One document matched: draft-laganier-mext-lone-home-binding-00.txt




Network Working Group                                        J. Laganier
Internet-Draft                                               G. Giaretta
Updates: 5648 (if approved)                                Qualcomm Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track                            July 3, 2010
Expires: January 4, 2011


                     Mobile IPv6 Lone Home Binding
                draft-laganier-mext-lone-home-binding-00

Abstract

   RFC5648 extends MIPv6 with the ability for a Mobile Node to register
   Multiple Care-of Addresses with its Home Agent and Correspondent
   Node(s).  RFC 5648 also introduces the notion of a Home Binding that
   is essentially a binding on the Home Link, where the Care-of Address
   is set to the Home Address of the Mobile Node.  A Mobile Node uses
   such a Home Binding together with one or more Multiple Care-of
   Address binding(s) to be able to use simultaneously both the Home
   Link and one or more visited link(s).  The description of the Home
   Binding in a section of RFC 5846 entitled "Returning Home:
   Simultaneous Home and Visited Link Operation" seems to imply that a
   Home Binding can only be legitimately created while returning home
   and maintaining simultaneous bindings on one or more visited link(s).
   There is however no specific reason to prevent creation of such a
   Home Binding when the Mobile Node is only attached to the Home Link
   and does not have any interface attached to a visited link.
   Moreover, there is a specific use case for the creation of such a
   Lone Home Binding.  This specification explicits the use case for
   creation of a Lone Home Binding, and clarifies the protocol behavior
   of Mobile IPv6 nodes (Mobile Node, Home Agent, Correspondent Node)
   involved with its creation.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."




Laganier & Giaretta      Expires January 4, 2011                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft        Mobile IPv6 Lone Home Binding            July 2010


   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 4, 2011.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.



































Laganier & Giaretta      Expires January 4, 2011                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft        Mobile IPv6 Lone Home Binding            July 2010


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Requirement Levels Key Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   4.  Usage Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   5.  Mobile Node Operation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   6.  Home Agent and Correspondent Node Operation  . . . . . . . . . 10
   7.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   8.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   9.  Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     10.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     10.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15




































Laganier & Giaretta      Expires January 4, 2011                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft        Mobile IPv6 Lone Home Binding            July 2010


1.  Introduction

   Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6) [RFC3775] specifies a protocol which allows nodes
   to remain reachable while moving to different location of the IPv6
   Internet, and of the IPv4 Internet when extended with Dual Stack
   support [RFC5555].  Each mobile node is identified by a so-called
   Home Address that is independent from its current point of
   attachment.  A mobile node also has a so-called Care-of Address at
   which it is reachable and which reflects its current point of
   attachment.  MIPv6 allows a mobile node to register with its Home
   Agent and correspondent nodes the binding between its Home Address
   and Care-of Address so that they are able to route appropriately
   packet they wish to send to its Home Address.

   [RFC5648] extends MIPv6 with the ability for a Mobile Node to
   register Multiple Care-of Addresses with its Home Agent and
   Correspondent Node(s).  RFC 5648 also introduces the notion of a Home
   Binding that is essentially a binding on the Home Link, where the
   Care-of Address is set to the Home Address of the Mobile Node.  A
   Mobile Node uses such a Home Binding together with one or more
   Multiple Care-of Address binding(s) to be able to use simultaneously
   both the Home Link and one or more visited link(s).

   The Home Binding is described in a subsection of Section 5.6 of
   [RFC5648] entitled "Returning Home: Simultaneous Home and Visited
   Link Operation", which seems to imply that a Home Binding can only be
   legitimately created while returning home and maintaining
   simultaneous bindings on one or more visited link(s).  There is
   however no specific reason to prevent creation of such a Home Binding
   when the Mobile Node is only attached to the Home Link and does not
   have any interface attached to a visited link.  Moreover, there is a
   specific use case for the creation of such a Lone Home Binding.

   This specification explicits the use case for creation of a Lone Home
   Binding, and clarifies the protocol behavior of Mobile IPv6 nodes
   (Mobile Node, Home Agent, Correspondent Node) involved with its
   creation.














