both SIPTO and LIPA have a very limited mobility support, specially in 3GPP specifications up to Rel-10. In Rel-11, there is currently a work item on LIPA Mobility and SIPTO at the Local Network (LIMONET) [3GPP.23.859] that is studying how to provide SIPTO and LIPA mechanisms with some additional, but still limited, mobility support. In a glimpse, LIPA mobility support is limited to handovers between HeNBs that are managed by the same L-GW (i.e., mobility within the local domain), while seamless SIPTO mobility is still limited to the case where the SGW/PGW is at or above Radio Access Network (RAN) level. 5. Gap analysis The goal of this section is to identify the limitations in the current practices, described in Section 4, with respect to the expected DMM requirements listed in [I-D.ietf-dmm-requirements]. 5.1. Distributed processing - REQ1 According to requirement #1 stated in [I-D.ietf-dmm-requirements], IP mobility, network access and routing solutions provided by DMM MUST enable distributed processing for mobility management so that traffic does not need to traverse centrally deployed mobility anchors and thereby avoid non-optimal routes. From the analysis performed in Section 4, a DMM deployment can meet the requirement "REQ#1 Distributed processing" usually relying on the Liu, et al. Expires April 23, 2014 [Page 17] Internet-Draft DMM-best-practices-gap-analysis October 2013 following functions: o Multiple (distributed) anchoring: ability to anchor different sessions of a single mobile node at different anchors. In order to make this feature "DMM-friendly", some anchors might need to be placed closer to the mobile node. o Dynamic anchor assignment/re-location: ability to i) optimally assign initial anchor, and ii) dynamically change the initially assigned anchor and/or assign a new one (this may also require to transfer mobility context between anchors). This can be achieved either by changing anchor for all ongoing sessions, or by assigning new anchors just for new sessions. Both the main client- and network-based IP mobility protocols, namely (DS)MIPv6 and PMIPv6 allows to deploy multiple anchors (i.e., home agents and localized mobility anchors), therefore providing the multiple anchoring function. However, existing solutions do only provide an optimal initial anchor assignment, a gap being the lack of dynamic anchor change/new anchor assignment. Neither the HA switch nor the LMA runtime assignment allow changing the anchor during an ongoing session. This actually comprises several gaps: ability to perform anchor assignment at any time (not only at the initial MN's attachment), ability of the current anchor to initiate/trigger the relocation, and ability of transferring registration context between anchors. Dynamic anchor assignment may lead the MN to manage different mobility sessions served by different mobility anchors. This is not an issue with client based mobility management where the mobility client natively knows each anchor associated to each mobility sessions. However, it may raise issues with network based mobility management. In this case, the mobile client, located in the network (e.g., MAG), usually retrieves the MN's anchor from the MN's policy profile (e.g., Section 6.2 of [RFC5213]). Currently, the MN's policy profile implicitly assumes a single serving anchor and, thus, does not maintain the association between home network prefix and anchor. The consequence of the distribution of the mobility anchors is that there might be more than one available anchor for a mobile node to use, so leading to an anchor discovery and selection issue. Currently, there is no efficient mechanism specified by the IETF that allows to dynamically discover the presence of nodes that can play the role of anchor, discover their capabilities and allow the selection of the most suitable one. Note that there are 3GPP mechanisms providing this functionality defined in [3GPP.29.303]. Liu, et al. Expires April 23, 2014 [Page 18] Internet-Draft DMM-best-practices-gap-analysis October 2013 5.2. Transparency to Upper Layers - REQ2 The need for "transparency to upper layer", introduced in [I-D.ietf-dmm-requirements], requires dynamic mobility management, which basically leverages the two following functions: o Dynamically assign/relocate anchor: a mobility anchor is assigned only to sessions which require IP continuity support. The MN may thus manage more than one session; some of them may be associated with anchored IP address(es), while the others may be associated with local IP address(es). o Multiple IP address management: this function is ensued from the preceding and is about the ability of the mobile