Network-based Localized Mobility Management (netlmm)

In addition to this official charter maintained by the IETF Secretariat, there is additional information about this working group on the Web at:

       Additional NETLMM Page

Last Modified: 2008-04-22

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

Chair(s):

  • Vidya Narayanan <vidyan@qualcomm.com>

  • Jonne Soininen <jonne.soininen@nsn.com>

    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: netlmm@ietf.org
    To Subscribe: http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm
    In Body: to subscribe
    Archive: http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netlmm/current/index.html

    Description of Working Group:

    There is considerable evidence that mobility for IP nodes can be more
    efficiently handled if mobility management is broken down into
    localized mobility management and global mobility management. Local
    mobility involves movements across some administratively and
    geographically contiguous set of subnets, while global mobility
    involves movements across broader administrative, geographical,
    and topological domains. Previous work in the IETF has focused on
    supporting localized mobility management for a Mobile IPv6 node, and
    the protocols developed have required mobile node-side support at the
    IP layer. Recently in the IETF, new work on global mobility
    management approaches other than Mobile IPv6 suggests that a localized
    mobility management approach decoupled from the global mobility
    management protocol might result in a more modular mobility management
    system design and therefore more longevity and an easier evolution
    path. In the WLAN infrastructure market, WLAN switches, which perform
    localized mobility management without any mobile node involvement, have
    seen widespread deployment, indicating the technical feasibility and
    positive user acceptance of this approach. This suggests a design
    paradigm that could be used to accommodate global mobility management
    protocols of different types while not increasing software complexity:
    a network-based, localized mobility protocol with no mobile node
    software to specifically implement localized mobility management
    and no requirement for a network interface to change IP address when
    the mobile node changes to a new router. The task of the NETLMM Working
    Group is to design a protocol solution for network-based localized
    mobility management.

    The network-based localized mobility management protocol will conform
    to the following framework. Mobility anchor points within the backbone
    network maintain a collection of routes for individual mobile nodes.
    The routes point to the access routers on which mobile nodes currently
    are located. Packets for the mobile node are routed to and from the
    mobile node through the mobility anchor point. When a mobile node
    moves from one access router to another, the access routers send a
    route update to the mobility anchor point. While some mobile node
    involvement is necessary and expected for generic mobility functions
    such as movement detection and to inform the access router about
    mobile node movement, no specific mobile node to network protocol will
    be required for localized mobility management itself. The working
    group will develop a protocol between the access routers and mobility
    anchor points that minimally has the following functions:

    - Handles a new mobile node that powers on or moves from another
    localized mobility management domain, or an existing mobile node that
    shuts down without any notice (i.e. crashes),

    - Handles routing update when a mobile node moves from one access
    router to another within the localized mobility management domain,

    The necessity for additional protocol functions may arise during
    Working Group discussions, so this list should not be taken as final.

    The protocol will be independent of any particular global mobility
    management protocol, and it will be link-layer agnostic by running on
    top of IP. The protocol itself will be agnostic with respect to the
    last hop link layer protocol between the mobile node and the access
    router. Adaptation of the protocol to different kinds of last hop link
    layers is accomplished through an interface on the access router
    common to all link layers under which specific link layer mechanisms
    (possibly together with authentication mechanisms) can provide a
    reliable handover indication and unique identity for the mobile node.
    This will enable the access router to do a route update using NETLMM
    on behalf of the mobile node. In addition to the NETLMM protocol
    document, the Working Group will produce an informational document
    that describes how existing and developing IETF standards for node to
    access router communication on the local link can be used to accomplish
    secure triggering of route update. This document will be informational
    only, because some link protocols are expected to provide their own
    mechanisms.

    The scope of the work is initially limited to IPv6 both in the backbone
    and on the edges, and is primarily for networks covering larger
    geographical regions such as multiple corporate campuses and
    metropolitian areas. The protocol will not attempt to hide handover
    between two separate interfaces on the mobile node. The protocol will
    not define a new tunneling protocol but will reuse existing IP
    tunneling mechanisms if necessary. The NETLMM protocol will maintain
    compatibility with other IETF standards, both existing and developing,
    such as DNS, DNA, and global mobility protocols such as Mobile IPv6
    and NEMO Basic Support.

