One document matched: draft-ietf-dmm-requirements-02.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'>
]>
<?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="no"?>
<rfc category="info" ipr="trust200902"
docName="draft-ietf-dmm-requirements-02">
<front>
<title abbrev="DMM-Reqs">
Requirements for Distributed Mobility Management
</title>
<author initials="H" surname="Chan (Ed.)"
fullname="H Anthony Chan (editor)">
<organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>5340 Legacy Dr. Building 3, Plano, TX 75024, USA</street>
<street>Email: h.a.chan@ieee.org</street>
<street>-</street>
<street>Dapeng Liu</street>
<street>China Mobile</street>
<street>Unit2, 28 Xuanwumenxi Ave, Xuanwu District,
Beijing 100053, China</street>
<street>Email: liudapeng@chinamobile.com</street>
<street>-</street>
<street>Pierrick Seite</street>
<street>France Telecom - Orange</street>
<street>4, rue du Clos Courtel, BP 91226,
Cesson-Sevigne 35512, France</street>
<street>Email: pierrick.seite@orange-ftgroup.com</street>
<street>-</street>
<street>Hidetoshi Yokota</street>
<street>KDDI Lab</street>
<street>2-1-15 Ohara, Fujimino, Saitama, 356-8502 Japan</street>
<street>Email: yokota@kddilabs.jp</street>
<street>-</street>
<street>Jouni Korhonen</street>
<street>Nokia Siemens Networks</street>
<street>Email: jouni.korhonen@nsn.com</street>
<street>-</street>
<street>Charles E. Perkins</street>
<street>Huawei Technologies</street>
<street>Email: charliep@computer.org</street>
<street>-</street>
<street>Melia Telemaco</street>
<street>Alcatel-Lucent Bell Labs</street>
<street>Email: telemaco.melia@alcatel-lucent.com</street>
<street>-</street>
<street>Elena Demaria</street>
<street>Telecom Italia</street>
<street>via G. Reiss Romoli, 274, TORINO, 10148, Italy</street>
<street>Email: elena.demaria@telecomitalia.it</street>
<street>-</street>
<street>Jong-Hyouk Lee</street>
<street>RSM Department, Telecom Bretagne</street>
<street>Cesson-Sevigne, 35512, France</street>
<street>Email: jh.lee@telecom-bretagne.eu</street>
<street>-</street>
<street>Kostas Pentikousis</street>
<street>Huawei Technologies</street>
<street>Carnotstr. 4 10587 Berlin, Germany</street>
<street>Email: k.pentikousis@huawei.com</street>
<street>-</street>
<street>Tricci So</street>
<street>ZTE</street>
<street>Email: tso@zteusa.com</street>
<street>-</street>
<street>Carlos J. Bernardos</street>
<street>Universidad Carlos III de Madrid</street>
<street>Av. Universidad, 30, Leganes, Madrid 28911, Spain</street>
<street>Email: cjbc@it.uc3m.es</street>
<street>-</street>
<street>Peter McCann</street>
<street>Huawei Technologies</street>
<street>Email: PeterMcCann@huawei.com</street>
<street>-</street>
<street>Seok Joo Koh</street>
<street>Kyungpook National University, Korea</street>
<street>Email: sjkoh@knu.ac.kr</street>
<street>-</street>
<street>Wen Luo</street>
<street>ZTE</street>
<street>No.68, Zijinhua RD,Yuhuatai District, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012, China</street>
<street>Email: luo.wen@zte.com.cn</street>
<street>-</street>
<street>Marco Liebsch</street>
<street>NEC Laboratories Europe</street>
<street>Email: liebsch@neclab.eu</street>
<street>-</street>
<street>Carl Williams</street>
<street>MCSR Labs</street>
<street>Email: carlw@mcsr-labs.org</street>
<street>-</street>
</postal>
</address>
</author>
<date month="September" year="2012"></date>
<area></area>
<workgroup></workgroup>
<abstract>
<t>
This document defines the requirements
for Distributed Mobility Management (DMM)
in IPv6 deployments.
