Mobility EXTensions for IPv6 (mext)

Last Modified: 2008-08-21

Additional information is available at tools.ietf.org/wg/mext

Chair(s):

  • Julien Laganier <julien.laganier.IETF@googlemail.com>

  • Marcelo Bagnulo <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>

    Internet Area Director(s):

  • Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
  • Mark Townsley <townsley@cisco.com>

    Internet Area Advisor:

  • Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>

    Mailing Lists:

    General Discussion: mext@ietf.org
    To Subscribe: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
    Archive: http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current

    Description of Working Group:

    Mobile IPv6 specifies routing support which permits an IPv6 host to
    continue using its home address as it moves around the Internet,
    enabling continuity of sessions. Mobile IPv6 supports transparency
    above the IP layer, including maintenance of active transport level
    sessions. In addition, network mobility (NEMO) mechanisms built on top
    of Mobile IPv6 allow managing the mobility of an entire network, as it
    changes its point of attachment to the Internet. The base
    specifications consist of:

    o RFC 3775 (Mobile IPv6)
    o RFC 3963 (NEMO)
    o RFC 4877 (Mobile IPv6 Operation with IKEv2)

    The MEXT Working Group continues the work of the former MIP6, NEMO,
    and MONAMI6 Working Groups.

    The primary goal of MEXT will be to (A) enhance base IPv6 mobility by
    continuing work on developments that are required for wide-scale
    deployments and specific deployment scenarios. Additionally, (B) the
    working group will ensure that any issues identified by implementation
    and interoperability experience are addressed, and that the base
    specifications are maintained. (C) The group will also produce
    informational documentation, such as design rationale documents or
    description of specific issues within the protocol.

    Deployment considerations call for (A.1) solutions to enable
    dual-stack operation, (A.2) mechanisms to support high-availability
    home agents, (A.3) allowing the use of multiple interfaces in mobile
    nodes, (A.4) ways to employ Mobile IPv6 in the presence of firewalls,
    (A.5) address the specific needs of automotive and aviation
    communities for route optimisation in network mobility, (A.6)
    support for AAA is needed as a continuation of earlier work on
    bootstrapping, (A.7) revocation of binding, (A.8) generic
    notification message format and (A.9) extended DMSIP home
    network support .

    Work items related to large scale deployment include:

    (A.1) A Solution for Mobile IPv6 and NEMO session continuity for dual
    stack hosts which attach to IPv4 access networks. Additionally
    provide a mechanism for carrying IPv4 packets via the Home agent
    for Mobile IPv6 or NEMO capable dual-stack hosts.

    (A.2) A protocol based solution for enhancing the reliability of home
    agents and a method to force a host/router to switch home agents.

    A mechanism to force an MN to switch the HA that is currently
    serving it. This is required in deployments where the HA needs to
    be taken offline for maintenance.

    (A.3) Use of multiple interfaces.

    Today, the protocols do not provide suppport for simultaneous
    differentiated use of multiple access technologies. Several
    proposals exist for such support, and some of them have been
    implemented and tested.

    When a mobile host/router uses multiple network interfaces
    simultaneously, or when multiple prefixes are available on a
    single network interface, the mobile host/router would end up
    with multiple Care-of Addresses (CoAs). In addition, the Home
    Agent might be attached to multiple network interfaces, or to a
    single network interface with multiple prefixes, hence resulting
    in the option to use multiple IP addresses for the Home
    Agent. This could result in the possibility of using a multitude
    of bi-directional tunnels between pairs of {Home Agent address,
    CoA} and a number of associated issues: establishment, selection
    and modification of multiple simultaneous tunnels.

    The objective of the WG is to produce a clear problem statement
    and to produce standard track specifications to the problems
    associated with the simultaneous use of multiple addresses for
    either mobile hosts using Mobile IPv6 or mobile routers using
    NEMO Basic Support and their variants (FMIPv6, HMIPv6,
    etc). Where the effects of having multiple prefixes on a single
    interface is identical to the effects of having multiple
    interfaces each with a single prefix, the WG will consider a
    generalized approach to cater for multiple prefixes available to
    a mobile host/router.

    The WG uses existing tunneling mechanisms defined for Mobile
    IPv6. The involved nodes need to select which tunnel instance
    to use when multiple ones are available due to multiple
    addresses on either end. But the WG does not plan to define a
    new mechanism for this, but rather document how to use existing
    mechanisms based upon preferences or policies. In particular,
    the WG will consider that a tunnel is alive as long as packets
    can be exchanged with the corresponding peer. In addition, local
    information, such as interface up/down events, or other failure
    detection mechanisms can be used to quickly detect failure of
    tunnel(s).

    Deliverables related to this include

    - A document explaining the motivations for a node using multiple
    interfaces and the scenarios where it may end up with multiple
    global addresses on its interfaces [Informational]

    - An analysis document explaining what are the limitations for
    mobile hosts using multiple simultaneous Care-of Addresses and Home
    Agent addresses using Mobile IPv6, whether issues are specific to
    Mobile IPv6 or not [Informational].

