One document matched: draft-ietf-mipshop-mstp-solution-01.txt
Differences from draft-ietf-mipshop-mstp-solution-00.txt
Mipshop WG T. Melia, Ed.
Internet-Draft CISCO
Intended status: Standards Track G. Bajko
Expires: August 15, 2008 Nokia
S. Das
Telcordia
N. Golmie
NIST
S. Xia
Huawei
JC. Zuniga
InterDigital
February 12, 2008
Mobility Services Framework Design
draft-ietf-mipshop-mstp-solution-01
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 15, 2008.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
Melia, et al. Expires August 15, 2008 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MSFD February 2008
Abstract
This document describes a design solution for the IEEE 802.21 Media
Independent Handover (MIH) protocol that addresses identified issues
associated with the transport of MIH messages. The document
describes mechanisms for mobility service (MoS) discovery and
transport layer mechanisms for the reliable delivery of MIH messages.
Requirements Language
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Deployment Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1. Scenario S1: Home Network MoS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Scenario S2: Visited Network MoS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3. Scenario S3: Roaming MoS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.4. Scenario S4: Third party MoS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Solution Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2. MIHF Identifiers (FQDN, NAI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. MoS Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1. MoS Discovery when MN and MoSh are in the home network
(Scenario S1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2. MoS Discovery when MIN is in visited network and MoSv
is also in visited network (Scenario S2) . . . . . . . . . 13
5.3. MOS Discovery when the MN is in a visited Network and
Services are at the Home network (Scenario S3) . . . . . . 14
5.4. MoS discovery when MIH services are in a 3rd party
remote network (scenario S4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6. MIH Transport Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.1. MIH Message size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.2. MIH Message rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.3. Retransmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.4. NAT Traversal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.5. General guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7. Operation Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Melia, et al. Expires August 15, 2008 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MSFD February 2008
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 29
Melia, et al. Expires August 15, 2008 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MSFD February 2008
1. Introduction
This document proposes a solution to the issues identified in the
problem statement document [I-D.ietf-mipshop-mis-ps] for the layer 3
transport of IEEE 802.21 MIH protocols.
The MIH Layer 3 transport problem is divided in two main parts: the
discovery of a node that supports specific Mobility Services (MoS)
and the transport of the information between a mobile node (MN) and
the discovered node. The discovery process is required for the MN to
obtain the information needed for MIH protocol communication with a
peer node. The information includes the transport address (e.g., the
IP address) of the peer node and the types of MoS provided by the
peer node.
This document lists the major MoS deployment scenarios. It next
describes the solution architecture, including the MSTP reference
model and MIHF identifiers. A description follows of MoS discovery
procedures when the MN is in a home or remote network. The remainder
of the document describes the MIH transport architecture, example
message flows for several signaling scenarios, and security issues.
2. Terminology
The following acronyms and terminology are used in this document:
MIH Media Independent Handover: the handover support architecture
defined by the IEEE 802.21 working group that consists of the MIH
Function (MIHF), MIH Network Entities, MIH Event messages, and MIH
command messages.
MIHF Media Independent Handover Function: a cross-layer function
that provides handover services including the Event Service (ES),
Information Service (IS), and Command Service (CS), through
service access points (SAPs) defined by the IEEE 802.21 working
group.
MIHF User an MIH client that uses the MIH SAPs to access MIHF
services, and which is responsible for initiating and terminating
MIH signaling
MIHFID Media Independent Handover Function Identifier: an identifier
required to uniquely identify the MIHF endpoints for delivering
mobility services (MoS); it is implemented as either a FQDN or
NAI.
Melia, et al. Expires August 15, 2008 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MSFD February 2008
MoS Mobility Services: those services, as defined in the MIH problem
statement document [I-D.ietf-mipshop-mis-ps] , which include the
MIH IS, CS, and ES services defined by the IEEE 802.21 standard.
MoSh Mobility Services assigned in the mobile node's Home Network
MoSv Mobility Services assigned in the Visited Network, which is any
network other than the mobile node's home network
MoS3 Mobility Services assigned in a 3rd Party Network, which is a
network that is neither the Home Network nor the current Visited
Network.
MN Mobile Node: an Internet device whose location changes, along with
its point of connection to the network.
NN Network Node: an Internet device whose location and network point
of attachment do not change
MSTP Mobility Services Transport Protocol: a protocol that is used
to deliver MIH signaling messages from an MIHF to other MIH-aware
nodes in a network.
IS Information Service: a MoS that originates at the lower or upper
layers and sends information to the local or remote upper or lower
layers. It can use secure or insecure ports to transport
information elements (IEs) and information about various
neighboring nodes. Its architecture is outside the scope of the
IEEE 802.21 draft document.
ES Event Service: a MoS that originates at a remote MIHF or the lower
layers and sends information to the local MIHF or local higher
layers. The purpose of the ES is to report changes in link status
(e.g. Link Going Down messages) and transmission status.
CS Command Service: a MoS that sends commands from the remote MIHF or
local upper layers to the local lower layers to switch links or to
get link status.
FQDN Fully-Qualified Domain Name: a complete domain name for a host
on the Internet, consisting of a host name followed by a domain
name (e.g. hostname.domain.org)
NAI Network Access Identifier: the user ID that a user submits
during PPP authentication. For mobile users, the NAI identifies
the user and helps to route the authentication request message.
