| < draft-ietf-nemo-ro-problem-statement-02.txt | draft-ietf-nemo-ro-problem-statement-03.txt > | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NEMO Working Group C. Ng | NEMO Working Group C. Ng | |||
| Internet-Draft Panasonic Singapore Labs | Internet-Draft Panasonic Singapore Labs | |||
| Expires: July 1, 2006 P. Thubert | Intended status: Informational P. Thubert | |||
| Cisco Systems | Expires: March 19, 2007 Cisco Systems | |||
| M. Watari | M. Watari | |||
| KDDI R&D Labs | KDDI R&D Labs | |||
| F. Zhao | F. Zhao | |||
| UC Davis | UC Davis | |||
| December 28, 2005 | September 15, 2006 | |||
| Network Mobility Route Optimization Problem Statement | Network Mobility Route Optimization Problem Statement | |||
| draft-ietf-nemo-ro-problem-statement-02 | draft-ietf-nemo-ro-problem-statement-03 | |||
| Status of this Memo | Status of this Memo | |||
| By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any | By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any | |||
| applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware | applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware | |||
| have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes | have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes | |||
| aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. | aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. | |||
| Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | |||
| Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that | Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that | |||
| skipping to change at page 1, line 39 ¶ | skipping to change at page 1, line 39 ¶ | |||
| and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | |||
| time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | |||
| material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | |||
| The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at | The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at | |||
| http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. | http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. | |||
| The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at | The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at | |||
| http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. | http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. | |||
| This Internet-Draft will expire on July 1, 2006. | This Internet-Draft will expire on March 19, 2007. | |||
| Copyright Notice | Copyright Notice | |||
| Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). | Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). | |||
| Abstract | Abstract | |||
| With current Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support, all | With current Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support, all | |||
| communications to and from Mobile Network Nodes must go through the | communications to and from Mobile Network Nodes must go through the | |||
| bi-directional tunnel established between the Mobile Router and Home | bi-directional tunnel established between the Mobile Router and Home | |||
| Agent when the mobile network is away. This sub-optimal routing | Agent when the mobile network is away. This sub-optimal routing | |||
| results in various inefficiencies associated with packet delivery, | results in various inefficiencies associated with packet delivery, | |||
| such as increased delay and bottleneck links leading to traffic | such as increased delay and bottleneck links leading to traffic | |||
| congestion, which can ultimately disrupt all communications to and | congestion, which can ultimately disrupt all communications to and | |||
| skipping to change at page 8, line 28 ¶ | skipping to change at page 8, line 28 ¶ | |||
| sub-MR | MR2 | | MR4 | | sub-MR | MR2 | | MR4 | | |||
| +---+---+ +---+---+ | +---+---+ +---+---+ | |||
| | | | | | | |||
| +---+---+ +---+---+ | +---+---+ +---+---+ | |||
| sub-MR | MR3 | | MR5 | | sub-MR | MR3 | | MR5 | | |||
| +---+---+ +---+---+ | +---+---+ +---+---+ | |||
| | | | | | | |||
| ----+---- ----+---- | ----+---- ----+---- | |||
| MNN CN2 | MNN CN2 | |||
| Figure 1: An example of nested Mobile Network | Figure 1: An example of nested Mobile Network | |||
| Using NEMO Basic Support, the flow of packets between a Mobile | Using NEMO Basic Support, the flow of packets between a Mobile | |||
| Network Node, MNN, and a Correspondent Node, CN1, would need to go | Network Node, MNN, and a Correspondent Node, CN1, would need to go | |||
