One document matched: draft-xia-netext-flow-binding-01.txt

Differences from draft-xia-netext-flow-binding-00.txt




Network Working Group                                             F. Xia
Internet-Draft                                       Huawei Technologies
Expires: December 20, 2010                                 June 18, 2010


                   Flow Binding in Proxy Mobile IPv6
                    draft-xia-netext-flow-binding-01

Abstract

   This document introduces extensions to Proxy Mobile IPv6 that allows
   networks dynamically binding IP flows to different interfaces of a
   mobile node.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF 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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on December 20, 2010.

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.






Xia                     Expires December 20, 2010               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft           Flow Binding in PMIPv6                June 2010


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  Use Cases  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   4.  Design Assumptions and Principles  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   5.  Protocol Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     5.1.  Other Enhancements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   6.  MAG Operation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   7.  LMA Operation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   8.  MN Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   9.  Message formats  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     9.1.  Alternative Interface Indicator  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   10. Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   11. IANA considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     13.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12































Xia                     Expires December 20, 2010               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft           Flow Binding in PMIPv6                June 2010


1.  Introduction

   Assume a mobile node equipped with two interfaces namely IF1(e.g.
   3GPP) and IF2 (e.g WiFi), and IF1 is active while IF2 is not
   activated.  There are two flows running on IF1, that is, VoIP and
   file downloading.  At some time, e.g., the mobile node moves into a
   WiFi hotspot, IF2 becomes active, and the file downloading flow is
   then offloaded to IF2 while VoIP flow remains on IF1.  When the
   mobile node moves out of the hotspot, the file downloading flow is
   moved back to IF1 again.

   In this document, a flow is defined as one or more connections that
   are identified by a flow identifier.  A single connection is
   typically identified by the source and destination IP addresses,
   transport protocol number and the source and destination port
   numbers.

   [I-D.ietf-mext-flow-binding] allows a mobile node to bind a
   particular flow to a care-of address without affecting other flows
   using the same home address.  Flow Identification option is defined
   and included in Binding Update (BU) / Binding Acknowledgement(BA)
   messages.  However, the mechanism specified in the document can't be
   directly applied to Proxy Mobile IPv6 in which the mobile node is not
   involved in mobility management.  A Mobile Access Gateway (MAG) is
   then introduced to take on mobility management on behalf of the
   mobile node.

   This document introduces extensions to Proxy Mobile IPv6 that allows
   networks dynamically binding IP flows to different interfaces of a
   mobile node.  In the aforementioned scenario, the IF1 attaches to a
   mobile access gateway forwarding VoIP and file downloading flows at
   the beginning.  When the mobile node moves into a WiFi hotspot, IF2
   becomes active and connects to another mobile access gateway which
   then takes over file downloading flow.  Based on operator policy or
   the mobile node profile, the mobile access gateways may signal a
   Local Mobility Anchor (LMA) to redirect flows from one to another.


2.  Terminology

   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].

   The terminology in this document is based on the definitions in
   [RFC5213],in addition to the ones specified in this section.





Xia                     Expires December 20, 2010               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft           Flow Binding in PMIPv6                June 2010


   Serving Interface:  a mobile node's interface on which some
      application flows are running.  Based on the MN's profile,
      operator's policy, or other reasons, some of the flows are
      supposed to be offloaded to the other interfaces of the mobile
      node when they become available.

   Target Interface:  a mobile node's interface which is taking over
      some application flows from a serving interface of the mobile
      node.

   Serving IP Address (SIP):  an IPv4 or IPv6 address configured on a
      serving interface.

   Target IP Address (TIP):  an IPv4 or IPv6 address configured on a
      target interface.

   Serving Mobile Access Gateway(SMAG):  A mobile access gateway which a
      serving interface attaches to.

   Target Mobile Access Gateway(TMAG):  A mobile access gateway which a
      target interface attaches to.


3.  Use Cases

   Michael is using 3GPP access to different services with different
   characteristics in terms of QoS requirements and bandwidth:
   o  a VoIP call.
   o  a non-conversational video streaming, e.g.IPTV.
   o  a p2p download.

   When Michael gets into his home where WiFi access is available,
   Michael prefers running the p2p download and IPTV through the WiFi
   network, and leaving the VoIP call still on 3GPP networks.