The traditionally hierarchical structure
of cellular networks
has led to deployment models which are in practice centralized.
Mobility management
with logically centralized mobility anchoring
in current mobile networks
is prone to suboptimal routing
and raises scalability issues.
Such centralized functions
can lead to single points of failure
and inevitably introduce longer delays
and higher signaling loads
for network operations related to mobility management.
The objective is to enhance mobility management
in order to meet the primary goals in network evolution,
i.e., improve scalability,
avoid single points of failure,
enable transparent mobility support to upper layers
only when needed, and so on.
Distributed mobility management must be secure
and compatible
with existing network deployments and end hosts.
</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<middle>
<section anchor="intro" title="Introduction">
<t>
In the past decade a fair number of mobility protocols
have been standardized
<xref target="RFC6275"/>
<xref target="RFC5944"/>
<xref target="RFC5380"/>
<xref target="RFC6301"/>
<xref target="RFC5213"/>.
Although the protocols differ
in terms of functions and associated message formats,
we can identify a few key common features:
<list>
<t>
a centralized mobility anchor
providing global reachability
and an always-on experience to the user;
</t>
<t>
extensions to the base protocols
to optimize handover performance
while users roam across wireless cells; and
</t>
<t>
extensions to enable
the use of heterogeneous wireless interfaces
for multi-mode terminals
(e.g. smartphones).
</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>
The presence of the centralized mobility anchor
allows a mobile node to remain reachable
when it is not connected to its home domain.
The anchor point, among other tasks,
ensures connectivity
by forwarding packets
destined to, or sent from, the mobile node.
In practice,
most of the deployed architectures today
have a small number of centralized anchors
managing the traffic of millions of mobile nodes.
Compared with a distributed approach,
a centralized approach
is likely to have several issues or limitations
affecting performance and scalability,
which require costly network dimensioning
and engineering to resolve.
</t>
<t>
To optimize handovers from the perspective of mobile nodes,
the base protocols have been extended
to efficiently handle packet forwarding
between the previous and new points of attachment.
These extensions are necessary
when applications have stringent requirements
in terms of delay.
Notions of localization and distribution of local agents
have been introduced to reduce signaling overhead
[Paper-Distributed.Centralized.Mobility].
Unfortunately, today we witness difficulties
in getting such protocols deployed,
resulting in sub-optimal choices
for the network operators.
</t>
<t>
Moreover, the availability of multi-mode devices
and the possibility of
using several network interfaces simultaneously
have motivated the development
of even more protocol extensions
to add more capabilities to the base protocol.
In the end,
deployment is further complicated
with the multitude of extensions.
</t>
<t>
Mobile users are, more than ever,
consuming Internet content;
such traffic imposes new requirements
on mobile core networks for data traffic delivery.
When the traffic demand exceeds available capacity,
service providers need to implement new strategies
such as selective traffic offload
(e.g. 3GPP work items LIPA/SIPTO
[TS.23829])
through alternative access networks (e.g. WLAN)
[Paper-Mobile.Data.Offloading].
Moreover, the presence of content providers
closer to
the mobile/fixed Internet Service Providers network
requires taking into account
local Content Delivery Networks (CDNs)
while providing mobility services.
</t>
<t>
When demand exceeds capacity,
both traffic offloading and CDN mechanisms
could benefit from the development of mobile architectures
with fewer levels of routing hierarchy
introduced into the data path
by the mobility management system.
This trend towards so-called "flat networks" is reinforced
by a shift in user traffic behavior.
In particular,
there is an increase in direct communications among peers
in the same geographical area.
Distributed mobility management
in a truly flat mobile architecture
would anchor the traffic
closer to the point of attachment of the user,
overcoming the suboptimal route stretch
of a centralized mobility scheme.
</t>
<t>
While deploying
today's mobile networks,
service providers face new challenges.
Mobility patterns indicate that,
more often than not,
mobile nodes
remain attached to the same point of attachment
for considerable periods of time
[Paper-Locating.User] .
