NETEXT WG M. Liebsch Internet-Draft NEC Laboratories Europe Intended status: Standards Track P. Seite Expires: April 24, 2012 France Telecom - Orange H. Yokota KDDI Lab J. Korhonen Nokia Siemens Networks S. Gundavelli Cisco October 22, 2011 Quality of Service Option for Proxy Mobile IPv6 draft-liebsch-netext-pmip6-qos-00.txt Abstract This specification defines a new mobility option that can be used by the mobiliy entities in the Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain for exchanging the Quality of Service parameters associated with the subscriber flows. Specifically, the local mobility anchor in the home network can potentially send the QoS parameters to the mobile access gateway in the access network. This document also explains how the mobile access gateway in the access network can map the received QoS options to the access specific semantics, such us using 802.11e in case of IEEE 802.11 and apply it on the air interface. 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 24, 2012. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Liebsch, et al. Expires April 24, 2012 [Page 1] Internet-Draft QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6 October 2011 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. Conventions & Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.1. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Solution Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Quality of Service Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. QoS Mapping to 802.11e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Liebsch, et al. Expires April 24, 2012 [Page 2] Internet-Draft QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6 October 2011 1. Introduction Mobile operators deploy Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) [RFC5213] to enable network-based mobility management for mobile nodes (MN). Users can access Internet Protocol (IP) based services from their mobile device by using different radio access technologies. Current standardization effort considers strong QoS classification and enforcement for cellular radio access technologies. QoS policies are typically controlled by a policy control function, whereas the policies are enforced by different gateways in the infrastructure, such as the LMA. Cellular radio access technology introduces the concept of a bearer. Each mobile node can have one or multiple bearers associated with its registration, each supporting different QoS characteristics. The bearer concept is not valid for alternative radio access technologies; however, these technologies specify their own concepts to enable QoS differentiation. Handover and IP Flow Mobility using alternative radio access technologies, such as IEEE802.16 and Wireless LAN according to the IEEE802.11 specification, are being considered by the standards [TS23.402], whereas inter-working between the cellular architecture to establish QoS policies in alternative access networks has not been focussed on so far. In particular the Wireless LAN technology has been identified as promising alternative technology to complement cellular radio access. Since the 802.11e standard provides QoS extensions to WLAN, it is beneficial to apply QoS policies to the WLAN access, which enables QoS classification of downlink as well as uplink traffic between a UE and its LMA. Three functional operations have been identified to accomplish this: (a) Maintenance of QoS classification during a handover between cellular radio access and WLAN access by means of establishing QoS policies in the handover target access network, (b) mapping of QoS classes and associated policies between different access systems and (c) establishment of QoS policies for new data sessions/flows, which are initiated while using WLAN access. This document specifies an extension to the PMIPv6 protocol, which enables the transport of established QoS descriptions between an LMA and the MAG by means of a QoS container option in case the QoS policy in the WLAN access is not under explicit control of a policy control system. The specified option allows association between IP session keys, such as a Differeniated Services Code Point (DSCP), and the expected QoS class for this IP session. Further handling of QoS Liebsch, et al. Expires April 24, 2012 [Page 3] Internet-Draft QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6 October 2011 policies between the MAG and the WLAN Controller or WLAN Access Point is out of scope of this specification. Liebsch, et al. Expires April 24, 2012 [Page 4] Internet-Draft QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6 October 2011 2. Conventions & Terminology 2.1. Conventions 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 the mobility related terms used in this document are to be interpreted as defined in the Proxy Mobile IPv6 specifications [RFC5213], [RFC5844], [RFC5845] and [RFC5846]. Additionally, this document uses the following abbreviations: o WLAN (Wireless Local Area Network) - A wireless network. o WTP (Wireless Termination Point): The entity that functions as the termination point for the network-end of the IEEE 802.11 based air interface from the mobile node. It is also knows as the Wireless Access Point. o WLC (Wireless LAN Controller): The entity that provides the centralized forwarding, routing function for the user traffic. All the user traffic from the mobile nodes attached to the WTP's is typically tunneled to this centralized WLAN access controller. Liebsch, et al. Expires April 24, 2012 [Page 5] Internet-Draft QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6 October 2011 3. Solution Overview The following illustrates the scenario where the local mobility anchor in the cellular network provides QoS policy to the mobile access gateway in the WLAN access network. Other access technologies are also possible. | +--------+ | |Policy | | |Control | | |Function| +----+ | +---+----+ |WiFi| | | | AP |---+ +---+---+ | | +----+ | | WiFi | | PMIPv6 +-----+ +----+ Ctrlr/+=|============| LMA | | | MAG | | tunnel +-----+ +----+ | +-------+ | |WiFi|---+ | | AP | | +----+ | | WLAN access network | Cellullar network Figure 1: Scenario for QoS Interworking Liebsch, et al. Expires April 24, 2012 [Page 6] Internet-Draft QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6 October 2011 4. Quality of Service Option A new option, Quality of Service option, is defined for using it in Proxy Binding Update (PBU) and Proxy Binding Acknowledgement (PBA) messages exchanged between a local mobility anchor and a mobile access gateway. This option is used for providing QoS policies and information to the mobile access gateway. The alignment requirement for this option is 4n. 