Melia, et al. Expires August 15, 2008 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MSFD February 2008
NAT Network Address Translator: A device that implements the Network
Address Translation function described in [RFC3022], in which
local or private network layer addresses are mapped to valid
network addresses and port numbers.
DHCP Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol: a protocol described in
[RFC2131] that allows Internet devices to obtain IP addresses,
subnet masks, default gateway addresses, and other IP
configuration information from DHCP servers.
DNS Domain Name System: a protocol described in [RFC1035] that
translates domain names to IP addresses.
AAA Authentication, Authorization and Accounting: a set of network
management services that respectively determine the validity of a
user's ID, determine whether a user is allowed to use network
resources, and track users' use of network resources.
AAA home AAA server: an AAA server located on the MN's home network
AAA visited AAA server: an AAA server located a visited network that
is not the MN's home network
MIH ACK MIH Acknowledgement Message: a MIH signaling message that a
MIHF sends in response to an MIH message from a sending MIHF, when
UDP is used as the MSTP.
PoS Point of Service, a network-side MIHF instance that exchanges
MIH messages with a MN-based MIHF
NAS Network Access Server: a server to which a MN initially connects
when it is trying to gain a connection to a network and which
determines whether the MN is allowed to connect to the NAS's
network
UDP Network Access Server: a server to which a MN initially connects
when it is trying to gain a connection to a network and which
determines whether the MN is allowed to connect to the NAS's
network
TCP Transmission Control Protocol: a stream-oriented transport layer
protocol that provides a reliable delivery service with congestion
control, defined in RFC 793.
RTT Round-Trip Time: a estimation of the time required for a segment
to travel from a source to a destination and an acknowledgement to
return to the source that is used by TCP in connection with timer
expirations to determine when a segment is considered lost and
Melia, et al. Expires August 15, 2008 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft MSFD February 2008
should be resent.
MTU Maximum Transmission Unit: the largest size packet that can be
sent on a network without requiring fragmentation [RFC1191].
TLS Transport Layer Security Protocol: an application layer protocol
that assures privacy and data integrity between two communicating
network entities [RFC4346].
3. Deployment Scenarios
This section describes the various possible deployment scenarios for
the MN and the MoS. The relative positioning of MN and MoS affects
resource discovery as well as the performance of the MIH signaling
service.
3.1. Scenario S1: Home Network MoS
In this scenario, the MN and the services are located in the home
network. We refer to this set of services as MoSh as in Figure 1.
The MoSh can be located at the access point the MN uses to connect to
the home network, or it can be located elsewhere.
+--------------+ +====+
| HOME NETWORK | |MoSh|
+--------------+ +====+
/\
||
\/
+--------+
| MN |
+--------+
Figure 1: MoS in the Home network
3.2. Scenario S2: Visited Network MoS
In this scenario, the MN is in the visited network and mobility
services are provided by the visited network. We refer to this as
MoSv as shown in Figure 2.
Melia, et al. Expires August 15, 2008 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft MSFD February 2008
+--------------+
| HOME NETWORK |
+--------------+
/\
||
\/
+====+ +-----------------+
|MoSv| | VISITED NETWORK |
+====+ +-----------------+
/\
||
\/
+--------+
| MN |
+--------+
Figure 2: MoSV in the Visited Network
3.3. Scenario S3: Roaming MoS
In this scenario, the MN is located in the visited network and all
MIH services are provided by the home network, as shown in Figure 3.
+====+ +--------------+
|MoSh| | HOME NETWORK |
+====+ +--------------+
/\
||
\/
+-----------------+
| VISITED NETWORK |
+-----------------+
/\
||
\/
+--------+
| MN |
+--------+
Figure 3: MoS provided by the home while in visited
3.4. Scenario S4: Third party MoS
In this scenario, the MN is in its home network or in a visited
network and services are provided by a 3rd party network. We refer
to this situation as MoS3 as shown in Figure 4. (Note that MoS can
exist both in hom enad in visited).
Melia, et al. Expires August 15, 2008 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft MSFD February 2008
+--------------+
| HOME NETWORK |
+====+ +--------------+ +--------------+
|MoS3| | THIRD PARTY | <===> /\
+====+ +--------------+ ||
\/
+-----------------+
| VISITED NETWORK |
+-----------------+
/\
||
\/
+--------+
| MN |
+--------+
Figure 4: MoS form a third party
Different types of MoS can be provided independently of other types
and there is no strict relationship between ES, CS and IS, nor is
there a requirement that the entities that provide these types be co-
located. However, while IS tends to involve large amounts of static
information, ES and CS are dynamic services and some relationship
between them can be expected, e.g. a handover command (CS) could be
issued upon reception of a link event (ES). Hence, while in theory
MoS can be implemented in different locations, it is expected that ES
and CS will be co-located, whereas IS can be co-located with ES/CS or
located elsewhere. Therefore, having the flexibility at the MSTP to
discover different services in different locations is an important
feature that can be used to optimize handover performance. Resource
discovery is discussed in more detail in Section 5.