| through three separate tunnels, illustrated in Figure 2 below. | through three separate tunnels, illustrated in Figure 2 below. | |||
| ----------. | ----------. | |||
| ---------/ /----------. | ---------/ /----------. | |||
| -------/ | | /------- | -------/ | | /------- | |||
| MNN -----( - - | - - - | - - - | - - - | - - (------ CN1 | MNN -----( - - | - - - | - - - | - - - | - - (------ CN1 | |||
| MR3-------\ | | \-------MR3_HA | MR3-------\ | | \-------MR3_HA | |||
| MR2--------\ \----------MR2_HA | MR2--------\ \----------MR2_HA | |||
| MR1---------MR1_HA | MR1---------MR1_HA | |||
| Figure 2: Nesting of Bi-Directional Tunnels | Figure 2: Nesting of Bi-Directional Tunnels | |||
| This leads to the following problems: | This leads to the following problems: | |||
| o Pinball Route | o Pinball Route | |||
| Both inbound and outbound packets will flow via the Home Agents of | Both inbound and outbound packets will flow via the Home Agents of | |||
| all the Mobile Routers on their paths within the mobile network, | all the Mobile Routers on their paths within the mobile network, | |||
| with increased latency, less resilience and more bandwidth usage. | with increased latency, less resilience and more bandwidth usage. | |||
| Appendix B illustrates in detail the packets routes under | Appendix B illustrates in detail the packets routes under | |||
| different nesting configurations of the Mobile Network Nodes. | different nesting configurations of the Mobile Network Nodes. | |||
| skipping to change at page 14, line 17 ¶ | skipping to change at page 14, line 17 ¶ | |||
| 7.1. Normative Reference | 7.1. Normative Reference | |||
| [1] Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., and P. Thubert, | [1] Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., and P. Thubert, | |||
| "Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol", RFC 3963, | "Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol", RFC 3963, | |||
| January 2005. | January 2005. | |||
| [2] Manner, J. and M. Kojo, "Mobility Related Terminology", | [2] Manner, J. and M. Kojo, "Mobility Related Terminology", | |||
| RFC 3753, June 2004. | RFC 3753, June 2004. | |||
| [3] Ernst, T. and H. Lach, "Network Mobility Support Terminology", | [3] Ernst, T. and H. Lach, "Network Mobility Support Terminology", | |||
| draft-ietf-nemo-terminology-04 (work in progress), October 2005. | draft-ietf-nemo-terminology-05 (work in progress), March 2006. | |||
| 7.2. Informative Reference | 7.2. Informative Reference | |||
| [4] Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support in | [4] Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support in | |||
| IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004. | IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004. | |||
| [5] Ernst, T., "Network Mobility Support Goals and Requirements", | [5] Ernst, T., "Network Mobility Support Goals and Requirements", | |||
| draft-ietf-nemo-requirements-05 (work in progress), | draft-ietf-nemo-requirements-05 (work in progress), | |||
| October 2005. | October 2005. | |||
| skipping to change at page 14, line 41 ¶ | skipping to change at page 14, line 41 ¶ | |||
| November 2001. | November 2001. | |||
| [7] Petrescu, A., Olivereau, A., Janneteau, C., and H-Y. Lach, | [7] Petrescu, A., Olivereau, A., Janneteau, C., and H-Y. Lach, | |||
| "Threats for Basic Network Mobility Support (NEMO threats)", | "Threats for Basic Network Mobility Support (NEMO threats)", | |||
| draft-petrescu-nemo-threats-01 (work in progress), | draft-petrescu-nemo-threats-01 (work in progress), | |||
| January 2004. | January 2004. | |||
| [8] Jung, S., Zhao, F., Wu, S., Kim, H-G., and S-W. Sohn, "Threat | [8] Jung, S., Zhao, F., Wu, S., Kim, H-G., and S-W. Sohn, "Threat | |||
| Analysis on NEMO Basic Operations", | Analysis on NEMO Basic Operations", | |||
| draft-jung-nemo-threat-analysis-02 (work in progress), | draft-jung-nemo-threat-analysis-02 (work in progress), | |||
| February 2004. | July 2004. | |||
| [9] Thubert, P., Wakikawa, R., and V. Devarapalli, "NEMO Home | [9] Thubert, P., Wakikawa, R., and V. Devarapalli, "NEMO Home | |||
| Network models", draft-ietf-nemo-home-network-models-05 (work | Network models", draft-ietf-nemo-home-network-models-06 (work | |||
| in progress), October 2005. | in progress), February 2006. | |||
| [10] Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol | [10] Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol | |||
