One document matched: draft-haddad-mipshop-omm-00.txt
MIPSHOP Working Group W. Haddad
Internet-Draft S. Krishnan
Expires: October 3, 2005 Ericsson
April 2005
Optimizing Micromobility Management
draft-haddad-mipshop-omm-00
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 October 3, 2005.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
Abstract
Micromobility protocols address mobile nodes (MN) movements within a
particular IP network domain. This document introduces a new
protocol "Optimized Micromobility Management" (OMM), to manage
Micromobility. The suggested solution is based on the Hierarchical
Mobile IPv6 (HMIPv6) proposal and aims to increase the mobility
performance by reducing the handover latency and the packet loss.
Haddad & Krishnan Expires October 3, 2005 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Optimizing Micromobility Management April 2005
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Overview of HMIPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Problem, Motivation and Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Overview of the OMM Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. OMM Protocol Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. OMM New Bits, Options and Messages Structure . . . . . . . . . 15
8.1 The Address Check Information Option (ACIO) . . . . . . . 15
8.2 The Optimized Micro-Mobility Information Option (OMMIO) . 15
8.3 The VMAP (V) Bit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.4 Modified Router Solicitation message format . . . . . . . 17
8.5 Modified Binding Acknowledgement message format . . . . . 18
8.6 The Routing Path Update (RPU) Message . . . . . . . . . . 18
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
10. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
11. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 24
Haddad & Krishnan Expires October 3, 2005 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Optimizing Micromobility Management April 2005
1. Introduction
Managing Micromobility has been addressed in many different ways.
Among existing proposals (e.g., [HMIPv6], [CIP], [HAWAII], etc), only
the HMIPv6 proposal has been adopted by the IETF.
This document introduces a new protocol, i.e., OMM, to manage
Micromobility. The suggested solution is entirely based on the
Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 (HMIPv6) proposal and aims to increase the
mobility performance by reducing the handover latency and packet
loss. For these purposes, the OMM protocol uses virtual mobility
anchor points (VMAPs) and splits the handover event into two
successive phases triggered by the network and the mobile node (MN).
Haddad & Krishnan Expires October 3, 2005 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Optimizing Micromobility Management April 2005
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].
Haddad & Krishnan Expires October 3, 2005 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Optimizing Micromobility Management April 2005
3. Glossary
+---------------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Term | Definition |
+---------------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Mobility Anchor | A Mobility Anchor Point is a router located |
| Point (MAP) | in a network visited by the mobile node. |
| | One or more MAPs can exist within a visited |
| | domain. |
| | |
| Virtual MAP (VMAP) | A virtual MAP is a router located inside |
| | the IP network domain (i.e., a MAP is also |
| | a VMAP), which implements a set of |
| | features, which includes a subset of the |
| | MAP features. A VMAP node stores the MN's |
| | Regional Care-of Address (RCoA) and current |
| | Local Care-of Address (LCoA) for a limited |
| | period of time (e.g., the binding |
| | lifetime), computes the new MN's LCoA and |
| | encapsulates when needed data packets sent |
| | by the CN to the MN's current location. At |
| | any particular time during an ongoing |
| | session(s), the mobile node should have AT |
| | MOST one VMAP encapsulating data packets |
| | and fowarding them to its new current |
| | location. |
| | |
| Access Router (AR) | The mobile node's default router. The AR |
| | aggregates the outbound traffic of mobile |
| | nodes. An AR can also be a MAP/VMAP. |
| | |
| Regional Care-of | An RCoA is an IPv6 address obtained by the |
| Address (RCoA) | mobile node from the visited network. An |
| | RCoA is an address on the MAP's subnet. It |
| | is auto-configured by the MN when receiving |
| | the MAP option. |
| | |
| On Link Care-of | The LCoA is the on-link CoA configured on a |
| Address (LCoA) | mobile node's interface based on the prefix |
| | is advertised by its default router. |
| | |
| Tree Architecture | An IP network domain has a tree |
| | architecture when any router located inside |
| | the domain (i.e., except the ARs and the |
| | root gateway(s)) has only one uplink and |
| | one or more downlink(s). Such topology has |
