Internet DRAFT - draft-williams-mobileip-lmm-requirements

draft-williams-mobileip-lmm-requirements




   INTERNET-DRAFT                                 Carl Williams, Editor
   Internet Engineering Task Force                     Sun Microsystems
                                                       

   Issued:  July 13, 2001
   Expires: January 13, 2002

                 Localized Mobility Management Requirements
                <draft-williams-mobileip-lmm-requirements-00.txt>
   
   Status of This Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026.

   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.

Abstract


   Mobile IP is required for hosts moving within the Internet topology.
   Mobile IP manages IP mobility resulting from the change in 
   Care-of-Address when a host moves within the Internet topology. 
   When a Mobile Node moves from one point of attachment to another,
   a mobility binding update to the respective home agent and/or
   correspondent node(s) occurs. Localized Mobility Management (LMM) 
   refers to a method of handling mobility locally, restricting the
   resultant signaling to a specific area, and possibly reducing the
   amount of signaling. This document describes requirements which are
   designed to guide development of optional extensions to the Mobile IPv6 
   protocol in providing for Localized Mobility Management functionality. 

Carl Williams, Editor   Expires  January 13, 2002               [Page 1]

INTERNET DRAFT    Localized Mobility Management Requirements   July 2001

Table of Contents
    
1.0 Introduction ....................................................  2
2.0 Terminology .....................................................  2
3.0 Requirements ....................................................  3
   3.1 Intra-domain mobility ........................................  3
   3.2 Security .....................................................  4
   3.3 Scope of LMM effect ..........................................  4
   3.4 Scalability and Performance ..................................  4
   3.5 Mobility Management Support ..................................  5
   3.6 Sparse routing element population requirement ................  5
   3.7 Interworking with hand-off mechanisms ........................  5
   3.8 Simple Network design requirement ............................  6
   3.9 Location Privacy requirement .................................  6
   3.10 Reliablity ..................................................  6
4.0 Acknowledgments .................................................  6
5.0 References ......................................................  6
6.0 Author's Addresses ..............................................  7
7.0 Full Copyright Statement ........................................  7

1.0 Introduction

   The emergence of Mobile IPv6 as the dominant protocol for 
   supporting mobile data networking provides a productive springboard 
   from which to explore and develop wireless mobile networking.

   The overall goals of LMM are:

	-	reducing the signaling induced by changes in the 
	        point of attachment due to the movement of a host;
	         
	-	reducing the usage of air-interface resources for
	        mobility;
	        
	- 	avoid changes to the mobile node, home agent or 
	        the correspondent node;
	        
	- 	avoid creating single points of failure;
	
	- 	simplify the network design and provisioning 
	        for enabling LMM capability in a network;
	        
	-       allow progressive LMM deployment capabilities. 
	
   Latency costs can be high due to mobility binding 
   updates and registration processing.  In addition, radio
   interface resources are scarce, when compared to wired interfaces, 
   and thus expensive, which calls for special measures from
   IP mobility management protocols in providing a highly
   efficient data transport to and from a mobile device where 
   the routable IP address of the node changes during movement
   to a new point of attachment [1].
   
   Increasing the efficiency of the registration process of mobile hosts 
   is an approach that addresses the goals of reducing latency costs 
   and the conservation of radio resources.  One class of solutions 
   in this regard focuses on extensions to the IP layer mobility
   protocol in order to restrict the region of  signaling, 
   thus possibly reducing the amount of signaling.  This functionality 
   is commonly referred to as Localized Mobility Management (LMM).

Carl Williams, Editor   Expires  January 13, 2002               [Page 2]

INTERNET DRAFT    Localized Mobility Management Requirements   July 2001


   Through LMM, the user can gain the benefit of smoother 
   hand-offs as well as reducing the signaling initiated from the 
   mobile node and thus minimizing radio resources usage. 
   Inherently, this allows for increased scalability and 
   reduces the need for additional route optimization.
   
   This document lays out requirements in order to guide development
   of LMM in order that the resulting solution will best preserve
   the the fundamental philosophies and architectural principles 
   of the Internet in practice today.
   
   
2.0 Terminology

   See [2] for additional terminology.
      
   Administrative Domain A collection of networks under the same
                         administrative control and grouped together
                         for administrative purposes. [3]

   Local Mobility        The movement of an IP device without requiring
                         a change to its routable IP address seen by
                         the CN or HA. Althoughits point of attachment
                         may change during themove, the IP addresses used
                         to reach the device(both its home and IP subnet
                         routable IPaddress) do not change.

   Local Mobility Domain A Local Mobility Domain contains one or more
                         IP subnets, networks, or Administrative
                         Domains.  Within the Local Mobility Domain,
                         the globally visible routable IP address assigned 
                         to a MobileHost or Mobile Router serving a Mobile
                         Networkdoes not change.

   Localized Mobility    A method of handling mobility locally, in order
   Management (LMM)      to restrict the signaling area,thus possibly
                         reducing the amount of signaling. 