| version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484, February 2003. | version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484, February 2003. | |||
| Appendix A. Change Log | Appendix A. Change Log | |||
| o draft-ietf-nemo-ro-problem-statement-03: | ||||
| * Keepalive release | ||||
| o draft-ietf-nemo-ro-problem-statement-02: | o draft-ietf-nemo-ro-problem-statement-02: | |||
| * Added Appendix C to illustrate the formation of stalemate | * Added Appendix C to illustrate the formation of stalemate | |||
| situation in Section 2.7 | situation in Section 2.7 | |||
| * Editorial changes to the Abstract to better reflect the | * Editorial changes to the Abstract to better reflect the | |||
| document contents | document contents | |||
| * Minor editorial changes throughout Section 2 | * Minor editorial changes throughout Section 2 | |||
| skipping to change at page 16, line 51 ¶ | skipping to change at page 16, line 51 ¶ | |||
| sub-MR | MR2 | | sub-MR | MR2 | | |||
| +---+---+ | +---+---+ | |||
| | | | | |||
| +---+---+ | +---+---+ | |||
| sub-MR | MR3 | | sub-MR | MR3 | | |||
| +---+---+ | +---+---+ | |||
| | | | | |||
| ----+---- | ----+---- | |||
| MNN | MNN | |||
| Figure 3: CN located at the infrastructure | Figure 3: CN located at the infrastructure | |||
| B.1.1. Case A: LFN and standard IPv6 CN | B.1.1. Case A: LFN and standard IPv6 CN | |||
| The simplest case is where both MNN and CN are fixed nodes with no | The simplest case is where both MNN and CN are fixed nodes with no | |||
| mobility functions. That is, MNN is a Local Fixed Node, and CN is a | mobility functions. That is, MNN is a Local Fixed Node, and CN is a | |||
| standard IPv6 node. Packets are encapsulated between each Mobile | standard IPv6 node. Packets are encapsulated between each Mobile | |||
| Router and its respective Home Agent. As shown in Figure 4, in such | Router and its respective Home Agent. As shown in Figure 4, in such | |||
| case, the path between the two nodes would go through: | case, the path between the two nodes would go through: | |||
| 1 2 3 4 3 2 1 | 1 2 3 4 3 2 1 | |||
| MNN --- MR3 --- MR2 --- MR1 --- MR1_HA --- MR2_HA --- MR3_HA --- CN | MNN --- MR3 --- MR2 --- MR1 --- MR1_HA --- MR2_HA --- MR3_HA --- CN | |||
| LFN IPv6 Node | LFN IPv6 Node | |||
| The digits represent the number of IPv6 headers. | The digits represent the number of IPv6 headers. | |||
| Figure 4: MNN and CN are standard IPv6 nodes | Figure 4: MNN and CN are standard IPv6 nodes | |||
| B.1.2. Case B: VMN and MIPv6 CN | B.1.2. Case B: VMN and MIPv6 CN | |||
| In this second case, both end nodes are Mobile IPv6 enabled mobile | In this second case, both end nodes are Mobile IPv6 enabled mobile | |||
| nodes, that is, MNN is a Visiting Mobile Node. Mobile IPv6 route | nodes, that is, MNN is a Visiting Mobile Node. Mobile IPv6 route | |||
| optimization may thus be initiated between the two and packets would | optimization may thus be initiated between the two and packets would | |||
| not go through the Home Agent of the Visiting Mobile Node nor the | not go through the Home Agent of the Visiting Mobile Node nor the | |||
| Home Agent of the Correspondent Node (not shown in the figure). | Home Agent of the Correspondent Node (not shown in the figure). | |||
| However, packets will still be tunneled between each Mobile Router | However, packets will still be tunneled between each Mobile Router | |||
| and its respective Home Agent, in both directions. As shown in | and its respective Home Agent, in both directions. As shown in | |||
| Figure 5, the path between MNN and CN would go through: | Figure 5, the path between MNN and CN would go through: | |||
| 1 2 3 4 3 2 1 | 1 2 3 4 3 2 1 | |||
| MNN --- MR3 --- MR2 --- MR1 --- MR1_HA --- MR2_HA --- MR3_HA --- CN | MNN --- MR3 --- MR2 --- MR1 --- MR1_HA --- MR2_HA --- MR3_HA --- CN | |||
| VMN MIPv6 | VMN MIPv6 | |||
| Figure 5: MNN and CN are MIPv6 mobile nodes | Figure 5: MNN and CN are MIPv6 mobile nodes | |||
| B.1.3. Case C: VMN and standard IPv6 CN | B.1.3. Case C: VMN and standard IPv6 CN | |||
| When the communication involves a Mobile IPv6 node either as a | When the communication involves a Mobile IPv6 node either as a | |||
| Visiting Mobile Node or as a Correspondent Node, Mobile IPv6 route | Visiting Mobile Node or as a Correspondent Node, Mobile IPv6 route | |||
| optimization cannot be performed because the standard IPv6 | optimization cannot be performed because the standard IPv6 | |||
