Sang il Choi, Sang tae Kim, Seok joo Koh Internet Draft Kyungpook National University Intended status: September 24, 2010 Expires: March 2011 Network-based Mobility Control in LISP Networks draft-sichoi-lisp-ar-00.txt Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may not be modified, and derivative works of it may not be created, and it may not be published except as an Internet-Draft. This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may not be modified, and derivative works of it may not be created, except to publish it as an RFC and to translate it into languages other than English. This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other than English. 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." Choi, Kim and Koh Expires March 24, 2011 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Network-based Mobility Control in LISP Network September 2010 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 March 24, 2009. 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. Abstract This document proposed a network-based mobility control scheme in wireless/mobile networks using the Locator-Identifier Separation Protocol (LISP). In the existing host-based mobility control, LISP Tunnel Router (TR) is implemented at mobile node. In the proposed scheme, each TR is implemented at the first-hop access router that mobile nodes are attached to in the wireless network. For network- based mobility control, we present the data delivery and handover control operations. It is expected that the proposed network-based scheme can reduce implementation overhead and handover latency of MN, compared to the existing host-based scheme. Table of Contents 1. Introduction ................................................ 3 2. Conventions used in this document ........................... 3 3. Network Models .............................................. 4 4. Data Delivery Operations .................................... 5 5. Handover Control Operations ................................. 7 6. Security Considerations ..................................... 8 7. IANA Considerations ......................................... 8 8. Conclusions ................................................. 8 9. References .................................................. 9 9.1. Normative References ................................... 9 9.2. Informative References ................................. 9 10. Acknowledgments ............................................ 9 Choi, Kim and Koh Expires March 24, 2011 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Network-based Mobility Control in LISP Network September 2010 1. Introduction The Locator-Identifier Separation Protocol (LISP)[2] gives a lot of scaling benefits by separating the current IP address spaces into Endpoint Identifiers(EIDs) and Routing Locators (RLOCs), such as reduction of routing tables size, more cost effective multi-homing, and traffic engineering capabilities. For mobility support, the LISP mobility architecture [3] is being discussed, in which it is assumed that a LISP mobile node (MN) implements the light-weight Tunnel Router (TR) functionality and thus MN acts as Ingress TR (ITR) or Egress TR (ETR)in mobile networks. In this LISP-MN architecture, a Map Server (MS) [4] is used as an anchor point for MN to provide the scalability of control plane, and the shortest path is used to minimize the latency of data packet delivery [2]. However, this host-based mobility scheme tends to induce large handover latency during handover, since MN acts as a TR and thus obtains a new RLOC from the network. In this document, we propose a network-based mobility scheme to support fast handover. In the proposed scheme, a LISP TR is implemented at the first-hop access router (AR) that MN is attached to, rather than MN. The proposed network-based mobility scheme can reduce implementation overhead of MN since MN has no the functionality of TR, and reduce the handover latency of MN since the configuration of a new RLOC is omitted. All the other functionalities follow the LISP-MN architecture[3]. 2. Conventions used in this document In examples, "C:" and "S:" indicate lines sent by the client and server respectively. 