Therefore it is not uncommon to observe that
specific IP mobility management support
is not required for applications
that launch and complete their sessions
while the mobile node is connected
to the same point of attachment.
However, currently,
IP mobility support is designed for always-on operation,
maintaining all parameters of the context
for each mobile subscriber
for as long as they are connected to the network.
This can result in a waste of resources
and ever-increasing costs for the service provider.
Infrequent node mobility
coupled with application intelligence
suggest that mobility can be provided selectively,
thus simplifying the context maintained
in the different nodes of the mobile network.
</t>
<t>
The DMM charter addresses two complementary aspects
of mobility management procedures:
the distribution of mobility anchors
towards a more flat network
and the dynamic activation/deactivation
of mobility protocol support
as an enabler to distributed mobility management.
The former aims at positioning mobility anchors
(HA, LMA)
closer to the user;
ideally,
mobility agents could be collocated
with the first-hop router.
The latter,
facilitated by the distribution of mobility anchors,
aims at identifying when mobility support must be activated
and identifying sessions
that do not require mobility management support
-- thus reducing the amount of state information
that must be maintained
in various mobility agents of the mobile network.
The key idea is that
dynamic mobility management relaxes
some of the constraints
of previously-standardized mobility management solutions and,
by doing so,
it can avoid
the establishment of non-optimal tunnels
between two topologically distant anchors.
</t>
<t>
Given this motivational background in this section,
this document compares distributed mobility management
with centralized mobility management in Section 3.
The requirements to address these problems
are given in Section 4.
Finally, security considerations are discussed in Section 5.
</t>
<t>
The problem statement and the use cases
[I-D.yokota-dmm-scenario]
can be found in
[Paper-Distributed.Mobility.Review].
</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 title="Terminology">
<t>All the general mobility-related terms and their acronyms used in this document are to be interpreted
as defined in the Mobile IPv6 base specification [RFC6275],
in the Proxy mobile IPv6 specification [RFC5213],
and in Mobility Related Terminology
<xref target="RFC3753"/>.
These terms include the following:
mobile node (MN), correspondent node (CN),
and home agent (HA) as per [RFC6275];
local mobility anchor (LMA)
and mobile access gateway (MAG) as per [RFC5213],
and context as per
<xref target="RFC3753"/>.
</t>
<t>
In addition, this draft introduces the following term.
</t>
<t>
<list style='hanging'>
<t hangText='Mobility context'>
<vspace blankLines="1" />
is the collection of information
required to provide mobility management support
for a given mobile node.
</t>
</list>
</t>
</section>
</section>
<section
title="Centralized versus distributed mobility management">
<t>
Mobility management functions
may be implemented at different layers
of the protocol stack.
At the IP (network) layer,
they may reside in the network or in the mobile node.
In particular,
a network-based solution resides in the network only.
It therefore enables mobility for existing hosts
and network applications
which are already in deployment but lack mobility support.
</t>
<t>
At the IP layer,
a mobility management protocol supporting session continuity
is typically based on the principle
of distinguishing between identifier and routing address
and maintaining a mapping between the two.
In Mobile IP,
the home address serves as an identifier of the device
whereas the care-of-address (CoA)
takes the role of the routing address.
The binding between these two
is maintained at the home agent (mobility anchor).
If packets can be continuously delivered
to a mobile node at its home address,
then all sessions using that home address
are unaffected
even though the routing address (CoA) changes.
</t>
<t>
The next two subsections explain centralized and distributed
mobility management functions in the network.
</t>
<section title="Centralized mobility management">
<t>
In centralized mobility management,
the mapping information
between the persistent node identifier
and the changing IP address of a mobile node (MN)
is kept at a single mobility anchor.
At the same time,
packets destined to the MN are routed via this anchor.
In other words,
such mobility management systems are centralized
in both the control plane and the data plane.
</t>
<t>
Many existing mobility management deployments
make use of centralized mobility anchoring
in a hierarchical network architecture,
as shown in Figure 1.
Examples of such centralized mobility anchors
are the home agent (HA) and local mobility anchor (LMA)
in Mobile IPv6 <xref target="RFC6275"/>
and Proxy Mobile IPv6 <xref target="RFC5213"/>, respectively.