| | no mesh links. |
| | |
Haddad & Krishnan Expires October 3, 2005 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Optimizing Micromobility Management April 2005
| Mesh Architecture | A mesh network topology is defined as a |
| | pure tree topology with additional mesh |
| | links. This means that in a mesh topology, |
| | at least one router located inside the |
| | domain has one or more mesh link(s) in |
| | addition to its uplink and downlink(s) |
| | channels. |
| | |
| Random Architecture | A random network topology is used to |
| | indicate a mesh topology with additional |
| | uplinks. This means that in a random |
| | topology, at least one router located |
| | inside the domain has more than one |
| | uplink(s), in addition to its downlink(s) |
| | and mesh link(s) channels. |
| | |
| Local Binding | The Mobile Node sends a Local Binding |
| Update (LBU) | Update (LBU) message to the MAP in order to |
| Message | establish a binding between the RCoA and |
| | the LCoA. |
| | |
| Routing Path Update | A Routing Path Update Message is sent by |
| (RPU) Message | the new MN's New Access Router to the MN's |
| | Previous LCoA (pLCoA). The RPU message is |
| | used to trigger a Network Handover, which |
| | is totally transparent to the MN. |
| | |
| Network Handover | A Network Handover can be defined in the |
| (NH) | context of the OMM protocol, as the process |
| | triggered by the network, of re-routing |
| | data packets flow(s) sent to a particular |
| | mobile node to its new location before the |
| | MN sends a LBU message to the MAP. The NH |
| | process aims to minimise the handover |
| | latency as well as the packet loss. |
+---------------------+---------------------------------------------+
Table 1: Glossary
For more details about terms defined above, please refer to [HMIPv6]
and [TOMOP].
Haddad & Krishnan Expires October 3, 2005 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Optimizing Micromobility Management April 2005
4. Overview of HMIPv6
The two main goals behind designing the [HMIPv6] protocol are to
reduce both the heavy amount of signaling messages generated by the
MIPv6 protocol and the handover latency. A third goal is to enable
the MN to hide its movements and current location from the CN and the
HA.
HMIPv6 consists on deploying one or more special nodes called
Mobility Anchor Point, i.e, MAP, within the IP network domain. A MAP
can be defined as a local home agent, which intercepts all packets
addressed to registered mobile nodes and tunnels them to the MN.
When a MN enters to an HMIPv6 domain, it starts by selecting, then
registering itself with the appropriate MAP. This is done by
processing special information sent by the MN's AR in the Router
Advertisement (RtAdv) message. These information allow the MN to
auto-configure a regional care-of address (RCoA), which will be used
by the MAP to capture packets sent from outside the domain to the
MN's care-of address (i.e., RCoA), and a link care-of address
(LCoA), which will be used by the MAP to locate the MN inside the MAP
domain.
It should be noted at this stage that HMIPv6 recommends that the MN
selects the furthest MAP to avoid frequent MAP changes, which in turn
implies going through the time consuming MAP registration procedure
during the handover.
Each time the MN moves to a new AR, it has to configure a new LCoA
and registers it with the MAP. This is done by sending a Local
Binding Update (LBU) message to the MAP. The LBU message allows the
MAP to bind the new LCoA to the MN's RCoA.
Haddad & Krishnan Expires October 3, 2005 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Optimizing Micromobility Management April 2005
5. Problem, Motivation and Requirements
HMIPv6 protocol succeeds in eliminating redundant signaling messages
in MIPv6, i.e., the HoTI/HoT and CoTI/CoT messages, while keeping
only critical mobility messages, i.e., local binding update (LBU) and
binding acknowledgement (BA) messages, exchanged between the MN and
the MAP.
However, HMIPv6 partially succeeds in reducing the handover latency
since the LBU message sent from the MN to the MAP will most likely
have to travel on a relatively long path within the domain before
reaching the MAP (being supposedly static), in order to trigger a re-
routing of the data packets flow to the MN's new LCoA (nLCoA). Such
delay may result in packet loss, which becomes more alarming if the
MN is moving at a high speed within the MAP domain while running time
sensitive applications.
This is mainly due to the fact that HMIPv6 recommends avoiding
changing the MAP as much as possible. Consequently, HMIPv6 suggests
choosing the furthest MAP in the hierarchical domain, which is in
most cases the domain gateway node(s).
In addition, HMIPv6 practically converts any network topology (i.e.,
mesh or random) to a tree topology, which if deployed alone, lacks
both robustness and load balancing features.