4. Solution Overview
As mentioned in Section 1 the solution space is being divided into
two functional domains: discovery and transport. The following
assumptions have been made:
o The solution is aimed at supporting IEEE 802.21 MIH services,
namely Information Service (IS), Event Service (ES), and Command
Service (CS).
o If the MIHFID is available, FQDN or NAI's realm is used for
mobility service discovery.
Melia, et al. Expires August 15, 2008 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft MSFD February 2008
o The solutions are chosen to cover all possible deployment
scenarios as described in Section 3.
o MoS discovery can be performed during initial network attachment
or thereafter.
The MN could know or not the realm of the MoS to be discovered. In
any case after the acquisition of the target realm (e.g. via
Information Server or statically configured) the MN could either be
pre-configured with the address of the MoS, or this address could be
obtained through DHCP or DNS. The dynamic assignation methods are
described in Section 5.
The configuration of the MoS could be executed either upon network
attachment or after successful IP configuration. The methodology to
be used depends on the considered deployment scenario.
Once the MIHF peer has been discovered, MIH information can be
exchanged between MIH peers over a trasnport protocol such as UDP or
TCP. The usage of transport protocols is described in Section 6.
4.1. Architecture
Figure 5 depicts the MSTP reference model and its components within a
node. The topmost layer is the MIHF user. This set of applications
consists of one or more MIH clients that are responsible for such
operations as maintaining MIH databases associated with the IS,
processing Layer 2 triggers as part of the ES, and initiating and
carrying out handover operations as part of the CS. Beneath the MIHF
user set is the MIHF itself. This function is responsible for MoS
discovery, as well as creating, maintaining, modifying, and
destroying MIH signaling associations with other MIHFs located in MIH
peer nodes. Below the MIHF are various transport layer protocols as
well as address resolution functions.
Melia, et al. Expires August 15, 2008 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft MSFD February 2008
+--------------------------+
| MIHF User |
+--------------------------+
||
+--------------------------+
| MIHF |
+--------------------------+
|| || ||
+---------+ +------+ +-----+
| TCP/UDP | | DHCP | | DNS |
+---------+ +------+ +-----+
Figure 5: MN stack
The MIHF relies on the services provided by TCP and UDP for
transporting MIH messages, and relies on DHCP and DNS for peer
discovery. In cases where the peer MIHF IP address is not pre-
configured, the source MIHF needs to discover it either via DHCP or
DNS or a combination of both as described in Section 5. Once the
peer MIHF is discovered, MIHF must exchange messages with its peer
over either UDP or TCP. Specific recommendations regarding the
choice of transport protocols are provided in Section 6.
The above reference architecture however does not include other
services such as message fragmentation and security. Depending upon
the MIH service type (e.g., ES, CS and IS) the message size can be
very large. In case where the underlying layers do not support
fragmentation, this may be an issue. There are no security features
currently defined as part of the MIH protocol level. However,
security can be provided either at the transport or IP layer where it
is necessary. Section 8 provides some guidelines and recommendations
for security.
4.2. MIHF Identifiers (FQDN, NAI)
An MIHFID is an identifier required to uniquely identify the MIHF end
points for delivering the mobility services (MoS). Thus an MIHF
identifier needs to be unique within a domain where mobility services
are provided and invariant to interface IP addresses. An MIHFID MUST
be represented either in the form of an FQDN [RFC2181] or NAI
[RFC4282]. An MIHFID can be pre-configured or discovered through the
discovery methods described in Section 5.
5. MoS Discovery
The MoS discovery method depends on whether the MN attempts to
discover an MoS in the home network, in the visited network, or in a
Melia, et al. Expires August 15, 2008 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft MSFD February 2008
3rd party remote network that is neither the home network nor the
visited network.
In case MoS is provided locally (scenarios S1 and S2) , the discovery
techniques described in [I-D.bajko-mos-dhcp-options] and
[I-D.bajko-mos-dns-discovery] are both applicable and either one MAY
be used to discover the MoS.
In case MoS is provided in the home network while the MN is in the
visited network (scenario S3), the DNS based discovery described in
[I-D.bajko-mos-dns-discovery] is applicable, while the DHCP based
discovery method would require an interaction between the DHCP and
the AAA infrastructure, similarly to what specified in
[I-D.ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-integrated-dhc] . This latter case
assumes that MoS assignment is performed during access authentication
and authorization.
In case MoS is provided in a remote network other than visited or
home network (scenario S4), only the DNS based discovery method
described in [I-D.bajko-mos-dns-discovery] is applicable.
5.1. MoS Discovery when MN and MoSh are in the home network (Scenario
S1)
To discover an MoS in the home network, the MN SHOULD use the DNS
based MoS discovery method described in
[I-D.bajko-mos-dns-discovery]. In order to use that mechanism, the
MN MUST first find out the domain name of its home network. Home
domains are usually pre-configured in the MNs, thus the MN can simply
read its configuration data to find out the home domain name
(scenario S1). The DNS query option is shown in Figure 6b.
Alternatively, the MN MAY use the DHCP options for MoS
discovery[I-D.bajko-mos-dhcp-options] as shown inFigure 6a.