Current cellular networks
such as the Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP)
UMTS networks, CDMA networks,
and 3GPP Evolved Packet System (EPS) networks
employ centralized mobility management too.
In particular,
Gateway GPRS Support Node (GGSN)
and Serving GPRS Support Node (SGSN)
in the 3GPP UMTS hierarchical network,
and the Packet data network Gateway (P-GW)
and Serving Gateway (S-GW) in the 3GPP EPS network,
respectively, act as anchors in a hierarchy.
</t>
<figure>
<preamble></preamble>
<artwork><![CDATA[
UMTS 3GPP SAE MIP/PMIP
+------+ +------+ +------+
| GGSN | | P-GW | |HA/LMA|
+------+ +------+ +------+
/\ /\ /\
/ \ / \ / \
/ \ / \ / \
/ \ / \ / \
/ \ / \ / \
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| SGSN | | SGSN | | S-GW | | S-GW | |MN/MAG| |MN/MAG|
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
]]></artwork>
<postamble></postamble>
</figure>
<t>Figure 1. Centralized mobility management.
</t>
</section>
<section title="Distributed mobility management">
<t>Mobility management functions may also be distributed
to multiple networks
as shown in Figure 2,
so that a mobile node in any of these networks
may be served by a closeby mobility function (MF).
</t>
<figure>
<preamble></preamble>
<artwork><![CDATA[
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| MF | | MF | | MF | | MF |
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
|
----
| MN |
----
]]></artwork>
<postamble></postamble>
</figure>
<t>Figure 2. Distributed mobility management.
</t>
<t>
Mobility management may be partially or fully distributed.
In the former case only the data plane is distributed.
Fully distributed mobility management implies that
both the data plane and the control plane are distributed.
These different approaches are described in detail in
[I-D.yokota-dmm-scenario].
</t>
<t>
A distributed mobility management scheme
for future flat IP-based mobile network architecture
consisting of access nodes
is proposed in
[Paper-Distributed.Dynamic.Mobility].
Its benefits
over centralized mobility management
are shown through simulations in
[Paper-Distributed.Centralized.Mobility].
Moreover,
the (re)use and extension of existing protocols
in the design of both fully distributed mobility management
[Paper-Migrating.Home.Agents]
[Paper-Distributed.Mobility.SAE]
and partially distributed mobility management
[Paper-Distributed.Mobility.PMIP]
[Paper-Distributed.Mobility.MIP]
have been reported in the literature.
Therefore,
before designing new mobility management protocols
for a future flat IP architecture,
it is recommended to first consider
whether existing mobility management protocols
can be extended to serve a flat IP architecture.
</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title="Requirements">
<t>
After comparing distributed mobility management
against centralized deployment in Section 3,
this section states
the requirements as follows:
</t>
<!-- REQ1 -->
<section
title="Distributed deployment">
<t>
<list style='format REQ%d:' counter="R_count">
<t>
Distributed deployment
<vspace blankLines="1" />
IP mobility, network access and routing solutions
provided by DMM
MUST enable distributed deployment
for mobility management of IP sessions
so that traffic
does not need to traverse centrally deployed
mobility anchors and thus
can be routed
in an optimal manner.
<vspace blankLines="1" />
Motivation:
This requirement is motivated by
current trends in network evolution:
(a) it is cost- and resource-effective
to cache and distribute content
by combining distributed mobility anchors
with caching systems
(e.g., CDN);
(b) the significantly larger number of mobile nodes
and flows
call for improved scalability;
(c) single points of failure are avoided
in a distributed system;
(d) threats against centrally deployed anchors,
e.g., home agent and local mobility anchor,
are mitigated in a distributed system.
</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>
This requirement addresses problems
PS1, PS2, PS3, and PS4 in the following.
</t>
<t>
<list style='format PS%d:' counter="PS_count">
<!-- PS1 -->
<t>
Non-optimal routes
<vspace blankLines="1" />
Routing via a centralized anchor
often results in a longer route.
