netext Y. Tu Internet-Draft C. Zhu Intended status: Standards Track ZTE Expires: April 15, 2012 October 13, 2011 MN Status Option for Proxy Mobile IPv6 draft-tu-netext-mn-status-option-00 Abstract This document explains how the LMA obtains the MN status in order to decide and perform the flow mobility. 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 15, 2012. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2011 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. Tu & Zhu Expires April 15, 2012 [Page 1] Internet-Draft MN Status Option for PMIPv6 October 2011 Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. MN status option for PMIPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.2. Mobile Node Status Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Tu & Zhu Expires April 15, 2012 [Page 2] Internet-Draft MN Status Option for PMIPv6 October 2011 1. Introduction There is a need for the local mobility anchor to decide and perform the flow mobility from one access network to another,e.g. from 3GPP to WLAN or from WLAN to WiMAX. Proxy Mobile IPv6 specification [RFC5213] allows carrying of the Access Technology Type information from the mobile access gateway to the local mobility anchor. However, the Access Technology Type information is insufficient to provide the local mobility anchor enough information to guarantee the flow mobility is successfully completed, in which the mobile node status (e.g. connect, disconnect or idle/power saving mode) is unkown for the local mobility anchor. In this case, the local mobility anchor may choose one of the access networks which is currently unavailable as the target to move a specific IP flow according to the operator preferences and local policies. To prevent this, the mobile node status needs to be updated from the mobility access gateway to the local mobility anchor. This document defines a new mobility option, MN Status option for Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6), that can be used by mobile access gateway (MAG) for carrying the MN status with the correspondent access network to the local mobility anchor. 2. Conventions used in this document 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]. 3. MN status option for PMIPv6 3.1. Overview In some deployments the network (e.g. 3GPP) needs to support the multiple access technologies for the mobile node, and the local mobility anchor can be triggered to decide which access technology will be used to move the particular IP flow according to the operator preferences and local policy. To guarantee the flow mobility procedure from one access technology to another is succeed, one of the key information should be obtained by the LMA is the currently mobile node status with correspondent access network type information. The mobility access gateway is the right one to detect the mobile node status using the mechanisms as defined in RFC5213, furthermore, each access network has defined its own mechanisms to detect the Tu & Zhu Expires April 15, 2012 [Page 3] Internet-Draft MN Status Option for PMIPv6 October 2011 connectivity status of the attached mobile node. The mobile node status can be carried in the messages exchange between the MAG and LMA, be more specific, the MAG can periodic or be event triggered to update the MN status to the LMA. How the LMA use this information is outside the scope of this document. 3.2. Mobile Node Status Option A new option, Mobile Node Status Option, is defined for using it in messages (e.g. PBU and PBA) exchanged between a local mobility anchor and a mobile access gateway. 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |MN-status Type |MN-StatusLength| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Mobile Node status | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 1: MN Status Option MN-status Type TBD MN-status Length 8-bit unsigned integer indicating the length in octets of the option, excluding the type and length fields. Mobile Node status The status of the mobile node attached from a specific access network, such as WiFi,WiMAX and 3GPP. Currently the value of the MN status can be as follow: 1,connect mode, 2,disconnect mode, 3,idle/Power saving mode Tu & Zhu Expires April 15, 2012 [Page 4] Internet-Draft MN Status Option for PMIPv6 October 2011 4,reserved. 4. Security Considerations TBD 5. IANA Considerations TBD 6. Contributors The following people contributed to this document (in no specific order): Yifeng Bi ZTE bi.yifeng@zte.com.cn 7. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC3775] Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support in IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004. [RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V., Chowdhury, K., and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 5213, August 2008. [TS23402] 3GPP, "Architecture enhancements for non-3GPP accesses", 2011. Authors' Addresses Yangwei Tu ZTE Nanjing Nanjing China Email: tu.yangwei@zte.com.cn Tu & Zhu Expires April 15, 2012 [Page 5] Internet-Draft MN Status Option for PMIPv6 October 2011 Chunhui Zhu ZTE Nanjing Nanjing China Email: zhu.chunhui@zte.com.cn Tu & Zhu Expires April 15, 2012 [Page 6]