idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-dmm-mag-multihoming-01.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The abstract seems to contain references ([RFC3963], [RFC4908], [RFC5213], [RFC6275]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (March 2, 2016) is 2970 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) No issues found here. Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 DMM WG P. Seite 3 Internet-Draft Orange 4 Intended status: Standards Track A. Yegin 5 Expires: September 3, 2016 Samsung 6 S. Gundavelli 7 Cisco 8 March 2, 2016 10 MAG Multipath Binding Option 11 draft-ietf-dmm-mag-multihoming-01.txt 13 Abstract 15 The document [RFC4908] proposes to rely on multiple Care-of Addresses 16 (CoAs) capabilities of Mobile IP [RFC6275] an Network Mobility (NEMO; 17 [RFC3963]) to enable Multihoming technology for Small-Scale Fixed 18 Networks. In the continuation of [RFC4908], this document specifies 19 a multiple proxy Care-of Addresses (pCoAs) extension for Proxy Mobile 20 IPv6 [RFC5213]. This extension allows a multihomed Mobile Access 21 Gateway (MAG) to register more than one proxy care-of-address to the 22 Local Mobility Anchor (LMA). 24 Status of this Memo 26 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 27 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 29 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 30 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 31 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 32 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 34 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 35 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 36 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 37 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 39 This Internet-Draft will expire on September 3, 2016. 41 Copyright Notice 43 Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 44 document authors. All rights reserved. 46 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 47 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 48 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 49 publication of this document. Please review these documents 50 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 51 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 52 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 53 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 54 described in the Simplified BSD License. 56 Table of Contents 58 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 2. Conventions and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 60 2.1. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 61 2.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 62 3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 63 3.1. Example Call Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 64 3.2. Traffic distribution schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 65 4. Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 66 4.1. MAG Multipath-Binding Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 67 4.2. MAG Identifier Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 68 4.3. New Status Code for Proxy Binding Acknowledgement . . . . 10 69 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 70 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 71 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 72 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 73 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 74 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 75 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 77 1. Introduction 79 Using several links, the multihoming technology can improve 80 connectivity availability and quality of communications; the goals 81 and benefits of multihoming are as follows: 83 o Redundancy/Fault-Recovery 85 o Load balancing 87 o Load sharing 89 o Preferences settings 91 According to [RFC4908], users of Small-Scale Networks can take 92 benefit of multihoming using mobile IP [RFC6275] and Network Mobility 93 (NEMO) [RFC3963] architecture in a mobile and fixed networking 94 environment. This document was introducing the concept of multiple 95 Care-of Addresses (CoAs) [RFC5648] that have been specified since 96 then. 98 In the continuation of [RFC4908], a Proxy Mobile IPv6 [RFC5213] based 99 multihomed achitecture could be defined. The motivation to update 100 [RFC4908] with proxy Mobile IPv6 is to leverage on latest mobility 101 working group achievments, namely: 103 o using GRE as mobile tuneling, possibly with its key extension 104 [RFC5845] (a possible reason to use GRE is given on Section 3.2). 106 o using UDP encapsulation [RFC5844] in order to support NAT 107 traversal in IPv4 networking environment. 109 o Prefix Delegation mechanism [RFC7148]. 111 o Using the vendor specific mobility option [RFC5094], for example 112 to allow the MAG and LMA to exchange information (e.g. WAN 113 interface QoS metrics) allowing to make appropriate traffic 114 steering decision. 116 Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) relies on two mobility entities: the 117 mobile access gateway (MAG), which acts as the default gateway for 118 the end-node and the local mobility anchor (LMA), which acts as the 119 topological anchor point. Point-to-point links are established, 120 using IP-in-IP tunnels, between MAG and LMA. Then, the MAG and LMA 121 are distributing traffic over these tunnels. All PMIPv6 operations 122 are performed on behalf of the end-node and its corespondent node, it 123 thus makes PMIPv6 well adapted to multihomed architecture as 124 considered in [RFC4908]. Taking the LTE and WLAN networking 125 environments as an example, the PMIPv6 based multihomed architecture 126 is depicted on Figure 1. Flow-1,2 and 3 are distributed either on 127 Tunnel-1 (over LTE) or Tunnel-2 (over WLAN), while Flow-4 is spread 128 on both Tunnel-1 and 2. 130 Flow-1 131 | 132 |Flow-2 _----_ 133 | | CoA-1 _( )_ Tunnel-1 134 | | .---=======( LTE )========\ Flow-1 135 | | | (_ _) \Flow-4 136 | | | '----' \ 137 | | +=====+ \ +=====+ _----_ 138 | '-| | \ | | _( )_ 139 '---| MAG | | LMA |-( Internet )-- 140 .---| | | | (_ _) 141 | .-| | / | | '----' 142 | | +=====+ / +=====+ 143 | | | _----_ / 144 | | | CoA-2 _( )_ Tunnel-2 / 145 | | .