   At some time, Michael's device starts ftp file synchronization with a
   backup server.  Due to the synchronization, the WiFi access becomes
   congested and the IPTV flow is then moved back to 3GPP access.

   After a while, Michael moves out of his home and loses the WiFi
   connectivity.  Triggered by this event, all the IP flows through the
   WiFi access need to be moved to the 3GPP access which is the only
   access available.


4.  Design Assumptions and Principles

   The following are assumptions and principles when this solution is



Xia                     Expires December 20, 2010               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft           Flow Binding in PMIPv6                June 2010


   proposed.
   o  This document only deals with scenarios that multiple interfaces
      of a mobile node are registered at the same local mobility anchor.
   o  This document also tries to avoid any new layer 2 or layer 3
      protocols introduced between a mobile node and a mobile access
      gateway.
   o  Mobile access gateways can detect attachments or detachments of
      mobile nodes trough existing layer 2 mechanism (e.g. 3GPP, WiMAX,
      or WiFi).  The attachment or detachment events can serve as
      triggers for mobile access gateways to initiate flow mobility
      procedure.
   o  There are no direct communications among mobile access gateways to
      which multiple interfaces of a mobile node attach.  One mobile
      access gateway may be able to learn the presence of another mobile
      access gateway through messages exchanges with the common local
      mobility anchor.
   o  When a local mobility anchor receives a flow binding request from
      a mobile access gateway, it can make a decision by itself or
      consult a mobile access gateway to which the flow will move.


5.  Protocol Operation



        +--------+      +------+      +------+      +------+
        |  MN    |      | SMAG |      | TMAG |      | LMA  |
        +--------+      +------+      +------+      +------+
         IF1 IF2           |              |             |
          |    |           |              |             |
          |   1 Attachment |              |             |
          |<-------------->|      2 PBU&PBA             |
          |   3 Addr Cfg   |<-------------------------->|
          |<-------------->|              |             |
       Running |           |              |             |
     Applications          |              |             |
          |    |    4  Attachment/PBU&PBA/Addr Cfg      |
          |    |<------------------------>|<----------->|
          |    |           |              |             |
          |    |           |     5 PBU(Flow Binding)    |
          |    |           |--------------------------->|
          |    |           |                            |
          |    |           |     6 PBA(Flow Binding)    |
          |    |           |<---------------------------|
          |    |           |              |   7 Packets |
          |    |         8 Packets        |<============|
          |    |<=========================|             |
          |    |           |              |             |



Xia                     Expires December 20, 2010               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft           Flow Binding in PMIPv6                June 2010


                       Figure 1: Protocol Operation

   1.  A mobile node has two interfaces, IF1 and IF2.  At the beginning,
       only IF1 is activated and attachment procedure is triggered.
   2.  On receiving attachment signalling from the mobile node, a mobile
       access gateway, herein acting as a SMAG, sends a PBU to a LMA.
       Access Technology Type Option defined in [RFC5213] is carried in
       the PBU.  The LMA assigns a unique prefix for the mobile node
       through a PBA message to the SMAG.
   3.  The SMAG extracts the prefix, and advertises it to the mobile
       node through Router Advertisement message.  The mobile node then
       configures its address, herein acting as a SIP, through stateless
       address configuration procedure specified in [RFC4862].  Then,
       the mobile node runs applications using this address, such as,
       VoIP,IPTV, and p2p downloading.
   4.  When the mobile node moves into some other places where IF2 is
       activated, the mobile node follows similar steps to 1,2,3 to
       configure IP address for IF2, herein acting as TIP.  According to
       Proxy Mobile IPv6 specification [RFC5213], the SIP is different
       from TIP.
   5.  Based on the mobile node's profile, operator's policy, or network
       status the SMAG decides to offload some traffic flows from IF1 to
       IF2.  The SMAG then sends a PBU with Flow Identification option
       defined in [I-D.ietf-mext-flow-binding].  This message indicates
       the LMA to change the direction of the requested flows from the
       SMAG to the TMAG.  It is the LMA that makes a decision if
       offloading request is granted or not.  The LMA may decide based
       on local information, such as, access technology types,
       bandwidth, service types, and so on.  The LMA may also inquire
       the TMAG of acceptability of the offloading request.  Section 5.1
       explains message exchanges between the LMA and the SMAG.
   6.  The LMA sends a PBA to indicate the operation result of the flow
       binding request.
   7.  All the offloaded packets with SIP as destination address are
       encapsulated with an additional outer header which destination
       address is TIP.  Then the LMA processes the encapsulated packets
       as specified in [RFC5213], that is, the LMA forwards the packet
       through a bi-directional tunnel between the LMA and the MAG.  The
       redirected packets from the LMA to the TMAG have two layer
       encapsulations.
   8.  The TMAG strips the outer layer encapsulation, and forwards the
       packets to the mobile node's IF2.  The mobile node strips
       remaining encapsulation, and then processes the packets with SIP
       as the destination address.