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 [1]. Choi, Kim and Koh Expires March 24, 2011 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Network-based Mobility Control in LISP Network September 2010 3. Network Models Since TR's implemented location, the proposed scheme has a different structure with the conventional method from network models. +--+ /------------\ +--+ +------------+ +--+ /--------\ +----+ |CN|--| LISP |--|TR|--| Internet |--|AR|--|Wireless|--| MN | | | |Site Network| | | |(Map Server)| | | | | |(TR)| +--+ \------------/ +--+ +------------+ +--+ \--------/ +----+ Figure 1 Network Architecture Figure 1 shows a simplified network model for host-based LISP mobility control [3], in which correspondent node (CN) is in the LISP site network, and MN is in the mobile network. Each TR may act as ITR or ETR, and for simplicity it is assumed that the MS in Internet also acts as LISP Map Server [4]. +--+ /------------\ +--+ +------------+ +----+ /--------\ +--+ |CN|--| LISP |--|TR|--| Internet |--| AR |--|Wireless|--|MN| | | |Site Network| | | |(Map Server)| |(TR)| | | | | +--+ \------------/ +--+ +------------+ +----+ \--------/ +--+ Figure 2 Network model for network-based LISP mobility control Figure 2 shows a network model for the proposed network-based LISP mobility control, in which TR of MN is deployed with the first-hop AR that MN is attached to. Choi, Kim and Koh Expires March 24, 2011 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Network-based Mobility Control in LISP Network September 2010 4. Data Delivery Operations We compare data delivery operations of the two schemes, in which it is assumed that CN first sends a data packet to MN. CN TR Map AR MN/TR (EID1) (RLOC1) Server (EID2&RLOC2) | | | | Network | | | | | Attachment & | | | | | RLOC2 | | | | | Configuration | | | | | | | | |<------- Map Register ------->| | | | (EID2-RLOC2 Binding) | | | | | | |=Data Packet==>|-Map Request->|-----Map Request(with EID2)-->| | (with EID2) | (with EID2) | | | | | | | | | |<------------Map Reply(with RLOC2)-----------| | | | | | | |=LISP Encapsulated Data Packet(EID2:RLOC2)==>| | | | | | |<==Data Packet=|<========LISP Encapsulated Data Packet=======| | (EID1) | (EID1:RLOC1) | | | | | | Figure 3 Data delivery in host-based mobility control Figure 3 shows the data delivery procedures of the existing host- based scheme. If MN enters an AR region, it configures RLOC by using the DHCP or address auto-configuration. Then, MN/TR binds its EID2 and RLOC2 to MS. When CN sends a data packet, its TR sends a Map Request to MS, which is delivered to MN. The MN will respond with a Map Reply to TR. After that, the data packets can be exchanged between CN and MN using the LISP encapsulation at TR and MN. Choi, Kim and Koh Expires March 24, 2011 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Network-based Mobility Control in LISP Network September 2010 CN TR Map AR/TR MN (EID1) (RLOC1) Server (RLOC2) (EID2) | | | | Network | | | | |<--Attachment->| | | | Map | | | | |<--Register-->| | | | |(EID2-RLOC2 Binding) | | | | | | |=Data Packet=>|-Map Request->|-Map Request->| | | (with EID2) | (with EID2) | (with EID2) | | | | | | | | |<----Map Reply(with RLOC2)---| | | | | | | | |=====LISP Encapsulated =====>|==Data Packet=>| | | Data Packet(EID2:RLOC2) | (with EID2) | | | | | | |<=Data Packet=|<=====LISP Encapsulated======|<=Data Packet==| | (EID1) | Data Packet | (EID2) | | | (EID1:RLOC1) | | | | | | | Figure 4 Data delivery in network-based mobility control Figure 4 describes the data delivery procedures of the proposed network-based scheme. Differently from the host-based scheme of Figure 3, the TR functionality is performed by AR, not MN, and thus the RLOC configuration is not required. The AR/TR will send the Map Register to MS and the Reply to TR of CN, on behalf of MN. The LISP data encapsulation will be also done at TR. Choi, Kim and Koh Expires March 24, 2011 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Network-based Mobility Control in LISP Network September 2010 5. Handover Control Operations We compare the handover control operations of the two schemes, in which it is assumed that MN moves from ARold to ARnew region during data transmissions with CN. CN TR MN/TR (EID1) (RLOC1) ARold ARnew (EID2&RLOC2/3) | | | | | |<=Data