| Correspondent Node cannot process Mobile IPv6 signaling. Therefore, | Correspondent Node cannot process Mobile IPv6 signaling. Therefore, | |||
| MNN would establish a bi-directional tunnel with its HA, which causes | MNN would establish a bi-directional tunnel with its HA, which causes | |||
| the flow to go out the nested NEMO. Packets between MNN and CN would | the flow to go out the nested NEMO. Packets between MNN and CN would | |||
| thus go through MNN's own Home Agent (VMN_HA). The path would | thus go through MNN's own Home Agent (VMN_HA). The path would | |||
| therefore be as shown on Figure 6: | therefore be as shown on Figure 6: | |||
| 2 3 4 5 4 | 2 3 4 5 4 | |||
| MNN --- MR3 --- MR2 --- MR1 --- MR1_HA --- MR2_HA | MNN --- MR3 --- MR2 --- MR1 --- MR1_HA --- MR2_HA | |||
| VMN | | VMN | | |||
| | 3 | | 3 | |||
| 1 2 | | 1 2 | | |||
| CN --- VMN_HA --- MR3_HA | CN --- VMN_HA --- MR3_HA | |||
| IPv6 Node | IPv6 Node | |||
| Figure 6: MNN is a MIPv6 mobile node and CN is a standard IPv6 node | Figure 6: MNN is a MIPv6 mobile node and CN is a standard IPv6 node | |||
| Providing Route Optimization involving a Mobile IPv6 node may require | Providing Route Optimization involving a Mobile IPv6 node may require | |||
| optimization among the Mobile Routers and the Mobile IPv6 node. | optimization among the Mobile Routers and the Mobile IPv6 node. | |||
| B.2. CN located in distinct nested NEMOs | B.2. CN located in distinct nested NEMOs | |||
| The Correspondent Node may be located in another nested mobile | The Correspondent Node may be located in another nested mobile | |||
| network, different from the one MNN is attached to, as shown in | network, different from the one MNN is attached to, as shown in | |||
| Figure 7. We define such configuration as "distinct nested mobile | Figure 7. We define such configuration as "distinct nested mobile | |||
| networks". | networks". | |||
| skipping to change at page 18, line 48 ¶ | skipping to change at page 18, line 48 ¶ | |||
| sub-MR | MR2 | | MR5 | | sub-MR | MR2 | | MR5 | | |||
| +---+---+ +---+---+ | +---+---+ +---+---+ | |||
| | | | | | | |||
| +---+---+ ----+---- | +---+---+ ----+---- | |||
| sub-MR | MR3 | CN | sub-MR | MR3 | CN | |||
| +---+---+ | +---+---+ | |||
| | | | | |||
| ----+---- | ----+---- | |||
| MNN | MNN | |||
| Figure 7: MNN and CN located in distinct nested NEMOs | Figure 7: MNN and CN located in distinct nested NEMOs | |||
| B.2.1. Case D: LFN and standard IPv6 CN | B.2.1. Case D: LFN and standard IPv6 CN | |||
| Similar with Case A, we start off with the case where both end nodes | Similar with Case A, we start off with the case where both end nodes | |||
| do not have any mobility functions. Packets are encapsulated at | do not have any mobility functions. Packets are encapsulated at | |||
| every mobile router on the way out the nested mobile network, | every mobile router on the way out the nested mobile network, | |||
| decapsulated by the Home Agents and then encapsulated again on its | decapsulated by the Home Agents and then encapsulated again on its | |||
| way down the nested mobile network. | way down the nested mobile network. | |||
| 1 2 3 4 3 2 | 1 2 3 4 3 2 | |||
| MNN --- MR3 --- MR2 --- MR1 --- MR1_HA --- MR2_HA --- MR3_HA | MNN --- MR3 --- MR2 --- MR1 --- MR1_HA --- MR2_HA --- MR3_HA | |||
| LFN | | LFN | | |||
| | 1 | | 1 | |||
| 1 2 3 2 | | 1 2 3 2 | | |||
| CN --- MR5 --- MR4 --- MR4_HA --- MR5_HA | CN --- MR5 --- MR4 --- MR4_HA --- MR5_HA | |||
| IPv6 Node | IPv6 Node | |||
| Figure 8: MNN and CN are standard IPv6 nodes | Figure 8: MNN and CN are standard IPv6 nodes | |||
| B.2.2. Case E: VMN and MIPv6 CN | B.2.2. Case E: VMN and MIPv6 CN | |||
| Similar with Case B, when both end nodes are Mobile IPv6 nodes, the | Similar with Case B, when both end nodes are Mobile IPv6 nodes, the | |||
| two nodes may initiate Mobile IPv6 route optimization. Again, | two nodes may initiate Mobile IPv6 route optimization. Again, | |||
| packets will not go through the Home Agent of the MNN nor the Home | packets will not go through the Home Agent of the MNN nor the Home | |||
| Agent of the Mobile IPv6 Correspondent Node (not shown in the | Agent of the Mobile IPv6 Correspondent Node (not shown in the | |||
| figure). However, packets will still be tunneled for each Mobile | figure). However, packets will still be tunneled for each Mobile | |||
| Router to its Home Agent and vise versa. Therefore, the path between | Router to its Home Agent and vise versa. Therefore, the path between | |||
