Network Working Group F. Xia Internet-Draft B. Sarikaya Expires: August 26, 2008 Huawei USA February 23, 2008 Prefix Management for Mobile IPv6 Fast Handover on Point-to-Point Links draft-xia-mipshop-fmip-ptp-02 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. 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 any time. 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 August 26, 2008. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). Xia & Sarikaya Expires August 26, 2008 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Prefix Mgmt for FMIPv6 over P2P Links February 2008 Abstract The Mobile IPv6 Fast Handovers (FMIPv6) specification currently does not explicitly define prefix management over point-to-point links when a Mobile Node (MN) uses a prefix to formulate a new Care-of- Address (CoA). In this document a mechanism is proposed for assigning unique prefixes to the MN by the Previous Access Router (PAR). The New Access Router (NAR) dynamically assigns an unique prefix called dedicated prefix to any MN that is performing a handover. Both reactive and predictive modes of FMIPv6 are explained. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Prefix Management on Point-to-Point Links . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.1. Predictive mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.2. Reactive Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. HI and Hack Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.1. HI Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.2. HAck Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.3. Dedicated Prefix Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. IANA consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 12 Xia & Sarikaya Expires August 26, 2008 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Prefix Mgmt for FMIPv6 over P2P Links February 2008 1. Introduction Fast handovers for Mobile IPv6 [I-D.ietf-mipshop-fmipv6-rfc4068bis] aims at reducing the handover latency by reducing the time to configure a new care-of address (NCoA) for a MN. In FMIPv6, the MN formulates a prospective NCoA when it is still present on the PAR's link. [RFC4968] provides different IPv6 link models that are suitable for 802.16 based networks and provides analysis of various considerations for each link model and the applicability of each link model under different deployment scenarios. [RFC5121] specifies the addressing and operation of IPv6 over the IPv6 specific part of the packet convergence sublayer of IEEE Std 802.16e [802.16e], and point-to- point link model is recommended. Also, 3GPP and 3GPP2 have earlier adopted the point-to-point link model based on the recommendations in [RFC3314]. In this document, we first explain the problems associated with FMIPv6 on point-to-point links followed by a detailed description of prefix management for FMIPv6 operation on point-to-point links. In Section 3 we describe why the point-to-point link address formation procedures are needed in FMIPv6, in Section 4 we define a procedure NAR can use to dynamically assign unique prefixes in point- to-point links and in Section 5 we define necessary messages/option for the operation in Section 4. 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]. The terminology in this document is based on the definitions in [I-D.ietf-mipshop-fmipv6-rfc4068bis], in addition to the ones specified in this section. Point-to-Point Link Model: In this model, a set of MAC transport connections between a MN and an AR are treated as a single link. Each link is allocated a separate, unique prefix or a set of unique prefixes by the AR. Please refer to [RFC4968] for detail. In this model, a host's only neighbor is its default router. Xia & Sarikaya Expires August 26, 2008 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Prefix Mgmt for FMIPv6 over P2P Links February 2008 Dedicated Prefix: A unique prefix used by a MN in point-to-point Link Model. 3. Problem Statement The following are operations as per [I-D.ietf-mipshop-fmipv6-rfc4068bis]: o Movement detection. The protocol enables a MN to quickly detect that it has moved to a new subnet by providing the new access point and the associated subnet prefix information when the MN is still connected to its current subnet. For instance, the MN may discover available access points using link-layer specific mechanisms (i.e., a "scan" in WLAN) and then request subnet information corresponding to one or more of those discovered access points. A MN sends a Router Solicitation for Proxy Advertisement (RtSolPr) to its access router to resolve one or more Access Point Identifiers(AP-ID) to subnet-specific information. In response, the access router sends a Proxy Router Advertisement (PrRtAdv) message containing