The problem is especially manifested
when accessing a local server or servers
of a Content Delivery Network (CDN).
</t>
<!-- PS2 -->
<t>
Divergence from other evolutionary trends in network architecture
<vspace blankLines="1" />
Centralized mobility management
can become non-optimal
with a flat network architecture.
</t>
<!-- PS3 -->
<t>
Low scalability of centralized route
and mobility context maintenance
<vspace blankLines="1" />
Setting up routes through a central anchor
and maintaining mobility context
for each MN therein requires more resources
is more difficult to scale
in a centralized design,
thus reducing scalability.
Distributing the route maintenance function
and the mobility context maintenance function
among different network entities
can increase scalability.
</t>
<!-- PS4 -->
<t>
Single point of failure and attack
<vspace blankLines="1" />
Centralized anchoring
may be more vulnerable
to single points of failures and attacks
than a distributed system.
The impact of a successful attack
on a system with centralized mobility management
can be far greater as well.
</t>
</list>
</t>
</section>
<!-- REQ2 -->
<section
title="Transparency to Upper Layers when needed">
<t>
<list style='format REQ%d:' counter="R_count">
<t>
Transparency to Upper Layers when needed
<vspace blankLines="1" />
DMM solutions MUST provide
transparent mobility support above the IP layer
when needed.
Such transparency is needed,
for example, when,
upon change of point of attachment to the Internet,
an application flow cannot cope with a change
in the IP address.
Otherwise, support for
maintaining a stable home IP address or prefix
during handovers may be declined.
<vspace blankLines="1" />
Motivation:
The motivation of this requirement is to
enable more efficient use of network resources
and more efficient routing
by not maintaining context
at the mobility anchor
when there is no such need.
</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>
This requirement addresses the problems
PS5 as well as the other related problem O-PS1.
</t>
<!-- PS5 -->
<t>
<list style='format PS%d:' counter="PS_count">
<t>
Wasting resources to provide mobility support
to nodes that do not need such support
<vspace blankLines="1" />
IP mobility support is not always required,
and not every parameter of mobility context is always used.
For example,
some applications do not need a stable IP address
during a handover to maintain IP session continuity.
Sometimes, the entire application session runs
while the terminal does not change the point of attachment.
</t>
</list>
<!-- O-PS1 -->
<list style='format O-PS%d:' counter="O-PS_count">
<t>
Mobility signaling overhead
with peer-to-peer communication
<vspace blankLines="1" />
Wasting resources when mobility signaling
(e.g., maintenance of the tunnel, keep alive, etc.)
is not turned off for peer-to-peer communication.
Peer-to-peer communications
have particular traffic patterns
that often do not benefit from mobility support
from the network.
Thus, the assoicated mobility support signaling
(e.g., maintenance of the tunnel, keep alives, etc.)
wastes network resources for no application gain.
In such a case,
it is better to enable mobility support selectively.
</t>
</list>
</t>
</section>
<!-- REQ3 -->
<section
title="IPv6 deployment">
<t>
<list style='format REQ%d:' counter="R_count">
<t>
IPv6 deployment
<vspace blankLines="1" />
DMM solutions SHOULD target IPv6
as the primary deployment environment
and SHOULD NOT be tailored specifically to support IPv4,
in particular in situations
where private IPv4 addresses and/or NATs are used.
<vspace blankLines="1" />
Motivation:
This requirement is to be inline
with the general orientation of IETF work.
DMM deployment is foreseen
in mid- to long-term horizon,
when IPv6 is expected
to be far more common than today.
It is also unnecessarily complex
to solve this problem for IPv4,
as we will not be able to use
some of the IPv6-specific features/tools.
</t>
</list>
</t>
</section>
<!-- REQ4 -->
<section
title="Existing mobility protocols">
<t>
<list style='format REQ%d:' counter="R_count">
<t>
Existing mobility protocols
<vspace blankLines="1" />
A DMM solution SHOULD
first consider reusing and extending
IETF-standardized protocols
before specifying new protocols.