Packet=>|<======LISP Encapsulated Data Packet======>| | (EID1:EID2) | (EID1:RLOC1&EID2:RLOC2) | | | | | Network | | | | |<-Atacchement->| | | | | & RLOC3 | | | | | Configuration | | | | | | | |<------Map Request (with EID2:RLOC3)-------| | | | | | | |-------Map Reply (for EID2:RLOC3)--------->| | | | | | |<=Data Packet=>|<======LISP Encapsulated Data Packet======>| | (EID1:EID2) | (EID1:RLOC1&EID2:RLOC3) | | | | | | Figure 5 Handover in host-based mobility control Figure 5 shows the handover procedures in the host-based scheme [3]. Before handover, MN/TR with EID2:RLOC2 is communicating to CN with EID1:RLOC1. By handover to new AR region, MN/TR shall configure a new RLOC3 address using DHCP or address auto-configuration scheme. After that, the Map Request/Reply messages are exchanged to TR of CN to update the modified RLOC3, which is based on [3]. Choi, Kim and Koh Expires March 24, 2011 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Network-based Mobility Control in LISP Network September 2010 CN TR AR/TRold AR/TRnew MN (EID1) (RLOC1) (RLOC2) (RLOC3) (EID2) | | | | | | | LISP | | | |<=Data Packet=>|<====Encapsulated=====>|<====Data Packet======>| | (EID1:EID2) | Data Packet | (EID1:EID2) | | |(EID1:RLOC1&EID2:RLOC2)| | | | | | | | | |<--Map Request (with EID2:RLOC3)--|<--Network->| | | | | Attachment | | | | | | | |----Map Reply (for EID2:RLOC3)--->| | | | | | Data | |<=Data Packet=>|<=LISP Encapsulated Data Packet==>|<==Packet==>| | (EID1:EID2) | (EID1:RLOC1&EID2:RLOC3) | (EID1:EID2)| Figure 6 Handover in network-based mobility control Figure 6 describes the handover in the proposed network-based scheme. Differently from Figure 5 RLOC3 of ARnew is used and MN does not need to configure the new RLOC. With network attachment, the Map Request/Reply messages are exchanged between TR of CN and TR of MN (ARnew) to update the modified RLOC3. 6. Security Considerations TBD 7. IANA Considerations TBD 8. Conclusions This document proposed a LISP-based mobility control scheme in the mobile networks. From the analysis and comparison of handover latency for three candidate schemes, the following two points are suggested in the LISP mobility architecture: 1) each LISP Tunnel Router should be located with the first-hop 'access router' of mobile nodes, rather than the mobile node, and 2) for handover support, the RLOC update operation should be performed between Ingress TR and Egress TR so as to provide the route optimization. Choi, Kim and Koh Expires March 24, 2011 [Page 8] Internet-Draft Network-based Mobility Control in LISP Network September 2010 9. References 9.1. Normative References [1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.skr 9.2. Informative References [2] D. Farinacci, V. Fuller, D. Oran, and D. Meyer, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", Internet-Draft, April 2010. [3] D. Farinacci, V. Fuller, D. Lewis, and D. Meyer, "LISP Mobile Node", Internet Draft, February 2010. [4] D. Fuller, and D. Farinacci, "LISP Map Server", Internet Draft, April 2010. [5] D. Johnson, C. Perkins, and K. Arkko, "Mobility support in IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004. [6] S. Gundavelli, K. Leung, V. Decarapalli, K. Chowdhury, and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 5213, August 2008. [7] Ki Sik Kong, Youn Hee Han, Myung Ki Shin, and Heung Ryeol You, "Mobility Management for All-IP Mobile Networks: Mobile IPv6 vs. Proxy Mobile IPv6", IEEE Wireless Communications, April 2008 [RFC 3775] D. Johnson, C. Perkins, and K. Arkko, "Mobility support in IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004. [RFC 5213] S. Gundavelli, K. Leung, V. Decarapalli, K. Chowdhury, and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 5213, August 2008. 10. Acknowledgments This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot. Choi, Kim and Koh Expires March 24, 2011 [Page 9] Internet-Draft Network-based Mobility Control in LISP Network September 2010 Authors' Addresses SangIl Choi Kyungpook National University, KOREA Email: overcycos@gmail.com SangTae Kim Kyungpook National University, KOREA Email: st.paul1978@gmail.com SeokJoo Koh Kyungpook National University, KOREA Email: sjkoh@knu.ac.kr Choi, Kim and Koh Expires March 24, 2011 [Page 10]