One document matched: draft-chan-lisp-pmip-00.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [
<!ENTITY rfc2119 PUBLIC ''
'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml'>
<!ENTITY I-D.ietf-lisp PUBLIC ''
'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.draft-ietf-lisp-09.xml'>
]>
<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?>
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc iprnotified="no"?>
<?rfc strict="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="yes" ?>
<?rfc subcompact="yes" ?>
<rfc category="info" ipr="trust200902"
docName="draft-chan-lisp-pmip-00">
<front>
<title abbrev="DMM-PS">
Integrating PMIP into LISP Network
</title>
<author initials="H"surname="Chan"fullname="H Anthony Chan">
<organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>1700 Alma Ave</street>
<city>Plano, TX 75075</city>
<country>USA</country>
</postal>
<email>h.a.chan@ieee.org</email>
</address>
</author>
<date year="2010"/>
<area></area>
<workgroup></workgroup>
<keyword>Mobility Management</keyword>
<keyword>MIPv6</keyword>
<keyword>PMIPv6</keyword>
<abstract>
<t>
PMIP and LISP are both network-based.
Integration of PMIP with a hierarchical design
into the LISP network
provides network-based fast-mobility support
to enable a mobile node to perform handover
in both LISP and non-LISP networks,
and non-optimal PMIP routes in the LISP network are avoided.
</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<middle>
<section anchor="intro" title="Introduction">
<t>
The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)
[I-D.ietf-lisp]
belongs to the family of protocols
to distinguish between routing locators (RLOCs)
and endpoint identifiers (EIDs)
and maintains a mapping between them.
It takes a network-based approach
by using RLOC for routing in the transit core networks
and EID within a network.
Therefore a site may, among other things,
use its EID as a stable identifier
even upon change of its RLOC.
</t>
<t>
In comparison,
Mobile IP (MIP)
<xref target="RFC3775"/>,
also distinguishes between a care-of-address (CoA)
and a home address (HoA) of a mobile node (MN)
and maintains a mapping between them
at the home agent in the home network.
The CoA is used for routing
and may change as the mobile node changes its attachement.
The mobile node may then use the stable home address
as a session identifier
so that the IP session is not broken
upon change of routing address.
The network-based variant of MIP is proxy mobile IP (PMIP)
<xref target="RFC5213"/>,
which replaces the CoA of the MN
with the routing address is the proxy-CoA
of a mobile access gateway (MAG)
which performs the mobility signaling on behalf of the MN.
</t>
<t>
Because both LISP and PMIP are network based
and
because PMIPv6 is designed to support mobility in non-LISP network,
integrating PMIPv6 into the LISP network
will provide network-based mobility
in both LISP and non-LISP networks.
</t>
</section>
<section title="Conventions used in this document">
<t>
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 <xref target="RFC2119" />.
</t>
</section>
<section title="PMIP in a non-LISP network and comparison with LISP">
<t>
PMIP for an MN in a non-LISP network
is illustrated
by comparing it,
which is shown in Figure 1(b),
with LISP,
which is shown in Figure 1(a).
</t>
<figure>
<preamble></preamble>
<artwork><![CDATA[
(b) PMIP in
(a) LISP network non-LISP network
+-------+ +--------+
|Mapping| |Mapping |
|system | |system |
.+-------+ + +
. . | |
. . | |
. . | |
+-------+ +-------+ + +
| |------| | | |
| ITR |tunnel| ETR | |Mobility|
| |------| | | anchor |
+-------+ +-------+ +--------+
^ | / |t|
| | | |u|
| v | |n|
| +-------+ | |n|
| | site | / |e|
| +-------+ | |l|
| | | +-------+
| | | | MAG |
| | / +-------+
| | | |
| | | |
| v | v
+-------+ +-------+ +---+ +-------+
+Sender + | host | |CN | | MN |
+-------+ +-------+ +---+ +-------+
]]></artwork>
<postamble></postamble>
</figure>
<t>Figure 1.
(a) LISP network,
(b) PMIP in non-LISP network.