3.0 LMM Requirements

   This section describes the requirements of a LMM solution for
   Mobile IPv6.  Only Mobile IPv6 based requirements are described here.

3.1 Intra-domain mobility

   LMM is introduced to minimize the signaling trafficto the home agent 
   and/or correspondent node(s) for intra-domain mobility.
   
   In the LMM infrastructure a correspondent node or home agent outside
   the administration domainMUST always be able to address the mobile
   host by the same IP address, sothat from the point of view of hosts
   outside the administration domain, the IP address of the mobile host
   remains fixed.

   It is not the intent or goal for LMM to enter the intra-subnet 
   (intra AR) mobility problem space.   See [SubnetMobPro] for
   more information on this specific problem space.

Carl Williams, Editor   Expires  January 13, 2002               [Page 3]

INTERNET DRAFT    Localized Mobility Management Requirements   July 2001

3.2 Security

3.2.1 LMM protocol MUST provide for "security provisioning" within the 
      respective administration domain.

   The security of exchanging LMM specific information and signaling MUST
   be ensured.  Security provisioning includes protecting the integrity, 
   confidentiality, and authenticity of the transfer of LMM specific 
   information within the administration domain.  If applicable, replay
   protection MUST exist between the LMM agents.

3.2.2 LMM protocol MUST provide for the security provisioning to be
      disabled.
      
   In certain environments the security within the administration domain
   may not be necessary, or it may be preferred to minimize the LMM protocol
   overhead.This feature would be used at the network operator's own risk.
   
3.2.3 LMM protocol MUST NOT interfere with the security provisioning that
      exists between the home agent and the mobile host.
      
3.2.4 LMM protocol MUST NOT interfere with the security provisioning that
      exists between the correspondent node and the mobile host.

3.2.5 LMM protocol MUST NOT introduce new security holes or the possibility
      for DOS-style attacks.

3.3 Scope of LMM effect

3.3.1 The LMM framework MUST NOT add any modifications or extensions
      to the correspondent node(s) and home agent.

3.3.2 Non-LMM-aware routers, hosts, home agents, and mobile nodes
      MUST be able to interoperate with LMM-aware agents.

3.3.3 The LMM framework MUST NOT increase the number of messages between
      the mobile host and the respective correspondent node(s) and home 
      agent.

3.3.4 Connectivity to the mobile host MUST always be maintained in the
      presence of failure of LMM agents (infrastructure).
 
3.4 Scalability and Performance

3.4.1 The LMM framework MUST be able to support a large number of mobile 
      hosts.
      
3.4.2 The LMM framework MUST NOT interfere with the Mobile IPv6 performance 
      of a mobile host communications with a correspondent node(s).
      
3.4.3 Scalable expansion of the network

   The LMM framework MUST allow scalable expansion of the network
   and provide for reasonable network configuration with regard
   to peering, interadministrative domain connectivity,  and other
   interadministrative domain interoperability characteristics of
   interest to wireless ISPs. The LMM framework MUST NOT introduce 
   any additional restrictions in how wireless ISPs configure their
   network, nor how they interconnect with other networks beyond 
   those introduced by standard IP routing.

Carl Williams, Editor   Expires  January 13, 2002               [Page 4]

INTERNET DRAFT    Localized Mobility Management Requirements   July 2001


3.4.3 Header overhead

   Any additional header overhead caused by LMM MUST be reduced 
   by compression and transfer of compressor state on movement SHOULD
   be possible so as not to introduce any perceived service disruption.
      
   Candidate LMM designs that require additional header overhead for 
   tunnels MUST be reviewed by the ROHC working group to determine
   if the header compressor can be restarted from transferred compressor 
   context when handover occurs without requiring any full header packet
   exchange on the new link.
      
3.4.4 Optimized signaling within the administrative domain
 
   By its very nature, LMM reintroduces triangle routing into Mobile IPv6
   in that all traffic must go through the LMM agent. There is no way
   to avoid this. The LMM framework SHOULD be designed in such a way 
   that as to reduce the length of the unwanted triangle leg.  
      
   The LMM framework SHOULD support optimal placement of LMM agents to
   reduce or eliminate additional triangle routing introduced by LMM. 

3.5 Mobility Management Support

   The following LMM requirements pertain to both inter-domain hand-off
   and between administrative domains as well.

3.5.1 The LMM framework MUST NOT increase the amount of latency or amount of
      packet loss that exists with the core Mobile IPv6 specification [6].
      
3.5.2 The LMM framework MUST NOT increase the amount of service disruption
      that already exists with the core Mobile IPv6 specification.
      
3.5.3 The LMM framework MUST NOT increase the number of messages between
      the mobile host and the respective correspondent node(s) and home 
      agent as is in the core Mobile IPv6 specification.

3.5.4 The LMM framework SHOULD support the auto-configuration capabilities for
      mobility agents/FAs, access routers.

3.6 Sparse routing element population requirement

   The LMM framework SHOULD be supported, at the very minimum, by a sparse
   (proper subset) routing element population within a single
   administration domain.
    