<vspace blankLines="1" />
Motivation:
Using IETF protocols
is easier to deploy and to update.
</t>
</list>
</t>
</section>
<!-- REQ5 -->
<section
title="Compatibility">
<t>
<list style='format REQ%d:' counter="R_count">
<t>
Compatibility
<vspace blankLines="1" />
The DMM solution MUST
be able to co-exist
with existing network deployments and end hosts.
For example,
depending on the environment in which DMM is deployed,
DMM solutions
may need to be compatible
with other deployed mobility protocols
or may need to interoperate
with a network or mobile hosts/routers
that do not support DMM protocols.
Furthermore,
a DMM solution SHOULD work across different networks,
possibly operated as separate administrative domains,
when allowed by the trust relationship
between them.
<vspace blankLines="1" />
Motivation: The motivations of this requirement are
(1) to preserve backwards compatibility
so that existing networks and hosts
are not affected
and continue to function as usual,
and
(2) enable inter-domain operation if desired.
</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>
This requirement addresses
the following related problem O-PS2.
</t>
<t>
<!-- O-PS2 -->
<list style='format O-PS%d:' counter="O-PS_count">
<t>
Complicated deployment with
too many MIP variants and extensions
<vspace blankLines="1" />
Deployment is complicated
with many variants and extensions of MIP.
When introducing new functions
which may add to the complexity,
existing solutions are more vulnerable to break.
</t>
</list>
</t>
</section>
<!-- REQ6 -->
<section
title="Security considerations">
<t>
<list style='format REQ%d:' counter="R_count">
<t>
Security considerations
<vspace blankLines="1" />
DMM protocol solutions
MUST consider security aspects,
including confidentiality and integrity.
Examples of aspects to be considered are
authentication and authorization mechanisms
that allow a legitimate mobile host/router
to use the mobility support provided by the DMM solution;
signaling message protection
in terms of authentication,
encryption, etc.;
data integrity and confidentiality;
opt-in or opt-out data confidentiality
to signaling messages
depending on network environments
or user requirements.
<vspace blankLines="1" />
Motivation:
Mutual authentication and authorization
between a mobile host/router and an access router
providing the DMM service to the mobile host/router
are required to prevent potential attacks
in the access network of the DMM service.
Various attacks such as impersonation,
denial of service, man-in-the-middle attacks,
and so on,
can be mounted against a DMM service
and need to be protected against.
<vspace blankLines="1" />
Signaling messages can be subject to various attacks
since they carry critical context information
about a mobile node/router.
For instance,
a malicious node can forge
a number of signaling messages
thus redirecting traffic from its legitimate path.
Consequently, the specific node is
under a denial of service attack,
whereas other nodes do not receive their traffic.
As signaling messages may travel over the Internet,
end-to-end security could be required.
</t>
</list>
</t>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="security" title="Security Considerations">
<t>
Distributed mobility management (DMM)
requires two kinds of security considerations:
First, access network security
that only allows
a legitimate mobile host/router
to access the DMM service;
Second, end-to-end security
that protects signaling messages
for the DMM service.
Access network security is required
between the mobile host/router
and the access network
providing the DMM service.
End-to-end security is required
between nodes
that participate in the DMM protocol.
</t>
<t>
It is necessary to provide sufficient defense
against possible security attacks,
or to adopt existing security mechanisms
and protocols
to provide sufficient security protections.
For instance,
EAP-based authentication
can be used for access network security,
while IPsec can be used
for end-to-end security.
</t>
</section>
<section title="IANA Considerations">
<t>None</t>
</section>
<section title="Co-authors and Contributors">
<t>This problem statement document is a joint effort
among the following participants.
Each individual has made significant contributions
to this work.