node to simultaneously use multiple IP addresses and select the best one (from an anchoring point of view) to use on a per-session/ application/service basis. The dynamic anchor assignment/relocation needs to ensure that IP address continuity is guaranteed for sessions that need it and while needed (in some scenarios, the provision of mobility locally within a limited area might be enough from the mobile node or the application point of view) at the relocated anchor. This for example implies having the knowledge of which sessions are active at the mobile node, which is something typically known only by the MN e.g., by its connection manager). Therefore, (part of) this knowledge might need to be transferred to/shared with the network. Multiple IP address management requires the MN to pick-up the correct address (with mobility support or not) depending on the application requirements. When using client based mobility management, the mobile node is natively aware about the anchoring capabilities of its assigned IP addresses. This is not the case with network based IP mobility management and current mechanisms does not allow the MN to be aware of the IP addresses properties (i.e. the MN does not know whether the allocated IP addresses are anchored). However, there are ongoing IETF works that are proposing that the network could indicate the different IP addresses properties during assignment procedures [I-D.bhandari-dhc-class-based-prefix], [I-D.korhonen-6man-prefix-properties]. 5.3. IPv6 deployment - REQ3 This requirement states that DMM solutions SHOULD primariliy target IPv6 as the primary deployment environment.. IPv4 support is not considered mandatory and SHOULD NOT be tailored specifically to support IPv4, in particular in situations where private IPv4 addresses and/or NATs are used. Liu, et al. Expires April 23, 2014 [Page 19] Internet-Draft DMM-best-practices-gap-analysis October 2013 All analyzed DMM practices support IPv6. Some of them, such as MIPv6/NEMO (including the support of dynamic HA selection), MOBIKE, SIPTO have also IPv4 support. Additionally, there are also some solutions that have some limited IPv4 support (e.g., PMIPv6). In conclusion, this requirement is met by existing DMM practices. 5.4. Existing mobility protocols - REQ4 A DMM solution SHOULD first consider reusing and extending IETF- standardized protocols before specifying new protocols. As stated in [I-D.ietf-dmm-requirements], a DMM solution could reuse existing IETF and standardized protocols before specifying new protocols. Besides, Section 4 of this document discusses various ways to flatten and distribute current mobility solutions. Actually, nothing prevent the distribution of mobility functions with vanilla IP mobility protocols. However, as discussed in Section 5.1 and Section 5.2, limitations exist. The 3GPP data plane anchoring function, i.e., the PGW, can be also be distributed, but with limitations; e.g., no anchoring relocation, no context transfer between anchors, centralized control plane . The 3GPP architecture is also going into the direction of flattening with SIPTO and LIPA where IP anchoring function, however these solutions are supposed to be deployed do and, thus, do not provide mobility support. In conclusion this requirement can be met, DMM can reuse existing mobility solutions, however some limitations exist. 5.5. Co-existence - REQ5 According to [I-D.ietf-dmm-requirements], DMM solution should be able to co-exist with existing network deployments and end hosts. All of current mobility protocols can co-exist with existing network deployments and end hosts. There is no gap between existing mobility protocols and this requirement. 5.6. Security considerations - REQ6 As stated in [I-D.ietf-dmm-requirements], a DMM solution MUST NOT introduce new security risks or amplify existing security risks against which the existing security mechanisms/protocols cannot offer sufficient protection. Current mobility protocols all have security mechanisms. For example, Mobile IPv6 defines security features to protect binding updates both to home agents and correspondent nodes. It also defines mechanisms to protect the data packets transmission for Mobile IPv6 users. Proxy Mobile IPv6 and other variation of mobile IP also have similar security considerations. Liu, et al. Expires April 23, 2014 [Page 20] Internet-Draft DMM-best-practices-gap-analysis October 2013 5.7. Multicast - REQ7 It is stated in [I-D.ietf-dmm-requirements] that DMM solutions SHOULD consider multicast traffic delivery so that network inefficiency issues, such as duplicate multicast subscriptions towards the downstream tunnel entities, can be