    - A protocol extension to support the registration of multiple
    Care-of Addresses at a given Home Agent address [Standard
    Track].

    - A "Flow/binding policies exchange" solution for an exchange of
    policies from the mobile host/router to the Home Agent and from the
    Home Agent to the mobile host/router influencing the choice of the
    Care-of Address and Home Agent address. The solution involves two
    specifications, one for the policy format and another for its
    transport [both Standard Track].

    (A.4) Work on solutions to deal with firewalls and the problems that
    firewalls cause as identified in RFC 4487.

    (A.5) Route optimization of network mobility.

    Three use cases have been identified for this. These are called
    the Aviation case, the Automotive case, and the Personal Mobile
    Router (consumer electronics) case, though the actual technical
    problems are characterized by the type of movements and
    environments more than by the specific industry using the
    technology. The group will explore these cases to gather
    requirements and proceed with solving the open issues.

    (1) Airline and spacecraft community, who are deploying NEMO for
    control systems, as well as Internet connectivity and
    entertainment systems. This use case is characterized by fast (~
    1000 km/h) moving objects over large distances (across
    continents). The main technical problem is that tunneling-based
    solutions imply a roundtrip to another continent and that BGP
    based solutions imply significant churn in the global Internet
    routing table.

    (2) Automotive industry who are deploying NEMO for in-car
    communication, entertainment, and data gathering, possible
    control systems use, and communication to roadside devices. This
    use case is characterized by moderately fast (~ 100-300 km/h)
    moving objects that employ local or cellular networks for
    connectivity.

    (3) Personal Mobile Routers, which are consumer devices that
    allow the user to bring a NEMO network with the user while
    mobile, and communicate with peer NEMO Basic Support nodes
    and nodes served by them.

    After gathering the requirements for these types of deployments,
    the working group will evaluate what type of route optimization
    needs to be performed (if any), and formulate a solution to
    those problems.

    If no requirements for those scenarios can be collected by the
    deadline, it will be assumed that the work is premature, and
    that type of deployment will be dropped from the WG.

    The group will only consider airline and spacecraft solutions
    that combine tunneling solutions for small movements with either
    federated tunnel servers or slowly changing end host prefixes.
    The group will only consider personal mobile router requirements
    about optimized routes to another mobile router belonging to the
    same operator. The group will only consider automotive industry
    requirements to allow MR-attached hosts to directly access the
    network where MR has attached to. Work on automotive and
    personal mobile router solutions requires rechartering.

    The WG will not consider extensions to routing protocols. The
    group will not consider general multi-homing problems that are
    not related to the deployment and maintenance of Mobile IPv6 or
    NEMO Basic Support protocols. The group will also not consider
    general route optimization, or other problems that are not
    related to the deployment and maintenance of NEMO Basic Support
    protocols. Similarly, the group will not consider or rely on the
    results of general routing architecture, Internet architecture,
    or identifier-locator split issues that are discussed in
    separate, long term efforts elsewhere in the IETF. Finally, the
    group will not consider solutions that require changes from
    correspondent nodes in the general Internet

    (A.6) Bootstrapping mechanisms developed earlier in the MIP6 WG
    require AAA support for Mobile IPv6. Part of this work is
    already being done in the DIME WG, but the MEXT WG is chartered
    to complete a design for RADIUS.

    (A.7) Binding Revocation for IP Mobility: Define a binding revocation
    mechanism for Mobile IPv6 and its extensions. This mechanism can
    be used by any entity involved in the base Mobile IPv6 protocol or
    one of its extensions to request its corresponding entity to terminate
    either one, multiple or all binding cache entries.

    (A.8) Generic Notification Message for Mobile IPv6: A proposal for
    defining generic notification framework that can be used by the mobility
    entities for sending and receiving asynchronous notification messages
    was proposed and the same was adopted by the WG.

    (A.9) Extended DSMIPv6 Home Network Support: DSMIPv6 assumes
    the home network to be dual stack providing simultaneous IPv6 and
    IPv4 network access. It is proposed to extend DSMIPv6 to support
    home networks which provides IPv4, or IPv6 respectively, direct
    network access only, but where virtual IPv6 home network
    connectivity, or virtual IPv4 home network connectivity
    respectively, may be obtained by tunneling to the HA. The latter
    shall be obtained by DSMIPv6 operation using the v4HoA address as
    Care-of-address for the v6HoA address, and vice versa, the v6HoA
    address as care-of-address for the v4HoA address.

    Work items related to base specification maintenance include:

    (B.1) Create and maintain issue lists that are generated on the basis
    of implementation and interoperability experience. Address
    specific issues with specific updates or revisions of the base
    specification. One specific area of concern that should be
    analyzed and addressed relates to multilink subnets.

    This work item relates only to corrections and
    clarifications. The working group shall not revisit design
    decisions or change the protocol.

    (B.2) Update the IANA considerations of RFC 3775 to allow extensions for
    experimental purposes as well passing of optional vendor-specific
    information.

    (B.3) Finish working group documents that are currently in process, and
    submit for RFC. This includes prefix delegation protocol mechanism
    for network mobility, and a MIB for NEMO Basic Support.