| MNN and CN would go through: | MNN and CN would go through: | |||
| 1 2 3 4 3 2 | 1 2 3 4 3 2 | |||
| MNN --- MR3 --- MR2 --- MR1 --- MR1_HA --- MR2_HA --- MR3_HA | MNN --- MR3 --- MR2 --- MR1 --- MR1_HA --- MR2_HA --- MR3_HA | |||
| VMN | | VMN | | |||
| | 1 | | 1 | |||
| 1 2 3 2 | | 1 2 3 2 | | |||
| CN --- MR5 --- MR4 --- MR4_HA --- MR5_HA | CN --- MR5 --- MR4 --- MR4_HA --- MR5_HA | |||
| MIPv6 Node | MIPv6 Node | |||
| Figure 9: MNN and CN are MIPv6 mobile nodes | Figure 9: MNN and CN are MIPv6 mobile nodes | |||
| B.2.3. Case F: VMN and standard IPv6 CN | B.2.3. Case F: VMN and standard IPv6 CN | |||
| Similar to Case C, when the communication involves a Mobile IPv6 node | Similar to Case C, when the communication involves a Mobile IPv6 node | |||
| either as a Visiting Mobile Node or as a Correspondent Node, MIPv6 | either as a Visiting Mobile Node or as a Correspondent Node, MIPv6 | |||
| route optimization can not be performed because the standard IPv6 | route optimization can not be performed because the standard IPv6 | |||
| Correspondent Node cannot process Mobile IPv6 signaling. MNN would | Correspondent Node cannot process Mobile IPv6 signaling. MNN would | |||
| therefore establish a bi-directional tunnel with its Home Agent. | therefore establish a bi-directional tunnel with its Home Agent. | |||
| Packets between MNN and CN would thus go through MNN's own Home Agent | Packets between MNN and CN would thus go through MNN's own Home Agent | |||
| as shown on figure Figure 10: | as shown on figure Figure 10: | |||
| skipping to change at page 21, line 5 ¶ | skipping to change at page 21, line 5 ¶ | |||
| sub-MR | MR2 | | MR4 | | sub-MR | MR2 | | MR4 | | |||
| +---+---+ +---+---+ | +---+---+ +---+---+ | |||
| | | | | | | |||
| +---+---+ +---+---+ | +---+---+ +---+---+ | |||
| sub-MR | MR3 | | MR5 | | sub-MR | MR3 | | MR5 | | |||
| +---+---+ +---+---+ | +---+---+ +---+---+ | |||
| | | | | | | |||
| ----+---- ----+---- | ----+---- ----+---- | |||
| MNN CN | MNN CN | |||
| Figure 11: CN and MNN located in the same nested NEMO | Figure 11: CN and MNN located in the same nested NEMO | |||
| B.3.1. Case G: LFN and standard IPv6 CN | B.3.1. Case G: LFN and standard IPv6 CN | |||
| Again, we start off with the case where both end nodes do not have | Again, we start off with the case where both end nodes do not have | |||
| any mobility functions. Packets are encapsulated at every Mobile | any mobility functions. Packets are encapsulated at every Mobile | |||
| Router on the way out the nested mobile network via the root Mobile | Router on the way out the nested mobile network via the root Mobile | |||
| Router, decapsulated and encapsulated by the Home Agents and then | Router, decapsulated and encapsulated by the Home Agents and then | |||
| make their way back to the nested mobile network through the same | make their way back to the nested mobile network through the same | |||
| root Mobile Router. Therefore, the path between MNN and CN would go | root Mobile Router. Therefore, the path between MNN and CN would go | |||
| through: | through: | |||
| 1 2 3 4 3 2 | 1 2 3 4 3 2 | |||
| MNN --- MR3 --- MR2 --- MR1 --- MR1_HA --- MR2_HA --- MR3_HA | MNN --- MR3 --- MR2 --- MR1 --- MR1_HA --- MR2_HA --- MR3_HA | |||
| LFN | | LFN | | |||
| | 1 | | 1 | |||
| 1 2 3 4 3 2 | | 1 2 3 4 3 2 | | |||
| CN --- MR5 --- MR4 --- MR1 --- MR1_HA --- MR4_HA --- MR5_HA | CN --- MR5 --- MR4 --- MR1 --- MR1_HA --- MR4_HA --- MR5_HA | |||
| IPv6 Node | IPv6 Node | |||
| Figure 12: MNN and CN are standard IPv6 nodes | Figure 12: MNN and CN are standard IPv6 nodes | |||
| B.3.2. Case H: VMN and MIPv6 CN | B.3.2. Case H: VMN and MIPv6 CN | |||
| Similar with Case B and E, when both end nodes are Mobile IPv6 nodes, | Similar with Case B and E, when both end nodes are Mobile IPv6 nodes, | |||
| the two nodes may initiate Mobile IPv6 route optimization which will | the two nodes may initiate Mobile IPv6 route optimization which will | |||
| avoid the packets to go through the Home Agent of MNN nor the Home | avoid the packets to go through the Home Agent of MNN nor the Home | |||
| Agent of the Mobile IPv6 CN (not shown in the figure). However, | Agent of the Mobile IPv6 CN (not shown in the figure). However, | |||
| packets will still be tunneled between each Mobile Router and its | packets will still be tunneled between each Mobile Router and its | |||
| respective Home Agent in both directions. Therefore, the path would | respective Home Agent in both directions. Therefore, the path would | |||
