IRTF MobOpts WG Eranga Perera Internet Draft NICTA Expires: January 2, 2008 Oliver Blume Alcatel-Lucent Michael Georgiades University of Surrey Eleanor Hepworth Siemens Roke-Manor Jochen Eisl Nokia Siemens July 2, 2007 Motivation for Context Aware Mobility draft-perera-mobopts-motivation-cam-00.txt Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. This document may only be posted in an Internet-Draft. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at anytime. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html This Internet-Draft will expire on January 2, 2008. Perera Expires January 2, 2008 [Page 1] Internet-Draft draft-perera-mobopts-motivation-cam-00.txt July 2007 Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2007). All Rights Reserved. Abstract This document describes the motivation for investigating the definition and architectural implications of defining what a “context” is for mobility management purposes. This draft seeks to generate enough interest on this topic in the working group. If there is sufficient interest on this topic, drafts that address methodologies to enable context aware mobility could be proposed. Table of Contents 1. Introduction.................................................2 2. Definition of “context” for mobility management purposes.....3 3. Motivations to investigate architectural implications of “context” on mobility management................................4 3.1. Using context for mobility management decisions enhances performance.........................................4 3.2. Load sharing............................................4 3.3. Enables functionalities according to a user’s expectation..................................................4 4. Possible areas to investigate on context aware mobility......4 5. Informative References.......................................5 Author's Addresses..............................................6 Disclaimer of Validity..........................................7 Copyright Statement.............................................7 Acknowledgments.................................................7 1. Introduction There are experimental standards protocols such as the Context Transfer protocol [1] and the Candidate Access Router protocol [2] which facilitates seamless IP-layer handovers from one Access Router to another by providing routing related information in selecting a new point of attachment. Further, the emerging standard IEEE 802.21 [3] specifies procedures that facilitate handover decision making, providing link layer state information and command procedures that could potentially support seamless service across heterogeneous access networks. It also defines methods and semantics that support the acquisition of access network information. Although such methods of acquiring context have been specified, up to now the use of “context” in mobility protocols to enhance the performance has been Perera Expires January 2, 2008 [Page 2] Internet-Draft draft-perera-mobopts-motivation-cam-00.txt July 2007 very limited. Further, the scope of context used within these protocols has been limited mostly to information about the New Access Routers to which a Mobile Node could potentially connect. In this draft we present some motivational factors to create interest within the WG to investigate context in a much broader sense and see how different contexts affects handover decisions and executions. Further we discuss some possible paths that can be investigated in enabling context aware mobility. 2. Definition of “context” for mobility management purposes The mobility related terminology RFC [4] defines context as follows: Context: The information on the current state of a routing-related service required to re-establish the routing-related service on a new subnet without having to perform the entire protocol exchange with the MN from scratch. However, in order to support mobility in heterogeneous mobility environments in a lucrative manner we could use much more information pertaining to a situation and we should not limit our mobility management decisions to the use of context relating to only routing related states. Today’s technologies allow us to derive context from a variety of physical and logical sensors. We need to investigate what context information makes the most impact on mobility related decisions and redefine context for mobility management purposes. For example: Service context (what type of services are being used, i.e. what bandwidth and delay requirements exist) Security context (keys and authentication) Device context (capabilities of the MN) Mobility context (speed, HO rate, available candidate accesses) Flow control context (status of IP packets in the queues, e.g. for forwarding or for detection of transmission bottlenecks) Perera Expires January 2, 2008 [Page 3] Internet-Draft draft-perera-mobopts-motivation-cam-00.txt July 2007 3. Motivations to investigate architectural implications of “context” on mobility management 3.1. Using context for mobility management decisions enhances performance The key objective of use of context for mobility management has been to reduce latency and packet losses to avoid the re-initiation of signaling to and from a Mobile Node. 3.2. Load sharing Context information pertaining to the network such as network capacity would enable the use of the networks in a more economical manner. 3.3. Enables functionalities according to a user’s expectation Context aware mobility management that takes into account user profiles/preferences would enable connectivity and handovers according to user’s expectations. 4. Possible areas to investigate on context aware mobility 1)Should mobility management protocols incorporate context aware decision making? What is the most viable option? 2)Should the architecture be such that a standard is available to cater to choose between different mobility protocols according to the context? Should such an architecture take into consideration only Mobile IP variants (MIPv4 [5], MIPv6 [6], FMIPv6 [7], HMIPv6 [8], PMIPv6 [9], DS-MIPv6 [10] ) or different protocols such as HIP [11], SIP [12] for context aware mobility management? 3)Verify the impact of certain context cues on mobility management decisions (For example if the Mobile Node has access to information such as network load what would be the performance gain of having such context information) 4)Is a cross layer mobility management protocol which takes into consideration state changes at each layer in performing handovers a more viable option? 5)Should a context aware mobility management protocol allow for arbitrary new sensor and information types to be introduced into the system at run-time? Perera Expires January 2, 2008 [Page 4] Internet-Draft draft-perera-mobopts-motivation-cam-00.txt July 2007 5. Informative References [1] Loughney J., Nakhjiri M., Perkins C., Koodli. D., Context Transfer Protocol (CXTP), RFC4067, IETF, July 2005 [2] Liebsch M., Singh A., Chaskar H,, Funato D., Shim E., Candidate Access Router Discovery (CARD), RFC 4066, July 2005 [3] IEEE 802.21 draft standard:http://www.ieee802.org/21/index.html [4] Manner J., Kojo M., "Mobility Related Terminology", RFC 3753, June 2004 [5] Perkins C., “IP Mobility support for IPv4,” RFC 3220, IETF, January 2002 [6] Johnson D., Perkins C., Arkko J., “Mobility Support in IPv6”, RFC 3775, June 2004 [7] Koodli D., Fast Handovers for Mobile IPv6, RFC 4068, July 2005 [8] Soliman H., Castelluccia C., Malki K., Bellier L., “Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 Mobility Management” (HMIPv6), RFC 4140, August 2005 [9] Gundavelli S., Leung K., Devarapalli V., Chowdhury K., Patil B., “Proxy Mobile IPv6”, draft-ietf-netlmm-proxymip6-01.txt, IETF draft, June 2007, Work in Progress [10] Soliman H., “Dual Stack Mobile IPv6 (DSMIPv6) for Hosts and Routers” draft-ietf-mip6-nemo-v4traversal-04.txt, IETF draft, March 2007, Work in Progress [11] R. Moskowitz, P. Nikander, Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Architecture, RFC 4423, May 2006 [12] Rosenburg J., Schulzrinne H,Camarillo G., Johuston A., Peterson J,, Sparks R,, Handley M,, Schooler E,, SIP: Session Initiation Protocol, RFC3261, June 2002 Perera Expires January 2, 2008 [Page 5] Internet-Draft draft-perera-mobopts-motivation-cam-00.txt July 2007 Author's Addresses Eranga Perera National ICT Australia Australian Technology Park Bay 15 Locomotive Workshop Eveleigh NSW 1430 Email: eranga.perera@nicta.com.au Oliver Blume Alcatel-Lucent Stuttgart Germany E-mail: oliver.blume@alcatel-lucent.de Michael Georgiades Centre for Communication Systems Research University of Surrey Guildford GU2 7XH, UK Email: m.georgiades@ieee.org Jochen Eisl Nokia Siemens Networks St. Martin-Str. 76 81541 Munich Germany E-mail: jochen.eisl@nsn.com Eleanor Hepworth Siemens Roke United Kingdom E-mail: eleanor.hepworth@roke.co.uk Perera Expires January 2, 2008 [Page 6] Internet-Draft draft-perera-mobopts-motivation-cam-00.txt July 2007 Intellectual Property Statement The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org Disclaimer of Validity This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Acknowledgments Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. Perera Expires January 2, 2008 [Page 7]