one or more [AP-ID, AR- Info] tuples, which a MN can use in readily detecting movement: when attachment to an access point with AP-ID takes place, the MN knows the corresponding new router's coordinates including its prefix, IP address, and L2 address. o NCoA configuration. AR-Info contains an access router's L2 and IP addresses, and the prefix valid on the interface to which the Access Point (identified by AP-ID) is attached. With the prefix provided in the PrRtAdv message, the MN formulates a prospective NCoA. In point-to-point link model, each MN has one or more dedicated prefixes, that is, different MNs have different prefixes. The prefixes could be allocated dynamically. When a MN attaches to an AR, the AR should delegate one or more dedicated prefixes for it; when the MN detaches from the AR, the MN's prefixes are released, and can be reused by other MNs. The number of unique prefixes in this operation can be huge. NCoA formulation in point-to-point links requires a PAR to dynamically request a dedicated prefix from a NAR, and then advertise it to the MN through a Proxy Router Advertisement (PrRtAdv) message. [I-D.ietf-mipshop-fmipv6-rfc4068bis] does not specify such dependencies. After NCoA is formulated from a dedicated prefix, other operations such as proxying NCoA with proxy neighbor cache at the NAR and Xia & Sarikaya Expires August 26, 2008 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Prefix Mgmt for FMIPv6 over P2P Links February 2008 duplicate address detection need to be specified. 4. Prefix Management on Point-to-Point Links The best solution to the problem described in the previous section is as follows: NARs assign a unique prefix to each MN that could handover under this NAR. This prefix will be included in AR-Info. PAR sends this prefix in the PrRtAdv message to MN. In the PrRtAdv message, A-bit and L-bit MUST be turned on. MN creates its NCoA based on the prefix received in PrRtAdv message. 4.1. Predictive mode New FMIPv6 message exchange is introduced for PAR to ask for MN's dedicated prefix as shown in Figure 1. In [I-D.ietf-mipshop-fmipv6-rfc4068bis], HI is assumed to be sent after the FBU for handover indication. Here, modified of HI/Hack messages are used for prefix request/response. Details are described in Section 5. The new AP-ID is included in RtSolPr for PAR to locate the corresponding NAR. NAR MAY use DHCP prefix delegation (PD) to request/ release prefixes from a DHCP server. The DHCP messages is triggered by the HI for prefix request. NAR MAY also use AAA prefix delegation (PD) to request/ release prefixes for this MN from an AAA server. Xia & Sarikaya Expires August 26, 2008 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Prefix Mgmt for FMIPv6 over P2P Links February 2008 MN PAR NAR DHCP/AAA Server | | | | |------RtSolPr------->| | | | | HI(Prefix Request) | | | |------------------------->|Prefix | | | |-Request->| | | |<-Reply---| | | HAck(Prefix Response) | | | |<-------------------------| | |<-----PrRtAdv--------| | | | | |No FBU | | | |Release | | | |Prefix | |------FBU----------->|--------HI--------------->| | | |<------HAck---------------| | | <--FBack---|--FBack---> | | disconnect forward | | | packets=====================>| | | | | | | | | | connect | | | | | | | |--------- UNA --------------------------------->| | |<=================================== deliver packets | | | | Figure 1: Prefix Signaling In Network-initiated Handover scenario, there isn't specific RtSolPr to trigger PAR to request a prefix. In this case, implementation specific trigger SHOULD be used by PAR to send HI message for prefix request. 4.2. Reactive Mode In the reactive mode, there are two cases. A MN receives PrRtAdv message or otherwise. o The MN receives PrRtAdv message and formulates NCoA before attaching to the NAR. The MN and the NAR operate in line with procedure defined in [I-D.ietf-mipshop-fmipv6-rfc4068bis]. o The MN can't formulate NCoA before attaching to the NAR. IP connectivity should be established at first. The MN can configure it's IP address using stateless address method, or using stateful address configuration. In the former case, the NAR SHOULD send un-solicited RA to expedite MN's address configuration. Once NCoA formulation is finished, the MN operates according to [I-D.ietf-mipshop-fmipv6-rfc4068bis]. Xia & Sarikaya Expires August 26, 2008 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Prefix Mgmt for FMIPv6 over P2P Links February 2008 In both cases, MN formulates NCoA from the dedicated prefix. Since MN has already handed over to NAR this prefix is retained. 