| be the same with Case G and go through: | be the same with Case G and go through: | |||
| 1 2 3 4 3 2 | 1 2 3 4 3 2 | |||
| MNN --- MR3 --- MR2 --- MR1 --- MR1_HA --- MR2_HA --- MR3_HA | MNN --- MR3 --- MR2 --- MR1 --- MR1_HA --- MR2_HA --- MR3_HA | |||
| LFN | | LFN | | |||
| | 1 | | 1 | |||
| 1 2 3 4 3 2 | | 1 2 3 4 3 2 | | |||
| CN --- MR5 --- MR4 --- MR1 --- MR1_HA --- MR4_HA --- MR5_HA | CN --- MR5 --- MR4 --- MR1 --- MR1_HA --- MR4_HA --- MR5_HA | |||
| MIPv6 Node | MIPv6 Node | |||
| Figure 13: MNN and CN are MIPv6 mobile nodes | Figure 13: MNN and CN are MIPv6 mobile nodes | |||
| B.3.3. Case I: VMN and standard IPv6 CN | B.3.3. Case I: VMN and standard IPv6 CN | |||
| As for Case C and Case F, when the communication involves a Mobile | As for Case C and Case F, when the communication involves a Mobile | |||
| IPv6 node either as a Visiting Mobile Node or as a Correspondent | IPv6 node either as a Visiting Mobile Node or as a Correspondent | |||
| Node, Mobile IPv6 Route Optimization can not be performed. | Node, Mobile IPv6 Route Optimization can not be performed. | |||
| Therefore, MNN will establish a bi-directional tunnel with its Home | Therefore, MNN will establish a bi-directional tunnel with its Home | |||
| Agent. Packets between MNN and CN would thus go through MNN's own | Agent. Packets between MNN and CN would thus go through MNN's own | |||
| Home Agent. The path would therefore be as shown on Figure 14: | Home Agent. The path would therefore be as shown on Figure 14: | |||
| skipping to change at page 23, line 28 ¶ | skipping to change at page 23, line 28 ¶ | |||
| sub-MR | MR2 | | sub-MR | MR2 | | |||
| +---+---+ | +---+---+ | |||
| | | | | |||
| +---+---+ | +---+---+ | |||
| sub-MR | MR3 | | sub-MR | MR3 | | |||
| +---+---+ | +---+---+ | |||
| | | | | |||
| -+--+--+- | -+--+--+- | |||
| MNN CN | MNN CN | |||
| Figure 15: MNN and CN located behind the same nested MR | Figure 15: MNN and CN located behind the same nested MR | |||
| B.4.1. Case J: LFN and standard IPv6 CN | B.4.1. Case J: LFN and standard IPv6 CN | |||
| If both end nodes are Local Fixed Nodes, no special function is | If both end nodes are Local Fixed Nodes, no special function is | |||
| necessary for optimization of their communications. The path between | necessary for optimization of their communications. The path between | |||
| the two nodes would go through: | the two nodes would go through: | |||
| 1 | 1 | |||
| MNN --- CN | MNN --- CN | |||
| LFN IPv6 Node | LFN IPv6 Node | |||
| Figure 16: MNN and CN are standard IPv6 nodes | Figure 16: MNN and CN are standard IPv6 nodes | |||
| B.4.2. Case K: VMN and MIPv6 CN | B.4.2. Case K: VMN and MIPv6 CN | |||
| Similar with Case H, when both end nodes are Mobile IPv6 nodes, the | Similar with Case H, when both end nodes are Mobile IPv6 nodes, the | |||
| two nodes may initiate Mobile IPv6 route optimization. Although few | two nodes may initiate Mobile IPv6 route optimization. Although few | |||
| packets would go out the nested mobile network for the Return | packets would go out the nested mobile network for the Return | |||
| Routability initialization, however, unlike Case B and Case E, | Routability initialization, however, unlike Case B and Case E, | |||
| packets will not get tunneled outside the nested mobile network. | packets will not get tunneled outside the nested mobile network. | |||
| Therefore, packets between MNN and CN would eventually go through: | Therefore, packets between MNN and CN would eventually go through: | |||
| 1 | 1 | |||
| MNN --- CN | MNN --- CN | |||
| VMN MIPv6 Node | VMN MIPv6 Node | |||
| Figure 17: MNN and CN are MIPv6 mobile nodes | Figure 17: MNN and CN are MIPv6 mobile nodes | |||
| If the root Mobile Router is disconnected while the nodes exchange | If the root Mobile Router is disconnected while the nodes exchange | |||
| keys for the Return Routability procedure, they may not communicate | keys for the Return Routability procedure, they may not communicate | |||
| even though they are connected on the same link. | even though they are connected on the same link. | |||
| B.4.3. Case L: VMN and standard IPv6 CN | B.4.3. Case L: VMN and standard IPv6 CN | |||
| When the communication involves a Mobile IPv6 node either as a | When the communication involves a Mobile IPv6 node either as a | |||
| Visiting Mobile Network Node or as a Correspondent Node, Mobile IPv6 | Visiting Mobile Network Node or as a Correspondent Node, Mobile IPv6 | |||