    Security between access routers and the mobility anchor will be defined
    for the protocol based on an IETF-approved threat model giving
    preference to existing security solutions where applicable. The threat
    model will be described in a document delivered sufficiently in
    advance of completion of the protocol design that the protocol design
    can accommodate mitigation measures. In addition, the mobile node to
    router interface document will describe threats to the protocol when
    the default, IP-level mobile node to router protocol is used, and will
    prescribe how existing security protocols are used to counter the
    threats.

    The Working Group has the following deliverables:

    - A problem statement document that clearly and succinctly describes
    the problem posed by localized mobility management and why a
    network-based approach is desirable,
    - A requirements and gap analysis that examines a selection of
    existing IETF protocols, particularly within the mobility space, for
    applicability as a solution. If a proposed protocol is insufficient as
    a solution, the reasons why will be clearly stated.
    - A threat model draft that describes the threats to a netlmm
    protocol, based on the framework described in this charter, and how
    the threats can be mitigated giving preference to existing security
    solutions where applicable.
    - A protocol design for an interoperable, scalable network-based
    localized mobility management protocol between the access routers and
    the mobility anchor point including security for the access router to
    mobility anchor interface,
    - A document describing how existing or developing IETF protocol
    standards can be used between the access router and the mobile node to
    inform the access router about the arrival of a mobile node, for use
    when the wireless link protocol does not provide support for this
    function. This document will also discuss threats and security
    countermeasures for mobile node identification.

    Out of scope for the first design are: route optimization, inter-access
    router tunneling to optimize handover, mechanisms for handover between
    localized mobility management domains (other than standard global
    mobility management protocols), IPv4 support, and multiple mobility
    anchor points. During the design process, these enhancements will be
    kept in mind, but actual work to incorporate them or other
    enhancements will be deferred until after the initial design is
    complete and the working group recharters.

    Goals and Milestones:

    Done  Charter Working Group
    Done  Working Group Last Call on Problem Statement and Requirements documents
    Done  Discuss Last Call comments on Problem Statement and Requirements documents
    Done  Submit Problem Statement and Requirements documents to IESG for publication as Informational RFCs
    Done  Working Group Last Call on Threat Model documents. Submit Threat Model document to SAAG for review
    Done  Working Group Last Call on Threat Model document
    Done  IETF 66, Discuss Last Call comments on Threat Model document
    Done  Submit Threat Model document to IESG for publication as an Informational RFC
    Done  Main protocol decision completed
    Done  Initial version of the Protocol draft submitted
    Done  Working Group Last Call on Mobile Node to Access Router document
    Aug 2007  Working Group Last Call on the Protocol document
    Aug 2007  Working Group Last Call on Mobile Node to Access Router document
    Aug 2007  Initial version of the PMIP6-MIP6 Interactions document
    Sep 2007  Working Group Last Call on the IPv4 support document
    Oct 2007  Working Group Last Call on the PMIP6-MIP6 Interactions document
    Oct 2007  Submit Protocol, IPv4 support and Mobile Node to Access Router documents for AD review
    Nov 2007  Submit PMIP6-MIP6 Interactions document for AD review
    Dec 2007  Re-charter

    Internet-Drafts:

    Interface between a Proxy MIPv6 Mobility Access Gateway and a Mobile Node (44239 bytes)
    Proxy Mobile IPv6 (199900 bytes)
    IPv4 Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6 (71850 bytes)

    Request For Comments:

    Security Threats to Network-Based Localized Mobility Management (NETLMM) (RFC 4832) (31467 bytes)
    Goals for Network-based Localized Mobility Management (NETLMM) (RFC 4831) (35232 bytes)
    Problem Statement for Network-based Localized Mobility Management (NETLMM) (RFC 4830) (29815 bytes)
    IETF Secretariat - Please send questions, comments, and/or suggestions to ietf-web@ietf.org.

    Return to working group directory.

    Return to IETF home page.