Based on that, HMIPv6 does not take any advantage from a mesh or
random topology since all signaling messages are sent on the shortest
uplink path to the root of the tree topology, i.e., the furthest MAP
gateway.
But it should be noted that HMIPv6 provides the lowest handover
latency among other micromobility proposals (e.g., HAWAII and CIP)
for the first handover only, i.e., when the MN enters into an HMIPv6
domain. But when the MN starts moving within the MAP domain then the
handover performance start decreasing when compared to the two other
proposals ([TOMOP], [MIPS]).
Note that, although the mobility performance may increase in both CIP
and HAWAII proposals, the CIP protocol continuously involves every
node on the path between the gateway and the MN, and requires being
implemented in the base station. On the other hand, the HAWAII
proposal relies on sub-optimal routing path(s), which in turn can
lead to an unoptimized load balancing in the access network.
Haddad & Krishnan Expires October 3, 2005 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Optimizing Micromobility Management April 2005
Based on the above, the requirements for a new optimized micro-
mobility protocol, which offer the main advantages of each of the
above protocol, are:
a. The load of signaling messages required during the handoff
procedure should be minimized as much as possible.
b. In order to minimize or eliminate the handoff latency and packet
loss, the load of signaling messages should be concentrated only
near the involved MN's new AR.
c. As it is the case in HMIPv6, the handoff procedure should result
at the end in a new optimal path between the MAP and the new MN's
location.
d. Any new node in the MAP domain which may be involved in the
handoff procedure should be maintained in soft-state so that
invalid bindings/keys are deleted automatically.
e. All signaling Messages exchanged between routers and between
routers and the MAP are authenticated.
The above requirements led to the design of a simple proposal, which
is totally built on top of HMIPv6 and increases the performance of IP
handovers, which occur within an HMIPv6 domain. In addition, the OMM
protocol takes full advantage from a mesh/random topology.
Haddad & Krishnan Expires October 3, 2005 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Optimizing Micromobility Management April 2005
6. Overview of the OMM Protocol
The OMM protocol aims to bring key advantages provided by some
existing micromobility proposals, like CIP, HAWAII and HMIPv6, while
minimizing/eliminating their different drawbacks. The OMM protocol
fulfills requirements a), b) and c) by adding at most one message
between the MN's nAR and one special node (i.e., VMAP) located
nearby. Moreover, the OMM protocol allows the MN to skip the DAD or,
in the worst case, to perform it in parallel with exchanging data.
In short, the OMM protocol splits the IP handover into two successive
events. The first one is a network handover (NH) and is triggered by
the infrastructure itself (i.e., the MN's new AR). Note that the NH
greatly benefits from a random network topology, i.e., it relies on
sub-optimal routing of data packets (as in HAWAII) sent to the MN, in
exchange for a shorter latency and minimum packets loss.
The main goals behind triggering first a network handover are to
reduce the latency and packet loss as much as possible. In other
words, the NH aims to eliminate the latency variable from the second
event, which is the handover triggered by the MN itself according to
HMIPv6 protocol.
For these purposes, the OMM protocol requires implementing a limited
set of the MAP features on routers located between the MAP and the
ARs, i.e., in order to convert them to VMAPs. Each time the MAP gets
an LBU message from the MN, it sends a BA message, which is used also
to store the MN's RCoA in the VMAP(s) located near the MN and on the
path between the MAP and the MN. Note that these signaling data are
stored in VMAP(s) in a soft state and must be removed immediatley
after the expiration of the Binding Update Lifetime set by the MN in
the LBU message.
Each time, the network infrastructure triggers a NH, the VMAP
simulates the MAP role for a limited period of time, i.e., until the
second event is completed, thus significantly reducing the latency
and packets loss.
It becomes clear from the above that, in order to get the best
performance from the NH, the selected VMAP must be located as close
as possible to the MN's new AR (or within the nAR itself depending on
the network topology).
In the OMM protocol, the second event, i.e., handover triggered by
the MN, aims only to re-direct data packets flow sent to the MN to a
more optimal path. Such step is needed, especially that the first
event, i.e., NH, may use a sub-optimal path to pull data packets flow
to the MN's new LCoA. As described in HMIPv6, the second event
Haddad & Krishnan Expires October 3, 2005 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Optimizing Micromobility Management April 2005
updates the MAP BCE with the new MN's LCoA in order to allow the MAP
to tunnel data packets to the new MN's LCoA.