Xia                     Expires December 20, 2010               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft           Flow Binding in PMIPv6                June 2010


5.1.  Other Enhancements

   It is helpful for a SMAG when initiating flow movement if the SMAG is
   aware of the presence of the potential TMAGs.  This awareness can be
   achieved through notification from a local mobility anchor because
   all MAGs of mobile node are associated to the same local mobility
   anchor.

   The LMA notifies SMAG about IF2's presence through Generic Signaling
   Request / Generic Signaling Acknowledgement message exchanges
   specified in [I-D.ietf-mext-generic-signaling-message].  Alternative
   Interface Indicator option defined in Section 9.1 is included in the
   message from the LMA to the SMAG.  Through this message exchange, the
   SMAG has an idea of availability of other interfaces of the mobile
   node, and the address of the TMAG.

   To make a better decision, the LMA may send a Generic Signaling
   Request message to the TMAG for inquiring if the offloading is
   allowed.  Flow Identification option is included in the message.  The
   TMAG responses with a Generic Signaling Acknowledgment message.  If
   the TMAG accepts the flows, the Status field of the message SHOULD be
   set to 0, otherwise, the field is set to 130 which means insufficient
   resources.


6.  MAG Operation

   Flow binding is always initiated by a SMAG, that is, the SMAG wants
   to offload its traffic flow to other MAGs.  There are several reasons
   triggering flow binding.
   o  The SMAG is notified by a LMA the availability of other MAGs which
      the same mobile node currently attaches to.
   o  Congestion occurs in the SMAG which knows there are other MAGs
      connecting to the same mobile node.
   o  The SMAG detects the serving interface of the mobile node is out
      of service.
   o  ... ...

   As to Flow Identification option used in this document, there are two
   fields needing special consideration, that is, Flow ID(FID) and
   Binding Identification number(BID).  FID and BID are mainly defined
   for multiple-interfaced mobile nodes with Mobile IPv6
   functionalities.  The BID is an identification number used to
   distinguish multiple bindings registered by the mobile node.  Each
   BID is generated and managed by a mobile node in Mobile IPv6.  In
   Proxy Mobile IPv6, mobility management of mobile nodes with multiple
   interfaces is run in different independent MAGs, and BID loses its
   meaning.  The same situation applies to FID.  All BID and FID fields



Xia                     Expires December 20, 2010               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft           Flow Binding in PMIPv6                June 2010


   in Flow Identification option SHOULD be set to 0.


7.  LMA Operation

   The LMA is the center of the flow binding processing.  It has
   following functionalities:
   o  Advertising the availability of a new interface of a mobile node.
      When an interface of the mobile node becomes active, a
      corresponding MAG SHOULD sends a PBU to the LMA.  Triggered by the
      PBU, the LMA then notifies all the other MAGs which the mobile is
      attaching to.  Generic Signalling Request with Access Technology
      Type Option is used for this notification.
   o  Deciding if an offloading request is acceptable.  On receiving PBU
      from a SMAG with a flow binding request, the LMA makes a decision
      based on operator's local policy, mobile node's preference,
      bandwidth of the flow, and so on.
   o  Inquiring a TMAG for acceptability of the offloaded flows.  If the
      LMA can't decide if accepting offloading request, the LMA SHOULD
      inquire other MAGs using Generic Signaling Request message.
   o  Encapsulating downstream packets.  Packets destining serving IP
      address SHOULD be encapsulated with an outer IP header which a
      target IP address and the LMA are the destination and source
      address respectively.  The LMA then processes these encapsulated
      packets as specified in [RFC5213].
   o  Redirecting upstream packets.  When the LMA receives packets
      belonging to a offloaded flow from a serving MAG, the LMA forwards
      the packets and the sends ICMP messages which destination address
      is the target address of the mobile node.  The ICMP message serves
      as a notification so that the mobile node sends upstream packets
      of the offloaded flow through the target interface.  When the
      target address is IPv4, the Type field of the ICMPv4 [RFC0792]
      SHOULD be set 3 (Destination Unreachable Message), and Code field
      SHOULD be set 5 (source route failed); When the target address is
      IPv6, the Type field of the ICMPv6 [RFC4443] SHOULD be set to 1
      (Destination Unreachable Message), and Code field SHOULD be set to
      6 (Reject route to destination).