Laganier & Giaretta      Expires January 4, 2011                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft        Mobile IPv6 Lone Home Binding            July 2010


2.  Requirement Levels Key Words

   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].














































Laganier & Giaretta      Expires January 4, 2011                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft        Mobile IPv6 Lone Home Binding            July 2010


3.  Terminology

   Lone Home Binding: A Home Binding as per [RFC5648], i.e., where the
   Care-of Address for the binding is set to the Home Address of the
   Mobile Node, where there exists no other bindings to Care-of
   Addresses configured by the Mobile Node on one or more visited
   link(s).

   Other terms used throughout this document are defined in the
   documents specifying the Mobile IPv6 protocol suite: [RFC3775],
   [RFC5555], [RFC5648], and [I-D.ietf-mext-flow-binding].








































Laganier & Giaretta      Expires January 4, 2011                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft        Mobile IPv6 Lone Home Binding            July 2010


4.  Usage Scenario

   [RFC3775] specifies that a node receiving a Mobility Header "MUST
   ignore and skip any options which it does not understand."  This
   makes it possible for a Mobile Node supporting and using new
   option(s) and sending messages to a Home Agent or a Correspond Node
   that does not support them to detect that fact and respond
   accordingly.  As such, inclusion of the options defined in these
   extension in a Binding Update constitute an implicit capability
   detection for a Home Agent or a Correspondent Node.  Absence of the
   options in a Binding Acknowledgment with a Status code indicating
   success indicates that the Home Agent or Correspondent Node does not
   support the extension making use of the option.

   Following that, two extensions to the basic MIPv6 protocol that
   introduces new Mobility Options require that a conformant node
   receiving a Binding Update including such an option includes a copy
   of that option in the Binding Acknowledgment confirming successful
   creation of a binding:

   o  [RFC5648] states that "Whenever a Binding Acknowledgement is sent,
      all the Binding Identifier mobility options stored in the Binding
      Update MUST be copied to the Binding Acknowledgement except the
      Status field."

   o  [I-D.ietf-mext-flow-binding] states that "a mobile node receiving
      a Binding Acknowledgement in response to the transmission of a
      Binding Update MUST determine if the Binding Acknowledgement
      contains a copy of every flow identification mobility options
      included in the Binding Update.  A Binding Acknowledgement without
      flow identification option(s), in response to a Binding Update
      with flow identification mobility option, would indicate inability
      (or unwillingness) on behalf of the source node to support the
      extensions presented in this document."

   While this mechanism seems to be sufficient for capability detection,
   if a Mobile Node cannot create a Lone Home Binding the capability
   detection will incur side effects that are undesirable when the Home
   Agent or Correspondent node does not support the extensions specified
   in [RFC5648] and [I-D.ietf-mext-flow-binding].  Suppose that a Mobile
   Node implementing these extensions wants to use the Home Link to send
   traffic in the case of [RFC5648], or to send and receive traffic in
   the case of [I-D.ietf-mext-flow-binding].  Suppose further that the
   Mobile Node does not know yet that the Home Agent it has chosen, or
   the Correspondent Nodes it would like to creating binding do not
   support said extensions.  In such a situation the Mobile Node has to
   perform capability detection by sending to the Home Agent or the
   Correspondent Node a Binding Update including a FID option



Laganier & Giaretta      Expires January 4, 2011                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft        Mobile IPv6 Lone Home Binding            July 2010


   [I-D.ietf-mext-flow-binding] and/or a BID option [RFC5648] depending
   on the capability to be detected.

   If the Mobile Node is not allowed to create a Lone Home Binding, it
   will send this Binding Update from a Care-of Address on a visited
   link.  The receiver will ignore the BID and FID options it does not
   understand, and as a result will create a single binding towards the
   Care-of Address.  This will disrupt the Mobile Node transmission
   and/or reception of traffic on the Home Link.

   Were the Mobile Node allowed to create a Lone Home Binding, it could
   perform capability detection by creating a Lone Home Binding, which
   would not disrupt the Mobile Node Transmission and/or reception of
   traffic at the Home Link.  Therefore, this document specifies how to
   create a Lone Home Binding.




