Finally, it should be noted that the worst case scenario in OMM
protocol is the failure of the NH, which means having only the
handover triggered by the MN itself, as defined in HMIPv6. This lead
us to the HMIPv6 case.
Haddad & Krishnan Expires October 3, 2005 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Optimizing Micromobility Management April 2005
7. OMM Protocol Description
As mentioned earlier, OMM protocol consists on implementing a limited
set of MAP features (and one new feature) in routers located between
the MAP and the ARs. A router with the added set of MAP features is
called a virtual MAP (VMAP). A VMAP enabled router MUST provide the
two following features:
o Store the MN's IPv6 addresses (i.e., RCoA and LCoA) in its Virtual
Binding Cache Entry (VBCE). This is performed upon receiving a BA
message carrying a binding hop-by-hop message.
o Check the ownership of the old MN's old LCoA (oLCoA), computes the
new MN's LCoA (nLCoA) and tunnel data packets sent to the MN's
nLCoA. This is performed upon receiving a Routing Path Update
(RPU) message.
The techniques proposed in this document work at their best when the
following conditions are met:
o The MAP domain has a random network topology.
o Messages exchanged between routers (i.e., VMAPs and ARs), located
within the same MAP domain are authenticated.
o All routers located in the same MAP domain can be converted to
VMAPs. This assumption applies also for the ARs. Note that this
is not a required condition. If there are no VMAPs on the path
between the nAR and the pLCoA the situation boils down to the base
HMIPv6 case.
However, it should be noted that adding links between ARs and
converting some or all of them to VMAPs can bring additional
performance to the OMM protocol and help avoiding updating all
exiting VMAPs located between the MAP and the MN each time the MN
switches to a new AR.
HMIPv6 protocol requires the ARs to add the MAP functions data to
their RtAdv messages sent to the MN. These information allow the MN
to select the furthest MAP, auto-configure an RCoA and an LCoA and
send them to the MAP in an LBU message. The two addresses enable the
MAP to create the binding and to intercept data packets sent to the
MN's RCoA and tunnel them to the MN's current location.
When the MN enters for the first time to an HMIPv6 domain, it MUST
follow the HMIPv6 protocol. The first new step introduced by the OMM
protocol consists on alerting the MN of the support for the OMM
protocol. This is done by setting the Optimization (O) bit (defined
Haddad & Krishnan Expires October 3, 2005 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Optimizing Micromobility Management April 2005
in 8.10) in the RtAdv message sent by the AR.
The second step starts when the MAP sends a BA message after
receiving an LBU message from the MN. The MAP MUST insert in the BA
message a new hop-by-hop option called "Virtual Binding" (VB). The
VB must carry the MN's two IPv6 addresses sent to the MAP in the BU,
the binding lifetime and the "Address Management Key" (Kam). Note
that the Kam SHOULD be derived from hashing the shared secret
established between the MN and the MAP so that the MN does not need
to store a new Key.
Finally, the MAP MUST authenticate the VB option with the Kam and
MUST encrypt the Kam field with a shared key pre-computed between the
MAP and the VMAPs.
Upon receiving a BA message carrying a VB hop-by-hop option, the VMAP
starts by checking if its VBCE has an entry corresponding to the MN's
LCoA. If this is the case, the VMAP should update any existing value
(e.g., binding lifetime) with the new one carried in the VB option.
In case there is no entry, the VMAP MUST create one, which includes
all data sent in the VB.
The third step occurs when the MN switches to a new link. In such
scenario, the MN starts by sending a RtSol message, which MUST
contain its RCoA, its pLCoA and a proof of ownership of the two
addresses.
The proof is carried in a new option (i.e., "Address Check" (AC)
option defined in Section 8.1) and is presented as the result of the
following:
Proof = First[64, HMAC(Kam, (RCoA | pLCoA)]
The MN's addresses and the proof of ownership are carried in two
different options defined in Section 8.1 and Section 8.2
The VMAP MUST delete from its VBCE all information related to one
particular MN upon the expiration of the binding lifetime, unless
another BA is sent by the MAP carrying a new binding lifetime (i.e.,
the MN has sent a new LBU message carrying the same LCoA to the MAP).