8.  MN Operation

   In this document, it is assumed that different interfaces are
   assigned different prefixes, and the same interface is configured
   with the same IP address even after resetting of the interface.  Once
   one interface becomes inactive, the software SHOULD map the address
   to another interface, or to a virtual interface,so that ongoing
   sessions with the address can survive.  When the interface becomes
   active again, and receive the same prefix from a LMA, the address



Xia                     Expires December 20, 2010               [Page 8]

Internet-Draft           Flow Binding in PMIPv6                June 2010


   SHOULD be moved back to the interface.

   However, the mechanism described in this document is also applicable
   to the cast that different interfaces share an IP address.  Thus,
   only one layer encapsulation is needed when the LMA process packets.

   When the mobile node receives a ICMP message from a target interface,
   the mobile node SHOULD use the target interface to send packets
   belonging to a flow which is described in the ICMP message.


9.  Message formats

9.1.  Alternative Interface Indicator

   A new option, Alternative Interface Indicator, is defined for use in
   Generic Signaling Request and Generic Signaling Acknowledgement
   messages exchanged between a local mobility anchor and a mobile
   access gateway.  This option is used for advertising the availability
   of a new interface of a mobile node.































Xia                     Expires December 20, 2010               [Page 9]

Internet-Draft           Flow Binding in PMIPv6                June 2010


       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |      Type     |   Length      |  Reserved (R) |      ATT      |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                        Proxy CoA                              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

       Type
           TBD

       Length

           8-bit unsigned integer indicating the length of the option
           in octets, excluding the type and length fields.  This field
           MUST be set to 6 if Proxy CoA is IPv4, or 18 if Proxy CoA is
           IPv6.

       Reserved (R)

           This 8-bit field is unused for now.  The value MUST be
           initialized to 0 by the sender and MUST be ignored by the
           receiver.

       Access Technology Type (ATT)

           An 8-bit field that specifies the access technology through
           which the mobile node is connected to the access link on the
           mobile access gateway. This field has the same meaning as the
           definition in Access Technology Type in RFC5213.

       Proxy CoA

           An IP address of a MAG to which a new interface is attaching.



10.  Security Considerations

   This specification allows a mobile access gateway to offload traffic
   to other mobile access gateway.  This mechanism facilitate a serving
   mobile access gateway to launch DoS attacks to a target mobile access
   gateway.  However, a local mobility anchor finally decides
   acceptability of an offloading request, as mitigates DoS attacks
   threat.






Xia                     Expires December 20, 2010              [Page 10]

Internet-Draft           Flow Binding in PMIPv6                June 2010


11.  IANA considerations

   A new mobile option, Alternative Interface Indicator, is defined.
   Option type SHOULD be assigned by IANA.


12.  Acknowledgements


13.  References

13.1.  Normative References

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

   [RFC5213]  Gundavelli, S., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V., Chowdhury, K.,
              and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 5213, August 2008.

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

   [RFC4862]  Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
              Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, September 2007.

   [RFC0792]  Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5,
              RFC 792, September 1981.

   [RFC4443]  Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, "Internet Control
              Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol
              Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443, March 2006.

13.2.  Informative 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.

   [I-D.ietf-mext-generic-signaling-message]
              Haley, B. and S. Gundavelli, "Mobile IPv6 Generic
              Signaling Message",
              draft-ietf-mext-generic-signaling-message-00 (work in
              progress), August 2008.






Xia                     Expires December 20, 2010              [Page 11]

Internet-Draft           Flow Binding in PMIPv6                June 2010


Author's Address

   Frank Xia
   Huawei Technologies
   1700 Alma Dr. Suite 500
   Plano, TX  75075

   Phone: +1 972-509-5599
   Email: xiayangsong@huawei.com










































Xia                     Expires December 20, 2010              [Page 12]



PAFTECH AB 2003-20262026-04-24 05:25:15