| Route Optimization cannot be performed. Therefore, even though the | Route Optimization cannot be performed. Therefore, even though the | |||
| skipping to change at page 25, line 36 ¶ | skipping to change at page 25, line 36 ¶ | |||
| +--+--+ +--+--+ | +--+--+ +--+--+ | |||
| | | | | | | |||
| -+--------+-- mobile net 1 / home link 2 | -+--------+-- mobile net 1 / home link 2 | |||
| | | | | |||
| +--+--+ +--+--+ | +--+--+ +--+--+ | |||
| | MR2 | | LFN | | | MR2 | | LFN | | |||
| +--+--+ +--+--+ | +--+--+ +--+--+ | |||
| | | | | | | |||
| -+--------+- mobile net 2 | -+--------+- mobile net 2 | |||
| Figure 19: Initial Deployment | Figure 19: Initial Deployment | |||
| In Figure 19 above, communications between CN and LFN follows a | In Figure 19 above, communications between CN and LFN follows a | |||
| direct path as long as both MR1 and MR2 are positioned at home. No | direct path as long as both MR1 and MR2 are positioned at home. No | |||
| encapsulation intervenes. | encapsulation intervenes. | |||
| In the next step, consider that the MR2's mobile network leaves home | In the next step, consider that the MR2's mobile network leaves home | |||
| and visits a foreign network, under Access Router (AR) like in | and visits a foreign network, under Access Router (AR) like in | |||
| Figure 20 below. | Figure 20 below. | |||
| /-----CN | /-----CN | |||
| skipping to change at page 26, line 22 ¶ | skipping to change at page 26, line 22 ¶ | |||
| +--+--+ +--+--+ +-----+ | +--+--+ +--+--+ +-----+ | |||
| | | | AR | | | | | AR | | |||
| -+--------+- mobile net 1 +--+--+ | -+--------+- mobile net 1 +--+--+ | |||
| home link 2 | | home link 2 | | |||
| +--+--+ +-----+ | +--+--+ +-----+ | |||
| | MR2 | | LFN | | | MR2 | | LFN | | |||
| +--+--+ +--+--+ | +--+--+ +--+--+ | |||
| | | | | | | |||
| mobile net 2 -+--------+- | mobile net 2 -+--------+- | |||
| Figure 20: Mobile Network 2 Leaves Home | Figure 20: Mobile Network 2 Leaves Home | |||
| Once MR2 acquires a Care-of Address under AR, the tunnel setup | Once MR2 acquires a Care-of Address under AR, the tunnel setup | |||
| procedure occurs between MR2 and HA2. MR2 sends Binding Update to | procedure occurs between MR2 and HA2. MR2 sends Binding Update to | |||
| HA2 and HA2 replies Binding Acknowledgement to MR2. The bi- | HA2 and HA2 replies Binding Acknowledgement to MR2. The bi- | |||
| directional tunnel has MR2 and HA2 as tunnel endpoints. After the | directional tunnel has MR2 and HA2 as tunnel endpoints. After the | |||
| tunnel MR2HA2 has been set up, the path taken by a packet from CN | tunnel MR2HA2 has been set up, the path taken by a packet from CN | |||
| towards LFN can be summarized as: | towards LFN can be summarized as: | |||
| CN->BR->MR1->HA2=>MR1=>BR=>AR=>MR2->LFN. | CN->BR->MR1->HA2=>MR1=>BR=>AR=>MR2->LFN. | |||
| skipping to change at page 27, line 28 ¶ | skipping to change at page 27, line 28 ¶ | |||
| +--+--+ +--+--+ | +--+--+ +--+--+ | |||
| | | | | | | |||
| mobile net 2 -+--------+- | mobile net 2 -+--------+- | |||
| | | | | |||
| +--+--+ +-----+ | +--+--+ +-----+ | |||
| | MR1 | | HA2 | | | MR1 | | HA2 | | |||
| +--+--+ +--+--+ | +--+--+ +--+--+ | |||
| | | | | | | |||
| mobile net 1 -+--------+- | mobile net 1 -+--------+- | |||
| Figure 21: Stalemate Situation Occurs | Figure 21: Stalemate Situation Occurs | |||
| If both tunnels between MR1 and HA1, and between MR2 and HA2 were up | If both tunnels between MR1 and HA1, and between MR2 and HA2 were up | |||
| simultaneously, they would have "crossed over" each other. If the | simultaneously, they would have "crossed over" each other. If the | |||
| tunnels MR1-HA1 and MR2-HA2 were drawn in Figure 21, it could be | tunnels MR1-HA1 and MR2-HA2 were drawn in Figure 21, it could be | |||
| noticed that the path of the tunnel MR1-HA1 includes only one | noticed that the path of the tunnel MR1-HA1 includes only one | |||
| endpoint of the tunnel MR2-HA2 (the MR2 endpoint). Two MR-HA tunnels | endpoint of the tunnel MR2-HA2 (the MR2 endpoint). Two MR-HA tunnels | |||
| are crossing over each other if the IP path between two endpoints of | are crossing over each other if the IP path between two endpoints of | |||
| one tunnel includes one and only one endpoint of the other tunnel | one tunnel includes one and only one endpoint of the other tunnel | |||
| (assuming that both tunnels are up). When both endpoints of one | (assuming that both tunnels are up). When both endpoints of one | |||