The next step in the OMM protocol consists on triggering a network
handover (NH). This is done by the MN's nAR upon receiving a RtSol
message, which contains the two options. In such scenario, the AR
SHOULD send in parallel a Route Path Update (RPU) message to the MN's
pLCoA (carried by the RtSol message) and a RtAdv message to the MN.
Note that the RPU message MUST be signed by the nAR.
Haddad & Krishnan Expires October 3, 2005 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Optimizing Micromobility Management April 2005
When a VMAP receives an RPU message, it starts by checking its VBCE
for an entry which contains the couple (RCoA, pLCoA). If an entry is
found, the VMAP fisrct hecks whether the proof contained in the
message is valid. If so, it computes the MN's nLCoA IID and updates
its VBCE with the new MN's nLCoA. The same IID MUST be computed by
the MN and in the same following way:
nLCoA(IID) = First[64, HMAC(Kam, (RCoA | pLCoA | New_Subnet_Prefix)]
After updating its VBCE, the VMAP starts tunnelling data packets sent
by the MAP to the MN's pLCoA to its new location (i.e., nLCoA). The
VMAP MUST delete the MN's correponding entry from its VBCE at the
expiration of the routing binding lifetime (RBL) sent by the MN's nAR
in the RPU message. Note that the RBL value may be predefined.
After the MN gets a new LCoA, it MUST send an LBU message to the MAP.
The LBU message updates the MAP's BCE, re-route the data traffic by
using a more optimized route between the MAP and the MN and update
the VMAP (i.e., via the BA message) on the new path between the MN
and the MAP. It should be noted that many VMAPs may be updated by
one specific BA message. However, the decision to turn on/off more
than one VMAP on a particular path should be taken based on the
network topology around that path.
Haddad & Krishnan Expires October 3, 2005 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Optimizing Micromobility Management April 2005
8. OMM New Bits, Options and Messages Structure
As it has been shown above, the OMM Protocol defines 4 new bits, 6
new options and introduces 1 new message.
OMM defines new bit and options to be carried by the RtSol message.
The new bit and options are the following:
8.1 The Address Check Information Option (ACIO)
This option is used to carry the address check proof created by the
mobile node. This option is used to verify whether the mobile node
is really the owner of the addresses carried in the OMMIO option The
format of the option is the following:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Option Type | Option Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Address Proof |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Option Type
<To Be Assigned By IANA>
Option Length
Length of the option.
Option Data
This contains the proof of ownership of the pLCoA and the RCoA
8.2 The Optimized Micro-Mobility Information Option (OMMIO)
The Optimized Micro-Mobility Information Option (OMMIO) is a new
option carried by the RtSol message sent by the MN upon receiving an
RtAdv message from the AP. When used, the OMMIO MUST carry the MN's
pLCoA and the RCoA.
Haddad & Krishnan Expires October 3, 2005 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Optimizing Micromobility Management April 2005
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Option Type | Option Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
. pLCoA .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
. RCoA .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Option Type
<To Be Assigned By IANA>
Option Length
Length of the option.
Option Data
This contains the pLCoA and the RCOA of the mobile node
8.3 The VMAP (V) Bit
The VMAP bit is a new bit used in the OMM proposal to request VMAP
node(s) located between the MAP and the MN's current location to
store the MN's addresses (i.e., RCoA and LCoA) and the binding
lifetime in their VBCE(s). The VMAP bit MUST be set by the MAP in
the BA message each time the MAP receives a valid LBU message from
the MN. Note that the MN MUST ignore such bit.
Haddad & Krishnan Expires October 3, 2005 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Optimizing Micromobility Management April 2005
8.4 Modified Router Solicitation message format
The modified Router Solication sent from a MN supporting this
specification would look like this
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 | Code | Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
. ACIO .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
. OMMIO .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
IP Fields:
Source Address
The Source Address MUST be the MN's nLCoA.
Destination Address
Typically the all-routers multicast address.
Hop Limit 255
ICMP Fields:
Type 133
Code 0
Checksum The ICMP checksum. See [ICMPv6].
Reserved This field is unused. It MUST be initialized
to zero by the sender and MUST be ignored by
the receiver.