3.7 Interworking with hand-off mechanisms

3.7.1 The LMM framework MAY include methods for interworking with
      Mobile IPv6 fast hand-off solutions [7].
      
3.7.2 The LMM framework MAY provide input to the hand-off process.

Carl Williams, Editor   Expires  January 13, 2002               [Page 5]

INTERNET DRAFT    Localized Mobility Management Requirements   July 2001

3.8 Simple Network design requirement

   LMM SHOULD simplify the network design and provisioning for enabling LMM 
   capability in a network and allow progressive LMM deployment capabilities. 

3.9 Location privacy support

   The LMM framework MUST allow for location privacy.
   
3.10 Reliablity

3.10.1 LMM framework MAY include recovery from failure of LMM agents.

3.10.2 LMM framework MAY include mechanisims for inclusion of the indication of 
       Failure of LMM agents.


4.0 Acknowledgments

  Thank you to all who participated in the LMM requirement discussion
  on the Mobile IP working group alias.  Those individuals are: 
  Charlie Perkins (Nokia), Theo Pagtzis (Nokia), Muhammad Jaseemuddin 
  (Nortel), Tom Weckstr (Helsinki University), Jim Bound (Compaq), 
  Erik Nordmark (Sun), James Kempf (Sun), Gopal Dommety (Cisco), 
  Glenn Morrow (Nortel), Arthur Ross (IEEE), Samita Chakrabarti (Sun), 
  Hesham Soliman (Ericsson), Karim El-Malki (Ericsson), 
  Phil Neumiller (Telocity), Behcet Sarikaya (Alcatel), 
  Karann Chew (University of Surrey), Michael Thomas (Cisco), 
  Pat Calhoun (Sun), Bill Gage (Nortel Networks), Vinod Choyi (Alcatel), 
  John Loughney (Nokia), Wolfgang Schoenfeld (GMD Fokus), and 
  David Martin (Nextel). Special thanks to Alper Yegin (Sun), John
  Loughney (Nokia) and Madjid Nakhjiri (Motorola) for providing input 
  to the draft in its preliminary stage.

  In addition special thanks to the Mobile IP working group chairs 
  for their input as well as capturing and organizing the initial set
  of requirements from the discussions, Phil Roberts (Magisto) and 
  Basavaraj Patil (Nokia).
  
5.0 References

   [1]            Westberg, L., Lindqvist M., Realtime Traffic over 
                  Cellular Access Networks; draft-westberg-realtime-
                  cellular-04.txt; Work In Progress; December 2001

   [2]            Manner, J. et al; "Mobility Related Terminology";
                  draft-manner-seamoby-terms-00.txt; Work In
                  Progress; January 12, 2001.

   [3]            Yavatkar, R., Pendarakis, D., Guerin, R.; "A
                  Framework for Policy-based Admission Control"; RFC
                  2753; January 2000.
   
   [4]            Roberts, P., "Local Subnet Mobility Problem Statement";
                  draft-proberts-local-subnet-mobility-problem-01.txt;
                  Work In Progress; May 2001.
                  
   [5]            Perkins, C., "IP Mobility Support". Internet
                  Engineering Task Force, Request for Comments (RFC)
                  2002, October 1996.
                  
Carl Williams, Editor   Expires  January 13, 2002               [Page 6]

INTERNET DRAFT    Localized Mobility Management Requirements   July 2001

   [6]            David B. Johnson, Charles Perkins, "Mobility Support
                  in IPv6"; draft-ietf-mobileip-ipv6-14.txt; July
                  2001.

   [7]            Tsirtsis, G. (Editor), "Fast Handovers for Mobile
                  IPv6"; draft-ietf-mobileip-fast-mipv6-00.txt; a work
                  in progress; February 2001.

   [8]            Loughney, J. (Editor), "SeaMoby Micro Mobility Problem 
                  Statement"; draft-ietf-seamoby-mm-problem-01.txt; a work
                  in progress; February 2001.
                  
                  
6.0 Authors' Addresses

   The working group can be contacted via the current chairs:

   Basavaraj Patil               Phil Roberts
   Nokia Corporation             Megisto Systems
   6000 Connection Drive         20251 Century Blvd
   Irving, TX 75039              Suite 120
   USA                           Germantown Maryland, 20874-1191

   Phone:  +1 972-894-6709       EMail:  proberts@megisto.com
   EMail:  Raj.Patil@nokia.com
   Fax :  +1 972-894-5349

   Questions about this memo can also be directed to:

        Carl Williams
        Sun Microsystems, Inc.
        901 San Antonio Road
        Palo Alto, CA 94303
        USA
        phone: +1 650 786 5186
        fax:   +1 650 786 5896
        email: Carl.Williams@eng.sun.com


7.0 Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000).  All Rights Reserved.

   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph
   are included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
   English.

Carl Williams, Editor   Expires  January 13, 2002               [Page 7]

INTERNET DRAFT    Localized Mobility Management Requirements   July 2001

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.













































Carl Williams, Editor   Expires  January 13, 2002               [Page 8]