| tunnel are included in the path of the other tunnel, then tunnels are | tunnel are included in the path of the other tunnel, then tunnels are | |||
| skipping to change at page 29, line 5 ¶ | skipping to change at page 29, line 5 ¶ | |||
| Fan Zhao | Fan Zhao | |||
| University of California Davis | University of California Davis | |||
| One Shields Avenue | One Shields Avenue | |||
| Davis, CA 95616 | Davis, CA 95616 | |||
| US | US | |||
| Phone: +1 530 752 3128 | Phone: +1 530 752 3128 | |||
| Email: fanzhao@ucdavis.edu | Email: fanzhao@ucdavis.edu | |||
| Intellectual Property Statement | Full Copyright Statement | |||
| Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). | ||||
| This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions | ||||
| contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors | ||||
| retain all their rights. | ||||
| This document and the information contained herein are provided on an | ||||
| "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS | ||||
| OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET | ||||
| ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, | ||||
| INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE | ||||
| INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED | ||||
| WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. | ||||
| Intellectual Property | ||||
| The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any | The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any | |||
| Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to | Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to | |||
| pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in | pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in | |||
| this document or the extent to which any license under such rights | this document or the extent to which any license under such rights | |||
| might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has | might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has | |||
| made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information | made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information | |||
| on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be | on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be | |||
| found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. | found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. | |||
| skipping to change at page 29, line 29 ¶ | skipping to change at page 29, line 45 ¶ | |||
| such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this | such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this | |||
| specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at | specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at | |||
| http://www.ietf.org/ipr. | http://www.ietf.org/ipr. | |||
| The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any | The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any | |||
| copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary | copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary | |||
| rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement | rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement | |||
| this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at | this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at | |||
| ietf-ipr@ietf.org. | ietf-ipr@ietf.org. | |||
| Disclaimer of Validity | ||||
| This document and the information contained herein are provided on an | ||||
| "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS | ||||
| OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET | ||||
| ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, | ||||
| INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE | ||||
| INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED | ||||
| WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. | ||||
| Copyright Statement | ||||
| Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject | ||||
| to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and | ||||
| except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. | ||||
| Acknowledgment | Acknowledgment | |||
| Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the | Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF | |||
| Internet Society. | Administrative Support Activity (IASA). | |||
| End of changes. 30 change blocks. | ||||
| 45 lines changed or deleted | 50 lines changed or added | |||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/ | ||||