Laganier & Giaretta      Expires January 4, 2011                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft        Mobile IPv6 Lone Home Binding            July 2010


5.  Mobile Node Operation

   A Mobile Node MAY create a Lone Home Binding while not having any
   other binding on visited links in the same fashion that it would
   create a Home Binding while maintaining simultaneous attachment to
   one or more visited link(s), as specified in Section 5.2.5 of
   [I-D.ietf-mext-flow-binding] and/or Section 5.6.3 of [RFC5648].












































Laganier & Giaretta      Expires January 4, 2011                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft        Mobile IPv6 Lone Home Binding            July 2010


6.  Home Agent and Correspondent Node Operation

   A Home Agent or a Correspondent Node that supports
   [I-D.ietf-mext-flow-binding] and/or [RFC5648] MUST be prepared to
   receive a Binding Update from a Mobile Node requesting creation of a
   Lone Home Binding while no other binding exists towards Care-of
   Address(es) configured by the Mobile Node on visited links.

   Such a Home Agent or Correspondent Node MUST process a Binding Update
   requesting the creation of a Lone Home Binding in the same fashion
   that it would process a Binding Update requesting creation of a Home
   Binding while maintaining simultaneous attachment to one or more
   visited link(s), as specified in Section 5.3 of
   [I-D.ietf-mext-flow-binding] and/or Section 6.3 of [RFC5648].





































Laganier & Giaretta      Expires January 4, 2011               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft        Mobile IPv6 Lone Home Binding            July 2010


7.  IANA Considerations

   There are no IANA considerations for this specification.
















































Laganier & Giaretta      Expires January 4, 2011               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft        Mobile IPv6 Lone Home Binding            July 2010


8.  Security Considerations

   The security considerations of [RFC5648] and
   [I-D.ietf-mext-flow-binding] are not modified by this specification.















































Laganier & Giaretta      Expires January 4, 2011               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft        Mobile IPv6 Lone Home Binding            July 2010


9.  Acknowledgment

   The authors would like to thanks Patrick Stupar for interesting
   discussion regarding the Lone Home Binding.  Creation of a Lone Home
   Binding was first proposed in [I-D.devarapalli-mext-mipv6-home-link].














































Laganier & Giaretta      Expires January 4, 2011               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft        Mobile IPv6 Lone Home Binding            July 2010


10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-mext-flow-binding]
              Soliman, H., Tsirtsis, G., Montavont, N., Giaretta, G.,
              and K. Kuladinithi, "Flow Bindings in Mobile IPv6 and NEMO
              Basic Support", draft-ietf-mext-flow-binding-06 (work in
              progress), March 2010.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC3775]  Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support
              in IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004.

   [RFC5555]  Soliman, H., "Mobile IPv6 Support for Dual Stack Hosts and
              Routers", RFC 5555, June 2009.

   [RFC5648]  Wakikawa, R., Devarapalli, V., Tsirtsis, G., Ernst, T.,
              and K. Nagami, "Multiple Care-of Addresses Registration",
              RFC 5648, October 2009.

10.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.devarapalli-mext-mipv6-home-link]
              Devarapalli, V., Kant, N., and H. Lim, "Mobile IPv6 Home
              Link Operation over SDO point-to-point links",
              draft-devarapalli-mext-mipv6-home-link-01 (work in
              progress), February 2008.





















Laganier & Giaretta      Expires January 4, 2011               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft        Mobile IPv6 Lone Home Binding            July 2010


Authors' Addresses

   Julien Laganier
   Qualcomm Incorporated
   5775 Morehouse Drive
   San Diego, CA  92121
   USA

   Phone: +1 858 658 3538
   Email: julienl@qualcomm.com


   Gerardo Giaretta
   Qualcomm Incorporated
   5775 Morehouse Drive
   San Diego, CA  92121
   USA

   Phone: +1 858 658 5844
   Email: gerardog@qualcomm.com































Laganier & Giaretta      Expires January 4, 2011               [Page 15]



PAFTECH AB 2003-20262026-04-24 01:31:35