Haddad & Krishnan Expires October 3, 2005 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Optimizing Micromobility Management April 2005
8.5 Modified Binding Acknowledgement message format
When the binding acknowledgement message sent by the MAP it contains
the VMAP (v) bit as described. The modified BA looks like this.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Status |K|V| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sequence # | Lifetime |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
. .
. Mobility options .
. .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
8.6 The Routing Path Update (RPU) Message
The Routing Path Update message sent from a nAR supporting this
specification would look like this
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 | Code | Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
. ACIO .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
. OMMIO .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
IP Fields:
Source Address
The Source Address MUST be one of nARs addresses.
Destination Address
The pLCoA of the MN.
Haddad & Krishnan Expires October 3, 2005 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Optimizing Micromobility Management April 2005
ICMP Fields:
Type <To Be Assigned By IANA>
Code 0
Checksum The ICMP checksum. See [ICMPv6].
Reserved This field is unused. It MUST be initialized to zero
by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.
ACIO The Address check information option as specified above
OMMIO The OMM information option as specified above
Haddad & Krishnan Expires October 3, 2005 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Optimizing Micromobility Management April 2005
9. Security Considerations
The OMM protocol assumes that all signaling messages exchanged
between routers (e.g., VMAPs) located within a MAP domain are
authenticated.
The OMM protocol does not introduce nor amplify any new or existing
attacks or threats. However, it should be noted that triggering a
network handover without providing a proof of ownership of the
previous LCoA mentioned in the RtSol message sent by the MN to the
nAR may allow to re-direct/steal data packets sent to another node
attached to the MN's previous AR.
Haddad & Krishnan Expires October 3, 2005 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Optimizing Micromobility Management April 2005
10. Normative References
[EAR] J. Choi, D., Shin, "Fast Router Discovery with RA
Caching", draft-jinchoi-dna-frd-00, July 2004.
[ICMPv6] A. Conta, S. Deering, M. Gupta, "Internet Control
Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol
Version 6 (IPv6) Specification",
draft-ietf-ipngwg-icmp-v3-06, November 2004.
[HMIPv6] H. Soliman, K. elMalki, C. Castelluccia, L. Bellier,
"Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 mobility management
(HMIPv6)", draft-ietf-mipshop-hmipv6-04, December 2004.
[MIP6] D. Johnson, C. Perkins, J. Arkko, "Mobility Support in
IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004.
[NDIS] T. Narten, E. Nordmark, W. Simpson, H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)",
draft-ietf-ipv6-2461bis-01, October 2004.
[SEND] J. Arkko, J. Kempf, B. Sommerfield, B. Zill,
P. Nikander, Secure Neighbor Discovery (SEND),
draft-ietf-send-ndopt-06, July, 2004.
[TERM] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
Haddad & Krishnan Expires October 3, 2005 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Optimizing Micromobility Management April 2005
11. Informative References
[CIP] A. Valko, "Cellular IP: A New Approach to Internet Host
Mobility", ACM Computer Communication Review, January
1999.
[HAWAII] R. Ramjee, K. Varadhan, L. Salgarelli, S. Thuel, S.Y.
Wang, T. La Porta, "HAWAII: A Domain-based Approach for
Supporting Mobility in Wide-Area Wireless Networks,"
IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, , Vol 10, No. 3,
June, 2002.
[TOMOP] L. Peters, I. Moerman, B. Dhoedt, P. Demeester,
"Influence of the Topology on the Performance of
Micromobility Protocols", Proceedings of WiOpt'03,
March 2003, Sophia Antipolis, France.
[MIPS] D. Saha, A. Mukherjee, I. Misra, M. Chakraborty, N.
Subhash, "Mobility Support in IP: A Survey of Related
Protocols", IEEE Network, Vol. 18 No. 6, November 2004.
12. References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
Authors' Addresses
Wassim Haddad
Ericsson
8400 Decarie Blvd.
Town of Mount Royal, QC
Canada
Email: wassim.haddad@ericsson.com
Haddad & Krishnan Expires October 3, 2005 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Optimizing Micromobility Management April 2005
Suresh Krishnan
Ericsson
8400 Decarie Blvd.
Town of Mount Royal, QC
Canada
Email: suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com
Haddad & Krishnan Expires October 3, 2005 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Optimizing Micromobility Management April 2005
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.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). 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.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Haddad & Krishnan Expires October 3, 2005 [Page 24]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-24 03:09:28 |