</t>
<t>Dapeng Liu: liudapeng@chinamobile.com</t>
<t>Pierrick Seite: pierrick.seite@orange-ftgroup.com</t>
<t>Hidetoshi Yokota: yokota@kddilabs.jp</t>
<t>Charles E. Perkins: charliep@computer.org</t>
<t>Melia Telemaco: telemaco.melia@alcatel-lucent.com</t>
<t>Elena Demaria: elena.demaria@telecomitalia.it</t>
<t>Peter McCann: Peter.McCann@huawei.com</t>
<t>Kostas Pentikousis: k.pentikousis@huawei.com</t>
<t>Tricci So: tso@zteusa.com</t>
<t>Jong-Hyouk Lee: jh.lee@telecom-bretagne.eu</t>
<t>Jouni Korhonen: jouni.korhonen@nsn.com</t>
<t>Sri Gundavelli: sgundave@cisco.com</t>
<t>Carlos J. Bernardos: cjbc@it.uc3m.es</t>
<t>Marco Liebsch: Marco.Liebsch@neclab.eu</t>
<t>Wen Luo: luo.wen@zte.com.cn</t>
<t>Georgios Karagiannis: g.karagiannis@utwente.nl</t>
<t>Julien Laganier: jlaganier@juniper.net</t>
<t>Wassim Michel Haddad: Wassam.Haddad@ericsson.com</t>
<t>Alexandru Petrescu: alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com</t>
<t>Seok Joo Koh: sjkoh@knu.ac.kr</t>
<t>Dirk von Hugo: Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de</t>
<t>Ahmad Muhanna: amuhanna@awardsolutions.com</t>
</section>
</middle>
<back>
<references title="Normative References">
&rfc2119;
</references>
<references title="Informative References">
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.6275" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.5213" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.3963" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.5380" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.5944" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.6301" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.3753" ?>
<reference anchor="I-D.yokota-dmm-scenario">
<front>
<title>Use case scenarios
for Distributed Mobility Management</title>
<author initials="H" surname="Yokota"
fullname="Hidetoshi Yokota">
<organization />
</author>
<author initials="P" surname="Seite"
fullname="Pierrick Seite">
<organization />
</author>
<author initials="E" surname="Demaria"
fullname="Elena Demaria">
<organization />
</author>
<author initials="Z" surname="Cao" fullname="Zhen Cao">
<organization />
</author>
<date day="18" month="October" year="2010" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft"
value="draft-yokota-dmm-scenario-00" />
<format type="TXT" target=
"http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-yokota-dmm-scenario-00.txt"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="I-D.ietf-netext-pd-pmip">
<front>
<title>Prefix Delegation for Proxy Mobile IPv6</title>
<author fullname="Xingyue Zhou" surname="Zhou" initials="X">
<organization/>
</author>
<author fullname="Jouni Korhonen" surname="Korhonen" initials="J">
<organization/>
</author>
<author fullname="Carl Williams" surname="Williams" initials="C">
<organization/>
</author>
<author fullname="Sri Gundavelli" surname="Gundavelli" initials="S">
<organization/>
</author>
<author fullname="Carlos Bernardos" surname="Bernardos" initials="C">
<organization/>
</author>
<date year="2012" day="12" month="March"/>
<abstract>
<t>Proxy Mobile IPv6 enables IP mobility for a host without requiring its participation in any mobility signaling, being the network responsible for managing IP mobility on behalf of the host. However, Proxy Mobile IPv6 does not support assigning a prefix to a router and managing its IP mobility. This document specifies an extension to Proxy Mobile IPv6 protocol for supporting network mobility using DHCPv6-based Prefix Delegation.