Melia, et al. Expires August 15, 2008 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft MSFD February 2008
+-------+
+----+ |Domain |
| MN |-------->|Name |
+----+ |Server |
+-------+
MN@xyz.com
(a) using DNS Query
+-----+ +------+
+----+ | | |DHCP |
| MN |<----->| DHCP|<---->|Server|
+----+ |Relay| | |
+-----+ +------+
(b) Using DHCP Option
Figure 6: MOS Discovery (a) Using DNS query, (b) using DHCP option
5.2. MoS Discovery when MIN is in visited network and MoSv is also in
visited network (Scenario S2)
To discover an MoS in the visited network, the MN SHOULD attempt to
use the DHCP options for MoS discovery [I-D.bajko-mos-dhcp-options]
as shown in Figure 7a. If the DHCP method fails, the MN SHOULD
attempt to use the DNS based MoS discovery method described in
[[I-D.bajko-mos-dns-discovery] as shown in Figure 7b. In order to
use that, the MN MUST first learn the domain name of the local
network. There are a number of ways how the domain name of a network
can be learned:
DHCP -- In order to find out the domain name of the local network,
the MN SHOULD use the dhcpv4 option 15 for learning the domain
name [RFC1533]. A similar solution is available for dhcpv6
[I-D.ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-dnsdomain] .
Reverse dns query -- When DHCP does not provide the required domain
name, the MN MAY use reverse DNS (DNS PTR record) to find the
domain name associated with the IP address it is using in the
visited network. Note, that when a NAT device exists between the
MN and the visited network, the MN will first need to find out the
external IP address of the NAT device. Some possible methods for
determining the NAT's external IP address are STUN [RFC3849] or
UPnP [UPnP_IDG_DCP]. Once the MN has determined the external IP
address of the NAT device, it MUST use that address in the reverse
Melia, et al. Expires August 15, 2008 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft MSFD February 2008
DNS query.
+-----+ +------+
+----+ | | |DHCP |
| MN |<----->| DHCP|<---->|Server|
+----+ |Relay| | |
+-----+ +------+
(a) MOS Discovery using DHCP options
+-------+
+----+ |Domain |
| MN |-------->|Name |
+----+ |Server |
+-------+
(b) Reverse DNS Query (starting from the IP address)
Figure 7: Discovery (a) using DHCP option, (b) Using DNS
It should be noted, that the usage of DHCP options to discover an MoS
in this particular scenario is recommended because of its simplicity
over the DNS based discovery method: the DNS discovery method
requires the MN to learn the domain name of the local network first,
possibly using DHCP, and then perform the DNS query. The usage of
the DHCP based discovery method does not require any additional
procedure.
5.3. MOS Discovery when the MN is in a visited Network and Services are
at the Home network (Scenario S3)
To discover an MoS in the visited network when MIH services are
provided by the home network, both the DNS based discovery method
described in [I-D.bajko-mos-dns-discovery] and the DHCP based
discovery method described in [I-D.bajko-mos-dhcp-options] are
applicable.
To discover the MoS at home while in a visited network using DNS, the
MN SHOULD use the procedures described in section Section 5.1
Alternatively, the MN MAY also use the DHCP based discovery method.
Using the DHCP based discovery may be required in deployments where
the usage of MoS located in the home network is enforced and included
in the subscription profile. Similarly to
Melia, et al. Expires August 15, 2008 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft MSFD February 2008
[I-D.ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-integrated-dhc] in this integrated
scenario the mobile node is required to perform network access
authentication before it can bootstrap MoS information. This allows
for MoS discovery at the time of access authentication and
authorization. Also, the mechanism defined in this document requires
the NAS to support MIH specific AAA attributes and a collocated DHCP
relay agent. In order to provide the mobile node with information
about the assigned MoS, the AAAh conveys the assigned MoS's
information to the NAS via AAA protocol similarly to
[I-D.ietf-dime-mip6-integrated] and described in [REF TO NEW DOC].
In these deployment scenarios the AAAh sends the MoS address at home
to the AAAv during the network access authentication. The relation
beween functional components supporting such procedure is shown in
Figure 8.
The mobile node executes the network access authentication procedure
(e.g., IEEE 802.11i/802.1X) and it interacts with the NAS. The NAS
is in the visited and it interacts with the AAAh to authenticate the
mobile node. In the process of authorizing the mobile node, the AAAh
verifies in the AAA profile that the mobile node is allowed to use
MoS services. The AAAh assigns the MoS in the home and returns this
information to the NAS. The NAS may keep the received information
for a configurable duration or it may keep the information for as
long as the MN is connected to the NAS.
The mobile node sends a DHCPv6 Information Request message [RFC3315]
to the All_DHCP_Relay_Agents_and_Servers multicast address. In this
message the mobile node (DHCP client) MUST include the Option Code
for MoS Identifier Option [I-D.bajko-mos-dhcp-options] in the
OPTION_ORO. The mobile node MUST also include the OPTION_CLIENTID to
identify itself to the DHCP server.
The Relay Agent intercepts the Information-request from the mobile
node and forwards it to the DHCP server. The Relay Agent also
includes the received MoS information from the AAAh in the IPv6 Relay
Agent MoS Option [I-D.bajko-mos-dhcp-options]. If a NAS
implementation does not store the received information as long as the
MN's session remains in the visited, and if the MN delays sending
DHCP request, the NAS/DHCP relay does not include the IPv6 Relay
Agent MoS Option in the Relay Forward message.