    Work items related to informational documentation include:

    (C.1) Produce a design rationale that documents the historical
    thinking behind the introduction of an alternative security
    mechanism, the Authentication Protocol (RFC 4285).

    (C.2) Virtual Home Link configuration for Mobile IPv6: A proposal
    has been made on Mobile IPv6 home link configuration on
    virtual links. The proposal does not describe any new protocol, but
    provides the operational and configuration details and additionally
    provides implementation guidance for achieving this
    configuration.

    The group employs IPsec and IKE as a security mechanism. The group
    shall refrain, however, from making generic extensions to these
    protocols. Any proposed extension must be reviewed by the INT and SEC
    ADs before it can be accepted as a part of a work item.

    Goals and Milestones:

    Done  Submit I-D 'Mobile IPv6 Vendor Specific Option' to IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard
    Dec 2007  Submit I-D 'Mobile IPv6 Dual-Stack Operation' to IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard.
    Dec 2007  Submit I-D 'Motivation for Authentication I-D' to IESG for publication as Informational.
    Dec 2007  Submit Multiple CoA Registration to IESG
    Done  Submit I-D 'Mobile IPv6 Experimental Allocations' to IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard
    Feb 2008  Submit I-D 'Goals for AAA HA Interface' to IESG for publication as Informational.
    Feb 2008  Submit -00 draft on Route Optimization needs for Personal Mobile Router
    Feb 2008  Submit -00 draft on Route Optimization Needs for Automobile and Highway Deployments
    Feb 2008  Submit -00 draft on Route Optimization Needs for Aircraft and Spacecraft Deployments
    Mar 2008  Submit the final doc on Prefix Delegation for NEMO to the IESG, for Proposed Standard
    Done  Submit I-D 'Mobility Header Home Agent Switch Message' to IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard
    May 2008  Submit final doc on Route Optimization needs for Personal Mobile Router, for Informational
    May 2008  Submit final doc on Route Optimization Needs for Automobile and Highway Deployments, for Informational
    May 2008  Submit final doc on Route Optimization Needs for Aircraft and Spacecraft Deployments, for Informational
    May 2008  Submit -00 draft for solution to aircraft/spacecraft problem
    Jun 2008  Determine how to proceed with remaining automotive/Personal Mobile Router solutions
    Jun 2008  Submit the I-D 'RADIUS Mobile IPv6 Support' to IESG for publication as a proposed standard.
    Jun 2008  Submit 00 draft on Binding Revocation
    Jul 2008  Submit Analysis of the use of Multiple Simultaneous Care-of Addresses and Home Agent addresses, for Informational
    Jul 2008  Submit Multiple Interfaces Motivations and Scenario to IESG, for Informational
    Aug 2008  Submit I-D 'Mobile IPv6 Operation with Firewalls' to IESG for publication as Informational.
    Aug 2008  Submit the final doc on MIB for NEMO Basic Support to the IESG, for Proposed Standard
    Oct 2008  Submit Flow/binding policy transport to IESG, for Proposed Standard
    Oct 2008  Submit Flow/binding policy format to IESG, for Proposed Standard
    Oct 2008  Submit draft on Binding Revocation to IESG
    Oct 2008  Submit 00 draft on Generic Notification
    Nov 2008  Submit final doc for solution to aircraft/spacecraft problem to the IESG, for Proposed Standard
    Nov 2008  Recharter to work on the remaining automotive/Personal Mobile Router solutions
    Dec 2008  Submit I-D(s) related to specific updates and corrections of RFC 3775 to IESG for publication as Proposed Standard.
    Dec 2008  Submit I-D 'Home agent reliability' to IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard.
    Dec 2008  Submit 00 draft on Extended DSMIPv6 Home Network support
    Dec 2008  Submit 00 draft on Virtual Home link configuration
    Jan 2009  Submit draft on Generic Notification to IESG
    Mar 2009  Submit draft on Virtual Home link configuration to IESG
    May 2009  Submit draft on Extended DSMIPv6 Home Network support to IESG

    Internet-Drafts:

    Multiple Care-of Addresses Registration (87371 bytes)
    Home Agent Reliability Protocol (96312 bytes)
    RADIUS Mobile IPv6 Support (96313 bytes)
    AAA Goals for Mobile IPv6 (24631 bytes)
    Mobile IPv6 Support for Dual Stack Hosts and Routers (95766 bytes)
    Automotive Industry Requirements for NEMO Route Optimization (58100 bytes)
    NEMO Management Information Base (90059 bytes)
    Mobility Support in IPv6 (401302 bytes)
    DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation for NEMO (26942 bytes)
    Binding Revocation for IPv6 Mobility (80279 bytes)
    Mobile IPv6 Generic Signaling Message (28716 bytes)
    Guidelines for firewall administrators regarding MIPv6 traffic (23059 bytes)
    Guidelines for firewall vendors regarding MIPv6 traffic (16566 bytes)

    No Request For Comments

    IETF Secretariat - Please send questions, comments, and/or suggestions to ietf-web@ietf.org.

    Return to working group directory.

    Return to IETF home page.