avoided. Current IP mobility solutions address mainly the mobility problem for unicast traffic. Solutions relying on the use of an anchor point for tunneling multicast traffic down to the access router, or to the MN, introduce the so-called "tunnel convergence problem". This means that multiple instances of the same multicast traffic can converge to the same node, defeating hence the advantage of using multicast protocols. The MULTIMOB WG in IETF has studied the issue, for the specific case of PMIPv6, and has produced a baseline solution [RFC6224] as well as a routing optimization solution [RFC7028] to address the problem. The baseline solution suggests deploying an MLD proxy function at the MAG, and either a multicast router or another MLD proxy function at the LMA. The routing optimization solution describes an architecture where a dedicated multicast tree mobility anchor (MTMA) or a direct routing option can be used to avoid the tunnel convergence problem. Besides the solutions proposed in MULTIMOB for PMIPv6, there are no solutions for other mobility protocols to address the multicast tunnel convergence problem. 5.8. Summary We next list the main gaps identified from the analysis performed above. o Existing solutions do only provide an optimal initial anchor assignment, a gap being the lack of dynamic anchor change/new anchor assignment. Neither the HA switch nor the LMA runtime assignment allow changing the anchor during an ongoing session. o The mobile node needs to simultaneously use multiple IP addresses, which requires additional support which might not be available on the mobile node's stack, especially for the case of network-based solutions. o Currently, there is no efficient mechanism specified by the IETF that allows to dynamically discover the presence of nodes that can play the role of anchor, discover their capabilities and allow the selection of the most suitable one. Liu, et al. Expires April 23, 2014 [Page 21] Internet-Draft DMM-best-practices-gap-analysis October 2013 o While existing network-based DMM practices may allow to deploy multiple LMAs and dynamically select the best one, this requires to still keep some centralization in the control plane, to access on the policy store (as defined in RFC5213). The following table summarizes the previous analysis, indicating the gaps existing DMM solutions have when compared to the requirements listed in [I-D.ietf-dmm-requirements]. +------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+ | | REQ1 | REQ2 | REQ3 | REQ4 | REQ5 | REQ6 | REQ7 | +------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+ | MIPv6/NEMO | X | X | | | | | X | | MIPv6 RO | X | | | | | | X | | HMIPv6 | X | | | | | | X | | HA sel | X | X | | | | | X | | MOBIKE | X | X | | | | | X | | PMIPv6 | X | X | | | | | * | | LMA sel | X | X | | | | | X | | LIPA | X | X | | | | | X | | SIPTO | X | X | | | | | X | | LIMONET | X | X | | | | | X | +------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+ * MULTIMOB optimizations for PMIPv6 can be used to handle multicast traffic. 6. Security Considerations This document does not define any protocol, there is no security considerations. 7. IANA Considerations None. 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. Liu, et al. Expires April 23, 2014 [Page 22] Internet-Draft DMM-best-practices-gap-analysis October 2013 8.2. Informative References [3GPP.23.401] 3GPP, "General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) enhancements for Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network (E-UTRAN) access", 3GPP TS 23.401 10.10.0, March 2013. [3GPP.23.859] 3GPP, "Local IP access (LIPA) mobility and Selected IP Traffic Offload (SIPTO) at the local network", 3GPP TR 23.859 12.0.1, April 2013. [3GPP.29.060] 3GPP, "General Packet Radio Service (GPRS); GPRS Tunnelling Protocol (GTP) across the Gn and Gp interface", 3GPP TS 29.060 3.19.0, March 2004. [3GPP.29.274] 3GPP, "3GPP Evolved Packet System (EPS); Evolved General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) Tunnelling Protocol for Control plane (GTPv2-C); Stage 3", 3GPP TS 29.274 10.11.0, June 2013. [3GPP.29.281] 3GPP, "General Packet Radio System (GPRS) Tunnelling Protocol User Plane (GTPv1-U)", 3GPP TS 29.281 10.3.0, September 2011. [3GPP.29.303] 3GPP, "Domain Name System Procedures; Stage 3", 3GPP TS 29.303 10.4.0, September 2012. [I-D.bhandari-dhc-class-based-prefix] Systems, C., Halwasia, G., Gundavelli, S., Deng, H., Thiebaut, L., Korhonen, J., and I. Farrer, "DHCPv6 class based prefix", draft-bhandari-dhc-class-based-prefix-05 (work in progress), July 2013. [I-D.gundavelli-v6ops-community-wifi-svcs] Gundavelli, S., Grayson, M., Seite, P., and