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Reserved | TS Format | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Traffic Selector ... ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | QoS Information ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 2: QoS Option o Type: To be assigned by IANA o Length: 8-bit unsigned integer indicating the length in octets of the option, excluding the type and length fields. o Reserved : This field is unused for now. The value MUST be initialized to 0 by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver. o TS Format: An 8-bit unsigned integer indicating the Traffic Selector Format. Value "0" is reserved and MUST NOT be used. The value of (1) is assigned for IPv4 Binary Traffic Selector [RFC6088]. o TS Selector : variable-length opaque field for including the traffic specification identified by the TS format field. When the value of TS Format field is set to (1), the format that follows is the IPv4 Binary Traffic Selector specified in section 3.1 of Liebsch, et al. Expires April 24, 2012 [Page 7] Internet-Draft QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6 October 2011 [RFC6088]. o DSCP: An 6-bit unsigned integer indicating the code point value, as defined in [RFC2475] to be used for the flow. o QoS Information: one or more Type-Length-Value (TLV) encoded QoS parameters. The interpretation and usage of the QoS information is specific to the TLV. The QoS information MUST at least contain a DSCP value indicating the code point value, as defined in [RFC2475] to be used for the flow. [Discussion: which existing QoS definition to reuse? There are several around even in IETF space. RFC5624 is one potential as it already uses TLV encoding and is indirectly used by 23.402 Liebsch, et al. Expires April 24, 2012 [Page 8] Internet-Draft QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6 October 2011 5. QoS Mapping to 802.11e This section discussed issues to be taken into account when mapping QoS parameters between different access technologies. TBD Liebsch, et al. Expires April 24, 2012 [Page 9] Internet-Draft QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6 October 2011 6. IANA Considerations This specification defines a new Mobility Header option, Quality of Service option. This option is described in Section 4. The Type value for this option needs to be assigned from the same numbering space as allocated for the other mobility options [RFC6275]. Liebsch, et al. Expires April 24, 2012 [Page 10] Internet-Draft QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6 October 2011 7. Security Considerations The quality of service option defined in this specification is for use in Proxy Binding Update and Proxy Binding Acknowledgement messages. This option is carried like any other mobility header option as specified in [RFC5213] and does not require any special security considerations. Carrying quality of service information does not introduce any new security vulnerabilities. Liebsch, et al. Expires April 24, 2012 [Page 11] Internet-Draft QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6 October 2011 8. Acknowledgements The author of this document thanks the members of the NETLMM working group for all the discussions related to this topic. Liebsch, et al. Expires April 24, 2012 [Page 12] Internet-Draft QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6 October 2011 9. References 9.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V., Chowdhury, K., and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 5213, August 2008. [RFC5779] Korhonen, J., Bournelle, J., Chowdhury, K., Muhanna, A., and U. Meyer, "Diameter Proxy Mobile IPv6: Mobile Access Gateway and Local Mobility Anchor Interaction with Diameter Server", RFC 5779, February 2010. [RFC5844] Wakikawa, R. and S. Gundavelli, "IPv4 Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 5844, May 2010. [RFC6085] Gundavelli, S., Townsley, M., Troan, O., and W. Dec, "Address Mapping of IPv6 Multicast Packets on Ethernet", RFC 6085, January 2011. [RFC6088] Tsirtsis, G., Giarreta, G., Soliman, H., and N. Montavont, "Traffic Selectors for Flow Bindings", RFC 6088, January 2011. [RFC6275] Perkins, C., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, July 2011. 9.2. Informative References [I-D.liebsch-netext-pmip6-authiwk] Gundavelli, S., Liebsch, M., and P. Seite, "PMIPv6 inter- working with WiFi access authentication", draft-liebsch-netext-pmip6-authiwk-03 (work in progress), October 2011. [RFC2475] Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z., and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated Services", RFC 2475, December 1998. [RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman, "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861, September 2007. [RFC5415] Calhoun, P., Montemurro, M., and D. Stanley, "Control And Provisioning of Wireless Access Points (CAPWAP) Protocol Specification", RFC 5415, March 2009. Liebsch, et al. Expires April 24, 2012 [Page 13] Internet-Draft QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6 October 2011 [RFC5845] Muhanna, A., Khalil, M., Gundavelli, S., and K. Leung, "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) Key Option for Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 5845, June 2010. [RFC5846] Muhanna, A., Khalil, M., Gundavelli, S., Chowdhury, K., and P. Yegani, "Binding Revocation for IPv6 Mobility", RFC 5846, June 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. [TS23.402] 3GPP, "Architecture enhancements for non-3GPP accesses", 2010. Liebsch, et al. Expires April 24, 2012 [Page 14] Internet-Draft QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6 October 2011 Authors' Addresses Marco Liebsch NEC Laboratories Europe Kurfuersten-Anlage 36 Heidelberg D-69115 Germany Email: liebsch@neclab.eu Pierrick Seite France Telecom - Orange 4, rue du Clos Courtel, BP 91226 Cesson-Sevigne 35512 France Email: pierrick.seite@orange.com Hidetoshi Yokota KDDI Lab 2-1-15 Ohara Saitama, Fujimino 356-8502 Japan Email: yokota@kddilabs.jp Jouni Korhonen Nokia Siemens Networks Linnoitustie 6 Espoo FI-02600 Finland Email: jouni.nospam@gmail.com Sri Gundavelli Cisco 170 West Tasman Drive San Jose, CA 95134 USA Email: sgundave@cisco.com Liebsch, et al. Expires April 24, 2012 [Page 15]