</t>
<t>
Both LISP and PMIP use map and encapsulation.
Yet there are also differences between them.
</t>
<t>
In LISP, the mapping is between the site prefix,
which is the EID,
and the RLOC of the ETR serving the site.
In PMIP, the mapping is between the home address (HoA) of MN
and the proxy CoA of the MAG serving the MN.
</t>
<t>
In LISP, the ITR queries the map server through a map resolver.
The ITR then tunnels the packet to the ETR,
which will deliver the packet to the site.
In PMIP, the mapping information is located at the mobility anchor
so that the mobility anchor will tunnel the packet to the MAG,
which will then deliver the packet to the MN.
</t>
<t>
In LISP, the source of information
on how to deliver packet to the site
is kept at the ETR,
and the ETRs in different networks
provide these information to the mapping system.
The ITR queries the mapping system only when needed.
In PMIP, the source of information
on where the MN is located is at the MAG,
and the different MAGs provide these information
to the mapping information system
that is located in the mobility anchor.
</t>
<t>
In LISP, routing is via the ETR that serves the site
so that the route is already optimized.
Yet in PMIP, the mobility anchor
can be far from both the CN and the MN
so that the route via the mobility anchor
can be far from being optimal.
</t>
</section>
<section title="PMIP in a LISP network">
<t>
The MN can be in either a non-LISP network or a LISP network.
The senario with the MN in a non-LISP network
is already shown in Figure 1(b).
We therefore only need to consider the senario
in which the MN is in a LISP network.
</t>
<t>
The integration of PMIP into the LISP network
is illustrated in Figure 2.
A hierarchy is introduced into the PMIP
using the concept of hierarchical MIP (HMIP)
<xref target="RFC5380" />.
</t>
<figure>
<preamble></preamble>
<artwork><![CDATA[
+-------+ Add mapping between
|Mapping| HoA of MN and
|system | RLOC of ETR
.+-------+
. .
. .
. .
+-------+ +-------------------------------+
| |------| Add mapping between |
| ITR |tunnel| ETR HoA of MN and |
| |------| Proxy CoA of MAG |
+-------+ +-------------------------------+
^ | |t|
| | |u|
| v |n|
| +-------+ |n|
| | site | |e|
| +-------+ |l|
| | +-------+
| | | MAG |
| | +-------+
| | |
| | |
| v v
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+
+ CN + | host | | MN |
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+
]]></artwork>
<postamble></postamble>
</figure>
<t>Figure 2
Integrating a hierarchy of PMIP into LISP network.
</t>
<t>
In the LISP network,
two levels of hierarchy are involved.
The LISP mapping system and the LMA both keep the mapping
between the HoA of the MN and the RLOC of the new ETR;
the ETR keeps the mapping
between the HoA of the MN and the proxy CoA of the MAG.
In terms of the role of maintaining the mapping information,
the ETR behaves like a LMA to the MAG,
whereas the LISP mapping system behaves like a LMA to the ETR.
</t>
<t>
It is certainly possible to run PMIP without this hierarchy.
Yet utilizing this hierarchy in the LISP network
enables route optimization.
In addition, it also significantly reduces
the amount of mapping updates in the LMA
because the majority of handovers
are expected to be between two MAG's under the same ETR.
</t>
<section title="MN being stationary at its home link">
<t>
When an MN first attaches to a network,
it may obtain an IP address (HoA) from that network,
which is its home network.
As long as MN does not move away from this home link,
routing to reach this MN does not need tunneling in this network.
This situation is the same for both the LISP network
and the non-LISP network.
</t>
<t>
The LISP mapping system is therefore not affected.
</t>
<t>
A related senarios is as follows:
The MN may first attach to a site in a LISP network
and obtain a globally unique IP address (HoA) from the site.
The site may be using a provider independent network prefix
so that it is supported by LISP to change provider
or to multi-home to different provider networks.
The MN may move within the site,
and the reachability of the MN within this site
may be managed by the site itself.
Then LISP is again not affected.