Y. Lee, "Service Provider Wi-Fi Services Over Residential Architectures", draft-gundavelli-v6ops-community-wifi-svcs-06 (work in progress), April 2013. [I-D.ietf-dmm-requirements] Chan, A., Liu, D., Seite, P., Yokota, H., and J. Korhonen, "Requirements for Distributed Mobility Management", Liu, et al. Expires April 23, 2014 [Page 23] Internet-Draft DMM-best-practices-gap-analysis October 2013 draft-ietf-dmm-requirements-09 (work in progress), September 2013. [I-D.korhonen-6man-prefix-properties] Korhonen, J., Patil, B., Gundavelli, S., Seite, P., and D. Liu, "IPv6 Prefix Properties", draft-korhonen-6man-prefix-properties-02 (work in progress), July 2013. [IEEE.802-16.2009] "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks Part 16: Air Interface for Broadband Wireless Access Systems", IEEE Standard 802.16, 2009, . [RFC3963] Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., and P. Thubert, "Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol", RFC 3963, January 2005. [RFC4225] Nikander, P., Arkko, J., Aura, T., Montenegro, G., and E. Nordmark, "Mobile IP Version 6 Route Optimization Security Design Background", RFC 4225, December 2005. [RFC4555] Eronen, P., "IKEv2 Mobility and Multihoming Protocol (MOBIKE)", RFC 4555, June 2006. [RFC4640] Patel, A. and G. Giaretta, "Problem Statement for bootstrapping Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6)", RFC 4640, September 2006. [RFC5014] Nordmark, E., Chakrabarti, S., and J. Laganier, "IPv6 Socket API for Source Address Selection", RFC 5014, September 2007. [RFC5026] Giaretta, G., Kempf, J., and V. Devarapalli, "Mobile IPv6 Bootstrapping in Split Scenario", RFC 5026, October 2007. [RFC5142] Haley, B., Devarapalli, V., Deng, H., and J. Kempf, "Mobility Header Home Agent Switch Message", RFC 5142, January 2008. [RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V., Chowdhury, K., and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 5213, August 2008. [RFC5380] Soliman, H., Castelluccia, C., ElMalki, K., and L. Bellier, "Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 (HMIPv6) Mobility Management", RFC 5380, October 2008. Liu, et al. Expires April 23, 2014 [Page 24] Internet-Draft DMM-best-practices-gap-analysis October 2013 [RFC5555] Soliman, H., "Mobile IPv6 Support for Dual Stack Hosts and Routers", RFC 5555, June 2009. [RFC5844] Wakikawa, R. and S. Gundavelli, "IPv4 Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 5844, May 2010. [RFC5996] Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., and P. Eronen, "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)", RFC 5996, September 2010. [RFC6097] Korhonen, J. and V. Devarapalli, "Local Mobility Anchor (LMA) Discovery for Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 6097, February 2011. [RFC6224] Schmidt, T., Waehlisch, M., and S. Krishnan, "Base Deployment for Multicast Listener Support in Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) Domains", RFC 6224, April 2011. [RFC6275] Perkins, C., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, July 2011. [RFC6463] Korhonen, J., Gundavelli, S., Yokota, H., and X. Cui, "Runtime Local Mobility Anchor (LMA) Assignment Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 6463, February 2012. [RFC6611] Chowdhury, K. and A. Yegin, "Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6) Bootstrapping for the Integrated Scenario", RFC 6611, May 2012. [RFC6705] Krishnan, S., Koodli, R., Loureiro, P., Wu, Q., and A. Dutta, "Localized Routing for Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 6705, September 2012. [RFC7028] Zuniga, JC., Contreras, LM., Bernardos, CJ., Jeon, S., and Y. Kim, "Multicast Mobility Routing Optimizations for Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 7028, September 2013. Authors' Addresses Dapeng Liu (editor) China Mobile Unit2, 28 Xuanwumenxi Ave, Xuanwu District Beijing 100053 China Email: liudapeng@chinamobile.com Liu, et al. Expires April 23, 2014 [Page 25] Internet-Draft DMM-best-practices-gap-analysis October 2013 Juan Carlos Zuniga (editor) InterDigital Communications, LLC 1000 Sherbrooke Street West, 10th floor Montreal, Quebec H3A 3G4 Canada Email: JuanCarlos.Zuniga@InterDigital.com URI: http://www.InterDigital.com/ Pierrick Seite Orange 4, rue du Clos Courtel, BP 91226 Cesson-Sevigne 35512 France Email: pierrick.seite@orange.com H Anthony Chan Huawei Technologies 5340 Legacy Dr. Building 3 Plano, TX 75024 USA Email: h.a.chan@ieee.org Carlos J. Bernardos Universidad Carlos III de Madrid Av. Universidad, 30 Leganes, Madrid 28911 Spain Phone: +34 91624 6236 Email: cjbc@it.uc3m.es URI: http://www.it.uc3m.es/cjbc/ Liu, et al. Expires April 23, 2014 [Page 26]