The DHCP server identifies the client by looking at the DUID for the
client in the OPTION_CLIENTID. The DHCP server determines that the
home agent is allocated by the AAAh by looking at the IPv6 Relay
Agent Sub-Option in the IPv6 Relay Agent MoS Option. The DHCP server
extracts the allocated home agent information from the IPv6 Relay
Agent Sub-Option and includes it in the MoS Information Option
Melia, et al. Expires August 15, 2008 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft MSFD February 2008
[I-D.bajko-mos-dhcp-options] in the Reply Message. If the requested
information is not available in the DHCP server, it follows the
behavior described in [RFC3315].
The Relay Agent relays the Reply Message from the DHCP server to the
mobile node. At this point, the mobile node has the MoS information
that it requested.
In should be noted, that using the DHCP Options and procedures
defined in [I-D.bajko-mos-dhcp-options] the MN can not specify the
network (local or home) where it wants the MoS address from. Whether
the MN receives an MoS address from local or home network will depend
on the actual network deployment (scenario S2 or S3). In an
integrated scenario, where the network access authentication is
performed by the home network the MoS information will anyway be sent
to the AAAV, then stored in the relay agent and ultimately sent to
the MN if the MN asks for it, using the procedures defined in
[I-D.bajko-mos-dhcp-options].
Melia, et al. Expires August 15, 2008 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft MSFD February 2008
Visited | Home
|
|
+-------+ | +-------+
| | | | |
|AAAV |-----------|--------|AAAH |
| | | | |
| | | | |
+-------+ | +-------+
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | +--------+
| | | |
| | | MoSh |
+-----+ +------+ | +--------+
+----+ | | |DHCP | |
| MN |------| NAS/|----|Server| |
+----+ | DHCP| | | |
|Relay| | | |
+-----+ +------+ |
|
AAAv -- Visited AAA
AAAH -- Home AAA
NAS -- Network Access Server
Figure 8: MOS Discovery using Network Access Authentication and DHCP
options
5.4. MoS discovery when MIH services are in a 3rd party remote network
(scenario S4)
To discover an MoS in a remote network other than home network, the
MN MUST use the DNS based MoS discovery method described in
[I-D.bajko-mos-dns-discovery]. The MN MUST first learn the domain
name of the network containing the MoS it is searching for. If the
MN does not yet know the domain name of the network, learning it may
require more than one operation, as pre-configuration and DHCP
methods can not be used. The MN MAY attempt to first discover an MoS
in either the local or home network (as in Figure 9 part (a)) and
query that MoS to find out the domain name of a specific network or
the domain name of a network at a specific location (as in Figure 9
part (b)). Alternatively, the MN MAY query an MoS previously known
to learn the domain name of the desired network (e.g., via an IS
Query). Finally the MN MUST use DNS queries to find MoS in the
Melia, et al. Expires August 15, 2008 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft MSFD February 2008
remote network as inFigure 9 part(c). It should be noted that step c
can only be performed upon obtaining the domain name of the remote
network.
+-------+
+----+ |DHCP |
| MN |-------->| |
+----+ |Server |
+-------+
MN@xyz.com
(a) Discover MoS in local network with DHCP
+------------+
+----+ | |
| | |Information |
| MN |-------->| Server |
| | |(previously |
+----+ |discovered) |
+------------+
(b) Using IS query to find the FQDN on the remote network
+-------+
+----+ |Domain |
| MN |-------->|Name |
+----+ |Server |
+-------+
MN@xyz.com
(c) using DNS Query in the remote network
Figure 9: MOS Discovery using (a) DHCP Options, (b) IS Query to a
known Server, (c) DNS Query
6. MIH Transport Options
Once the Mobility Services have been discovered, MIH peers MAY
exchange information over TCP, UDP or any other transport supported
by both the server and client, as described in
[I-D.rahman-mipshop-mih-transport]. The client MAY use the DNS
discovery mechanism to discover which transport protocols are
supported by the server in addition to TCP and UDP. While either
protocol can provide the basic transport functionality required,
there are performance trade-offs and unique characteristics
associated with each that need to be considered in the context of the
MIH services for different network loss and congestion conditions.
The objectives of this section are to discuss these trade-offs for
Melia, et al. Expires August 15, 2008 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft MSFD February 2008
different MIH settings such as the MIH message size and rate, and the
retransmission parameters. In addition, factors such as NAT
traversal are also discussed. Given the reliability requirements for
the MIH transport, it is assumed in this discussion that the MIH ACK
mechanism is to be used in conjunction with UDP, while it is
preferred to avoid using MIH ACKs with TCP since TCP includes
acknowledgement and retransmission functionality
6.1. MIH Message size
Although the MIH message size varies widely from about 30 bytes (for
a broadcast capability discovery request) to around 65000 bytes (for
an IS MIH_Get_Information response primitive), a typical MIH message
size for the ES/CS service ranges between 50 to100 bytes [IEEE80221].
Thus, considering the effects of the MIH message size on the
performance of the transport protocol brings us to discussing two
main issues, related to fragmentation of long messages in the context
of UDP and the concatenation of short messages in the context of TCP.