5. HI and Hack Extension 5.1. HI Extension The Handover Initiate (HI)defined in [I-D.ietf-mipshop-fmipv6-rfc4068bis] is an ICMPv6 message sent by an Access Router (typically PAR) to another Access Router (typically NAR) to initiate the process of a MN's handover. In [I-D.ietf-mipshop-fmipv6-rfc4068bis], the PAR uses a Code value of 0 when it processes an FBU with PCoA as source IP address, while uses a Code value of 1 when it processes an FBU whose source IP address is not PCoA. A new Code value of 2 is used for the dedicated prefix request. Dedicated Prefix Option defined in Section 5.3 MAY be included. NAR allocates dedicated prefix based on the prefix preference in the option. If the option is not included, NAR allocates prefix according it's discretion. 5.2. HAck Extension Handover Acknowledgment message defined in [I-D.ietf-mipshop-fmipv6-rfc4068bis] is a new ICMPv6 message that MUST be sent (typically by NAR to PAR) as a reply to the Handover Initiate message. In this document, HAck is extended to respond to a dedicated prefix request. o One new Code value is defined. Here, a Code value of 6 is used for dedicated prefix response. o Dedicated Prefix Option defined in Section 5.3 MUST be included for prefix delegation. 5.3. Dedicated Prefix Option This option is of the form shown in Figure 2. Xia & Sarikaya Expires August 26, 2008 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Prefix Mgmt for FMIPv6 over P2P Links February 2008 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 | Option-Code | Prefix Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Lifetime | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | + + | | + Prefix + | | + + | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 2: Dedicated Prefix Option Type To be assigned by IANA Length The length of the option in units of 8 octets. Prefix Length 8-bit unsigned integer. The number of leading bits in the Prefix that are valid. The value ranges from 0 to 128. Option-Code 1 Dedicated Prefix Lifetime 32-bit unsigned integer. The length of time in seconds (relative to the time the packet is sent). A value of all one bits (0xffffffff) represents infinity. Prefix An IP address or a prefix of an IP address. A MN uses it to formulate NCoA. 6. Security Considerations Prefix management for FMIPv6 operation on point-to-point links introduces two messages (HI/Hack) for prefix request and response. These messages are secured using FMIPv6 security mechanisms and hence do not introduce any new security threats and the security provided Xia & Sarikaya Expires August 26, 2008 [Page 8] Internet-Draft Prefix Mgmt for FMIPv6 over P2P Links February 2008 by FMIPv6 applies completely. 7. IANA consideration This document extends existing HI/HAck messages, new Code values need to be assigned by IANA. The document defines one new Mobility Option which needs type assignment from the Mobility Options Type registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters: 1. Dedicated Prefix Option described in Section 5.3. 8. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Heejin Jang, Daniel Park, Vijay Devarapalli and Rajeev Koodli for valuable comments. 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. [I-D.ietf-mipshop-fmipv6-rfc4068bis] Koodli, R., "Mobile IPv6 Fast Handovers", draft-ietf-mipshop-fmipv6-rfc4068bis-05 (work in progress), February 2008. [RFC5121] Patil, B., Xia, F., Sarikaya, B., Choi, JH., and S. Madanapalli, "Transmission of IPv6 via the IPv6 Convergence Sublayer over IEEE 802.16 Networks", RFC 5121, February 2008. 9.2. Informative references [802.16e] Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineer, "Amendment for Physical and Medium Access Control Layers for Combined Fixed and Mobile Operation in Licensed Bands", IEEE 802.16e/D12. [RFC3314] Wasserman, M., "Recommendations for IPv6 in Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Standards", RFC 3314, September 2002. Xia & Sarikaya Expires August 26, 2008 [Page 9] Internet-Draft Prefix Mgmt for FMIPv6 over P2P Links February 2008 [RFC4968] Madanapalli, S., "Analysis of IPv6 Link Models for 802.16 Based Networks", RFC 4968, August 2007. Xia & Sarikaya Expires August 26, 2008 [Page 10] Internet-Draft Prefix Mgmt for FMIPv6 over P2P Links February 2008 Authors' Addresses Frank Xia Huawei USA 1700 Alma Dr. Suite 500 Plano, TX 75075 Phone: +1 972-509-5599 Email: xiayangsong@huawei.com Behcet Sarikaya Huawei USA 1700 Alma Dr. Suite 500 Plano, TX 75075 Phone: +1 972-509-5599 Email: sarikaya@ieee.org Xia & Sarikaya Expires August 26, 2008 [Page 11] Internet-Draft Prefix Mgmt for FMIPv6 over P2P Links February 2008 Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). 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. Intellectual Property 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. Acknowledgment Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA). Xia & Sarikaya Expires August 26, 2008 [Page 12]