</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo value="draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip-02"
name="Internet-Draft"/>
<format type="TXT"
target="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip-02.txt"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="TS.23829">
<front>
<title>Local IP Access and Selected IP Traffic Offload (LIPA-SIPTO)</title>
<author><organization>3GPP</organization></author>
<date year="2011" month="October" day="18"/>
</front>
<seriesInfo value="23.829 10.0.1" name="3GPP TR"/>
<format target="http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html-info/23829.htm" type="HTML"/> </reference>
<reference anchor="Paper-Locating.User">
<front>
<title>Locating the User</title>
<author initials="G" surname="Kirby">
<organization />
</author>
<date year="1995" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="" value="Communication International" />
</reference>
<reference anchor="Paper-Mobile.Data.Offloading">
<front>
<title>Mobile Data Offloading: How Much Can WiFi Deliver?</title>
<author initials="K" surname="Lee">
<organization />
</author>
<author initials="J" surname="Lee">
<organization />
</author>
<author initials="Y" surname="Yi">
<organization />
</author>
<author initials="I" surname="Rhee">
<organization />
</author>
<author initials="S" surname="Chong">
<organization />
</author>
<date year="2010" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="" value="SIGCOMM 2010" />
</reference>
<reference anchor="Paper-Distributed.Dynamic.Mobility">
<front>
<title>A Distributed Dynamic Mobility Management Scheme
Designed for Flat IP Architectures</title>
<author initials="P" surname="Bertin">
<organization />
</author>
<author initials="S" surname="Bonjour">
<organization />
</author>
<author initials="J-M" surname="Bonnin">
<organization />
</author>
<date year="2008" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name=""
value="Proceedings of 3rd International Conference
on New Technologies, Mobility and Security (NTMS)" />
</reference>
<reference anchor="Paper-Distributed.Centralized.Mobility">
<front>
<title>A Distributed or Centralized Mobility</title>
<author initials="P" surname="Bertin">
<organization />
</author>
<author initials="S" surname="Bonjour">
<organization />
</author>
<author initials="J-M" surname="Bonnin">
<organization />
</author>
<date month="December" year="2009" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name=""
value="Proceedings of Global Communications Conference
(GlobeCom)" />
</reference>
<reference anchor="Paper-Migrating.Home.Agents">
<front>
<title>Migrating Home Agents
Towards Internet-scale Mobility Deployments</title>
<author initials="R" surname="Wakikawa">
<organization />
</author>
<author initials="G" surname="Valadon">
<organization />
</author>
<author initials="J" surname="Murai">
<organization />
</author>
<date month="December" year="2006" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name=""
value="Proceedings of the ACM 2nd CoNEXT Conference
on Future Networking Technologies" />
</reference>
<reference anchor="Paper-Distributed.Mobility.SAE">
<front>
<title>A Distributed IP Mobility Approach for 3G SAE</title>
<author initials="M" surname="Fisher">
<organization />
</author>
<author initials="F.U" surname="Anderson">
<organization />
</author>
<author initials="A" surname="Kopsel">
<organization />
</author>
<author initials="G" surname="Schafer">
<organization />
</author>
<author initials="M" surname="Schlager">
<organization />
</author>
<date year="2008" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name=""
value="Proceedings of the 19th International Symposium
on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC)"
/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="Paper-Distributed.Mobility.Review">
<front>
<title>Distributed and Dynamic Mobility Management
in Mobile Internet: Current Approaches and Issues,
Journal of Communications, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 4-15, Feb 2011.
</title>
<author initials="H" surname="Chan">
<organization />
</author>
<author initials="H" surname="Yokota">
<organization />
</author>
<author initials="J" surname="Xie">
<organization />
</author>
<author initials="P" surname="Seite">
<organization />
</author>
<author initials="D" surname="Liu">
<organization />
</author>
<date month="February" year="2011" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name=""
value="Proceedings of GlobeCom Workshop
on Seamless Wireless Mobility" />
</reference>
<reference anchor="Paper-Distributed.Mobility.PMIP">
<front>
<title>Proxy Mobile IP
with Distributed Mobility Anchors</title>
<author initials="H" surname="Chan">
<organization />
</author>
<date month="December" year="2010" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name=""
value="Proceedings of GlobeCom Workshop
on Seamless Wireless Mobility" />
</reference>
<reference anchor="Paper-Distributed.Mobility.MIP">
<front>
<title>Distributed Mobility Management with Mobile IP</title>
<author initials="H" surname="Chan">
<organization />
</author>
<date month="June" year="2012" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name=""
value="Proceedings of
IEEE International Communication Conference (ICC)
Workshop on Telecommunications:
from Research to Standards" />
</reference>
</references>
</back>
</rfc>
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-24 05:57:56 |