Since transporting long MIH messages may require fragmentation that
is not available in UDP, if MIH is using UDP a limit MUST be set on
the size of the MIH message, unless fragmentation functionality is
added to the MIH layer or IP layer fragmentation is used instead. In
this latter case, the loss of an IP fragment leads to the
retransmission of an entire MIH message, which in turn leads to poor
end-to-end delay performance in addition to wasted bandwidth
utilization. Additional recommendations in
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-guidelines] apply for limiting the size of the
MIH message when using UDP and assuming IP layer fragmentation. In
terms of dealing with short messages, TCP has the capability to
concatenate very short messages in order to reduce the overall
bandwidth overhead. However, this reduced overhead comes at the cost
of additional delay to complete an MIH transaction, which may not be
acceptable for CS and ES services. Note also that TCP is a stream
oriented protocol and measures data flow in terms of bytes, not
messages. Thus it is possible to split messages across multiple TCP
segments if they are long enough. Even short messages can be split
across two segments. This can also cause unacceptable delays,
especially if the link quality is severely degraded as is likely to
happen when the MN is exiting a wireless access coverage area.
6.2. MIH Message rate
The frequency of MIH messages varies according to the MIH service
type. It is expected that CS/ES message arrive at a rate of one in
hundreds of milliseconds in order to capture quick changes in the
environment and/ or process handover commands. On the other hand, IS
messages are exchanged mainly every time a new network is visited
which may be in order of hours or days. Therefore a burst of either
Melia, et al. Expires August 15, 2008 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft MSFD February 2008
short CS/ES messages or long IS message exchanges (in the case of
multiple MIH nodes requesting information) may lead to network
congestion. While the built-in rate-limiting controls available in
TCP may be well suited for dealing with these congestion conditions,
this may result in large transmission delays that may be unacceptable
for the timely delivery of ES/CS messages. On the other hand, if UDP
is used, a rate-limiting effect similar to the one obtained with TCP
may be obtained by adequately adjusting the parameters of a token
bucket regulator as defined in the MIH specifications [IEEE80221].
Recommendations for tocken bucket parameter settings are specific to
the scenario considered.
6.3. Retransmission
For TCP, the retransmission timeout is adjusted according to the
measured RTT. However due to the exponential backoff mechanism, the
delay associated with retransmission timeouts may increase
significantly with increased packet loss.
If UDP is being used to carry MIH messages, MIH SHOULD use MIH ACKs.
An MIH message is retransmitted if its corresponding MIH ACK is not
received by the generating node within a timeout interval set by the
MIHF. This approach does not include an exponential backoff and
therefore tends to degrade more gracefully than TCP when the packet
loss rate becomes large, in the sense that the expected delay does
not increase exponentially. The number of retransmissions is
limited, which reduces head-of-line blocking of other MIH messages,
but this can cause important ES/CS messages to be lost.
Additionally, instead of retransmitting an unacknowledged message,
the MIH may choose to update the information and transmit a new
message.
6.4. NAT Traversal
There are no known issues for NAT traversal when using TCP. The
default connection timeout of 24 hours is considered adequate for MIH
transport purposes. However, issues with NAT traversal using UDP are
documented in [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-guidelines]. Communication
failures are experienced when middleboxes destroy the per-flow state
associated with an application session during periods when the
application does not exchange any UDP traffic. Hence, communication
between the MN and the MoS SHOULD be able to gracefully handle such
failures and implement mechanisms to re-establish their UDP sessions.
In addition and in order to avoid such failures, MIH messages MAY be
sent periodically, similarly to keep-alive messages, to attempt to
refresh middlebox state (e.g. ES reports could be used for this
purpose). As [RFC4787] requires a minimum state timeout of two
Melia, et al. Expires August 15, 2008 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft MSFD February 2008
minutes or more, MIH messages using UDP as transport SHOULD be sent
once every two minutes.
6.5. General guidelines
Since ES and CS messages are small in nature and have tight latency
requirements, UDP in combination with MIH acknowledgement SHOULD be
used for transporting ES and CS messages. On the other hand, IS
messages are more resilient in terms of latency constraints and some
long IS messages could exceed the MTU of the path to the destination.
Therefore, TCP SHOULD be used for transporting IS messages. For both
UDP and TCP cases, if a port number is not explicitly assigned (e.g.
by the DNS SRV), MIH messages sent over UDP, TCP or other supported
transport MUST use the default port number defined for that
particular transport..
MOS server MUST support both UDP and TCP for MIH transport and the MN
MUST support TCP. Additionally, the server and MN MAY support
additional transport mechanisms. The MN MAY use the procedures
defined in [I-D.bajko-mos-dns-discovery] to discover additional
transport protocols supported by the server.
7. Operation Flows
Figure 10 gives an example operation flow between MIHF peers when an
MIH user requests for an IS service. Scenario 1 is in effect, i.e.
the MoS and the MN are both in the MN's home network. Thus DHCP is
used for MoS discovery and TCP is used for establishing a transport
connection to carry the IS messages. When MOS is not pre-configured,
the MIH user needs to discover the IP address of MOS to communicate
with the remote MIHF. Therefore the MIH user sends a discovery
request message to the local MIHF as defined in [IEEE80221]
In this example, we assume that MoS discovery is performed before a
transport connection is established with the remote MIHF, and the
DHCP client process is invoked via some internal APIs. DHCP Client
sends DHCP INFORM message according to standard DHCP and with the MoS
option as defined in [I-D.bajko-mos-dhcp-options]. DHCP server
replies via DHCP ACK message with the IP address of the MoS. The MOS
address is then passed to the MIHF locally via some internal APIs.