</t>
</section>
<section title="MN handover within its home network">
<t>
When an MN performs handover within its home network,
it may continue to use its HoA using PMIP.
If this home network is a LISP network served by an ETR,
the ETR acts at the mobility anchor
as illustrated in Figure 3.
An equivalent way to look at it is that
the LMA funciton co-locates with the ETR.
To the MAG, the ETR
behaves like the local mobility anchor (LMA) defined in PMIP.
The tunneling is between the ETR and the new MAG
using the proxy CoA of the MAG.
</t>
<figure>
<preamble></preamble>
<artwork><![CDATA[
+-------+
|Mapping|
|system |
.+-------+
. .
. .
. .
+-------+ +-------------------------------+
| |------| Add mapping between |
| ITR |tunnel| ETR HoA of MN and |
| |------| Proxy CoA of MAG |
+-------+ +-------------------------------+
^ | |t|
| | |u|
| v |n|
| +-------+ |n|
| | site | |e|
| +-------+ |l|
| | +-------+
| | | MAG |
| | +-------+
| | |
| | |
| v v
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+
+ CN + | host | | MN |
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+
]]></artwork>
<postamble></postamble>
</figure>
<t>Figure 3
MN running PMIP in LISP home network.
</t>
<t>
As long as the MN is within its home network,
the LISP mapping system is unaffected.
That is,
the senario in Figure 3 is a simplified version of Figure 2
with which the LISP mapping system
does not need an additional entry for the MN.
</t>
<t>
The above senario includes the case
in which the MN originally attaches to a site supported by LISP
and then leaves the site
but is under the same ETR as the site.
</t>
</section>
<section title="MN handover to a visited LISP network">
<t>
An MN that has moved to a new LISP network
could simply use a new IP from the new network
so that the new network has now become its new home network.
Yet the MN may need to use its HoA
which it has acquired from the previous network.
The LISP mapping system needs to keep an updated mapping
between the HoA of the MN
and the RLOC of the ETR of the visited network.
The ETR also needs to keep an updated mapping
between the HoA of the MN and the proxy CoA of the new MAG.
</t>
<t>
The new MAG needs to perform proxy binding update with the new ETR
on behalf of the MN,
whereas the new ETR needs to perform both
a mapping update with the LISP mapping system
and a proxy binding update with the LMA of the MN.
The update to the LISP mapping system
ensures that packets destined to the MN
are forwarded to the ETR of the visited network,
whereas the update with the LMA
ensures that packets originating from non-LIST network
will also be forwarded to this ETR.
</t>
</section>
<section title="MN handover within a visited LISP network">
<t>
After a handover to a visited LISP network,
the MN may peform additional handovers within that visited network.
When the MN performs such handover from one MAG to another MAG
under the same ETR in the visited LISP network,
only the mapping system at the ETR needs to update the binding
between the HoA of the MN
and the proxy CoA of the new MAG.
The new MAG performs proxy binding update with the ETR
on behalf of the MN.
This senario is a simplified version of Figure 2
in which the LISP mapping system does not need further update.
</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title="security" title="Security Considerations">
<t>TBD</t>
</section>
<section title="IANA Considerations">
<t>None</t>
</section>
</middle>
<back>
<references title="Normative References">
&rfc2119;
</references>
<references title="Informative References">
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.3775" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.5213" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.5380" ?>
<reference anchor="I-D.ietf-lisp">
<front>
<title>Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)</title>
<author initials="D" surname="Farinacci" fullname="Dino Farinacci">
<organization />
</author>
<author initials="V" surname="Fuller" fullname="Vince Fuller">
<organization />
</author>
<author initials="D" surname="Meyer" fullname="Dave Meyer">
<organization />
</author>
<author initials="D" surname="Lewis" fullname="Darrel Lewis">
<organization />
</author>
<date month="October" day="11" year="2010" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-lisp-09" />
<format type="TXT" target="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-lisp-09.txt" />
</reference>
</references>
</back>
</rfc>
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-24 10:23:09 |