MIHF generates the discovery response message and passes it on to the
corresponding MIH user. The MIH user generates an IS query addressed
to the remote MoS. MIHF invokes the underlying TCP client which
establishes a transport connection with the remote peer. Once the
transport connection is established, MIHF sends the IS query via MIH
protocol REQUEST message. The message and query arrive at the
destination MIHF and MIH user respectively. The MoS MIH user
Melia, et al. Expires August 15, 2008 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft MSFD February 2008
responds to the corresponding IS query and the MoS MIHF sends the IS
response via MIH protocol RESPONSE message. The message arrives to
the source MIHF which passes the IS response on to the corresponding
MIH user.
MN MoS
|====================================| |======| |===================|
+ ---------+ + ---------+
| MIH USER | +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ | MIH USER |
| +------+ | | TCP | |DHCP | |DHCP | | TCP | | +------+ |
| | MIHF | | |Client| |Client| |Server| |Server| | | MIHF | |
+----------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +----------+
| | | | | |
|MIH Discovery | | | | |
|Request | | | | |
|(MIH User-> MIHF)| | | | |
|======> | | | | |
| | | | | |
|Invoke DHCP Client | | | |
|(Internal process with MoS)|DHCP INFORM| | |
|==========================>|==========>| | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | DHCP ACK | | |
| | |<==========| | |
| Inform MoS address | | | |
|<==========================| | | |
| (internal process) | | | |
| | | | |
|Discovery | | | | |
|Response | | | | |
|<====== | | | | |
|(MIH User<- MIHF)| | | | |
| | | | | |
|IS Query | | | | |
|=======> | | | | |
|(MIH User-> MIHF)| | | | |
| | | | | |
|Invoke TCP Client| | | | |
|================>| | | | |
|(Internal process| | | | |
|with MOS) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | TCP connection established | |
| |<==============================>| |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
Melia, et al. Expires August 15, 2008 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft MSFD February 2008
| IS QUERY REQUEST (via MIH protocol) |
|============================================================>|
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | IS QUERY|
| | | | | REQUEST|
| | | | |=========>|
| | | | (MIHF-> MIH User)|
| | | | | |
| | | | | QUERY|
| | | | | RESPONSE|
| | | | | <======|
| | | | |(MIHF <-MIH User) |
| | | | | |
| | IS QUERY RESPONSE (via MIH protoco |
|<============================================================|
| | | | | |
| IS | | | | |
|RESPONSE | | | | |
|<======== | | | | |
|(MIH User <-MIHF)| | | | |
| | | | | |
Figure 10: Example Flow of Operation Involving MIH User
8. Security Considerations
There are a number of security issues that need to be taken into
account during node discovery and information exchange via a
transport connection [I-D.ietf-mipshop-mis-ps]
In case where DHCP is used for node discovery and authentication of
the source and content of DHCP messages are required, it is
recommended that network administrators should use DHCP
authentication option described in [RFC3118], where available or rely
upon link layer security. This will also protect the denial of
service attacks to DHCP server.[RFC3118] provides mechanisms for both
entity authentication and message authentication.
In case where DNS is used for discovering MoS, fake DNS requests and
responses may cause DoS and the inability of the MN to perform a
proper handover, respectively. Where networks are exposed to such
DoS, it is recommended that DNS service providers use the Domain Name
System Security Extensions (DNSSEC) as described in [RFC4033].
Readers may also refer to [RFC4641] to consider the aspects of DNSSEC
Operational Practices.
Melia, et al. Expires August 15, 2008 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft MSFD February 2008
In case where reliable transport protocol such as TCP is used for
transport connection between two MIHF peers, TLS [RFC4346] should be
used for message confidentiality and data integrity. In particular,
TLS is designed for client/server applications and to prevent
eavesdropping, tampering, or message forgery. Readers should also
follow the recommendations in [RFC4366] that provides generic
extension mechanisms for the TLS protocol suitable for wireless
environments.
In case where unreliable transport protocol such as UDP is used for
transport connection between two MIHF peers, DTLS [RFC4347] should be
used for message confidentiality and data integrity. The DTLS
protocol is based on the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol and
provides equivalent security guarantees.
Alternatively, generic IP layer security, such as IPSec [RFC2401] may
be used where neither transport layer security for a specific >
transport is available nor server only authentication is required.
9. IANA Considerations
This document registers the following TCP and UDP port(s) with IANA:
Keyword Decimal Description
------- ------- -----------
ieee-mih-IS XXX/tcp Media Independent Handover Information Services
ieee-mih-IS XXX/udp Media Independent Handover Information Services
ieee-mih-ES XXX/tcp Media Independent Handover Event Services
ieee-mih-ES XXX/udp Media Independent Handover Event Services
ieee-mih-CS XXX/tcp Media Independent Handover Command Services
ieee-mih-CS XXX/udp Media Independent Handover Command Services
10. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Patrick Stupar for his valuable
comments and fruitful discussions.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[I-D.bajko-mos-dhcp-options]
Bajko, G., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCPv4
and DHCPv6) Options for Mobility Servers (MoS)",
draft-bajko-mos-dhcp-options-00 (work in progress),
Melia, et al. Expires August 15, 2008 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft MSFD February 2008
August 2007.
[I-D.bajko-mos-dns-discovery]
Bajko, G., "Locating Mobility Servers",
draft-bajko-mos-dns-discovery-00 (work in progress),
August 2007.
[I-D.ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-dnsdomain]
Yan, R., "Domain Suffix Option for DHCPv6",
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-dnsdomain-04 (work in progress),
June 2007.
[I-D.ietf-dime-mip6-integrated]
Korhonen, J., Bournelle, J., Tschofenig, H., Perkins, C.,
and K. Chowdhury, "Diameter Mobile IPv6: Support for
Network Access Server to Diameter Server Interaction",
draft-ietf-dime-mip6-integrated-07 (work in progress),
November 2007.
[I-D.ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-integrated-dhc]
Chowdhury, K. and A. Yegin, "MIP6-bootstrapping for the
Integrated Scenario",
draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-integrated-dhc-05 (work in
progress), July 2007.
[I-D.ietf-mip6-hiopt]
Jang, H., Yegin, A., Chowdhury, K., and J. Choi, "DHCP
Option for Home Information Discovery in MIPv6",
draft-ietf-mip6-hiopt-10 (work in progress), January 2008.
[I-D.ietf-mipshop-mis-ps]
Melia, T., Hepworth, E., Sreemanthula, S., Ohba, Y.,
Gupta, V., Korhonen, J., and Z. Xia, "Mobility Services
Transport: Problem Statement",
draft-ietf-mipshop-mis-ps-05 (work in progress),
November 2007.
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-guidelines]
Eggert, L. and G. Fairhurst, "UDP Usage Guidelines for
Application Designers", draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-guidelines-05
(work in progress), February 2008.
[IEEE80221]
"Draft IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area
Networks: Media Independent Handover Servicesinnn", IEEE
LAN/MAN Draft IEEE P802.21/D07.00, July 2007.
[RFC1533] Alexander, S. and R. Droms, "DHCP Options and BOOTP Vendor
Melia, et al. Expires August 15, 2008 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft MSFD February 2008
Extensions", RFC 1533, October 1993.
[RFC1536] Kumar, A., Postel, J., Neuman, C., Danzig, P., and S.
Miller, "Common DNS Implementation Errors and Suggested
Fixes", RFC 1536, October 1993.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2132] Alexander, S. and R. Droms, "DHCP Options and BOOTP Vendor
Extensions", RFC 2132, March 1997.
[RFC2181] Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Clarifications to the DNS
Specification", RFC 2181, July 1997.
[RFC2401] Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "Security Architecture for the
Internet Protocol", RFC 2401, November 1998.
[RFC2988] Paxson, V. and M. Allman, "Computing TCP's Retransmission
Timer", RFC 2988, November 2000.
[RFC3118] Droms, R. and W. Arbaugh, "Authentication for DHCP
Messages", RFC 3118, June 2001.
[RFC3315] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C.,
and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for
IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003.
[RFC3849] Huston, G., Lord, A., and P. Smith, "IPv6 Address Prefix
Reserved for Documentation", RFC 3849, July 2004.
[RFC4033] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements",
RFC 4033, March 2005.
[RFC4282] Aboba, B., Beadles, M., Arkko, J., and P. Eronen, "The
Network Access Identifier", RFC 4282, December 2005.
[RFC4346] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.1", RFC 4346, April 2006.
[RFC4347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
Security", RFC 4347, April 2006.
[RFC4366] Blake-Wilson, S., Nystrom, M., Hopwood, D., Mikkelsen, J.,
and T. Wright, "Transport Layer Security (TLS)
Extensions", RFC 4366, April 2006.
Melia, et al. Expires August 15, 2008 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft MSFD February 2008
[RFC4641] Kolkman, O. and R. Gieben, "DNSSEC Operational Practices",
RFC 4641, September 2006.
[RFC4787] Audet, F. and C. Jennings, "Network Address Translation
(NAT) Behavioral Requirements for Unicast UDP", BCP 127,
RFC 4787, January 2007.
11.2. Informative References
[I-D.rahman-mipshop-mih-transport]
Rahman, A., "Transport of Media Independent Handover
Messages Over IP", draft-rahman-mipshop-mih-transport-03
(work in progress), July 2007.
Authors' Addresses
Telemaco Melia (editor)
CISCO
Email: tmelia@cisco.com
Gabor Bajko
Nokia
Email: Gabor.Bajko@nokia.com
Subir Das
Telcordia
Email: subir@research.telcordia.com
Nada Golmie
NIST
Email: nada.golmie@nist.gov
Sam Xia
Huawei
Email: xiazhongqi@huawei.com
Melia, et al. Expires August 15, 2008 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft MSFD February 2008
Juan Carlos Zuniga
InterDigital
Email: j.c.zuniga@ieee.org
Melia, et al. Expires August 15, 2008 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft MSFD February 2008
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Melia, et al. Expires August 15, 2008 [Page 29]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-24 04:30:10 |