---=======( WLAN )========/ Flow-2 146 | | (_ _) Flow-3 147 | | '----' Flow-4 148 |Flow-3 149 | 150 Flow0=-4 152 Figure 1: Multihomed MAG using Proxy Mobile IPv6 154 Current version of Proxy Mobile IPv6 does not allow a MAG to register 155 more than one proxy Care-of-Adresse to the LMA. In other words, only 156 one MAG/LMA link, i.e. IP-in-IP tunnel, tunnel can be used at the 157 same time. This document overcome this limitation by defining the 158 multiple proxy Care-of Addresses (pCoAs) extension for Proxy Mobile 159 IPv6. 161 2. Conventions and Terminology 163 2.1. Conventions 165 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 166 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 167 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 169 2.2. Terminology 171 All mobility related terms used in this document are to be 172 interpreted as defined in [RFC5213], [RFC5844] and [RFC7148]. 173 Additionally, this document uses the following terms: 175 IP-in-IP 177 IP-within-IP encapsulation [RFC2473], [RFC4213] 179 3. Overview 181 3.1. Example Call Flow 183 Figure 2 is the callflow detailing multi-access support with PMIPv6. 184 The MAG in this example scenario is equipped with both WLAN and LTE 185 interfaces and is also configured with the MAG functionality. A 186 logical-NAI with ALWAYS-ON configuration is enabled on the MAG. The 187 mobility session that is created on the LMA is for the logical-NAI. 188 The IP hosts MN_1 and MN_2 are assigned IP addresses from the 189 delegated mobile network prefix. 191 +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ 192 | MN_1| | MN_2| | MAG | | WLAN| | LTE | | LMA | 193 +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ 194 | | | | | | 195 | | | | | | 196 | | | (1) ATTACH | | | 197 | | | <--------> | | | 198 | | | (2) ATTACH | | 199 | | | <---------------------->| | 200 | | | (3) PBU (NAI, MAG-NAI, DMNP, MMB) | 201 | | | ------------------------*----------> | 202 | | | (4) PBA (NAI, DMNP) | 203 | | | <-----------------------*----------- | 204 | | | (5) TUNNEL INTERFACE CREATION | 205 | | |-============== TUNNEL ==*===========-| 206 | | | | 207 | | | (6) PBU (NAI, MAG-NAI, DMNP, MMB) | 208 | | | -----------*-----------------------> | 209 | | | (7) PBA (NAI, DMNP) | 210 | | | <----------*------------------------ | 211 | | | (8) TUNNEL INTERFACE CREATION | 212 | | |-===========*== TUNNEL ==============-| 213 | (9) | | 214 | <------------------> | | 215 | | (10) | | 216 | |<-----------> | | 218 Figure 2: Functional Separation of the Control and User Plane 220 3.2. Traffic distribution schemes 222 Once tunnels are established, traffic distribution can be managed 223 either on a per-flow or on a per-packet basis: 225 o Per-flow traffic management: each IP flow (both upstream and 226 downstream) is mapped to a given tunnel, corresponding to a given 227 WAN interface. Flow binding extension [RFC6089] is used to 228 exchange, and synchronize, IP flow management policies (i.e. rules 229 associating traffic selectors [RFC6088] to a tunnel). 231 o Per-packet management: the LMA and the MAG distribute packets, 232 belonging to a same IP flow, over more than one bindings (i.e. 233 more than one WAN interface). When operating at the packet level, 234 traffic distribution scheme introduces packet latency and out-of- 235 order delivery. Sequence number can be added, to tunneled 236 packets, to allow LMA and MAG making reordering before packets 237 delivery. For that purpose, GRE with sequence number option 239 [RFC5845] can be used as tunneling mechanism. More detailed 240 considerations (e.g. definition of control algorithm) on Per- 241 packet distribution scheme is out the scope of this document. 243 Because latency introduced by per-packet can cause injury to some 244 application, per-flow and per-packet distribution schemes could be 245 used in conjunction. For example, high throughput services (e.g. 246 video streaming) may benefit from per-packet distribution scheme, 247 while latency sensitive applications (e.g. VoIP) are not be spread 248 over different WAN paths. 250 4. Protocol Extensions 252 4.1. MAG Multipath-Binding Option 254 The MAG Multipath-Binding option is a new mobility header option 255 defined for use with Proxy Binding Update and Proxy Binding 256 Acknowledgement messages exchanged between the local mobility anchor 257 and the mobile access gateway. 259 This mobility header option is used for requesting multipath support. 260 It indicates that the mobile access gateway is requesting the local 261 mobility anchor to register the current care-of address associated 262 with the request as one of the many care-addresses through which the 263 mobile access gateway can be reached. It is also for carrying the 264 information related to the access network associated with the care-of 265 address. 267 The MAG Multipath-Binding option has an alignment requirement of 268 8n+2. Its format is as shown in Figure 3: 270 0 1 2 3 271 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 1 272 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 273 | Type | Length | If-ATT | If-Label | 274 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 275 | Binding-Id |B|O| RESERVED | 276 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 278 Figure 3: MAG Multipath Binding Option 280 Type 282 To be assigned by IANA. 284 Length 285 8-bit unsigned integer indicating the length of the option in 286 octets, excluding the type and length fields. 288 This 8-bit field identifies the Access-Technology type of the 289 interface through which the mobile node is connected. The permitted 290 values for this are from the Access Technology Type registry defined 291 in [RFC5213]. 293 This 8-bit field represents the interface label represented as an 294 unsigned integer. The mobile node identifies the label for each of 295 the interfaces through which it registers a CoA with the home agent. 296 When using static traffic flow policies on the mobile node and the 297 home agent, the label can be used for generating forwarding policies. 298 For example, the operator may have policy which binds traffic for 299 Application "X" needs to interface with Label "Y". When a 300 registration through an interface matching Label "Y" gets activated, 301 the home agent and the mobile node can dynamically generate a 302 forwarding policy for forwarding traffic for Application "X" through 303 mobile IP tunnel matching Label "Y". Both the home agent and the 304 mobile node can route the Application-X traffic through that 305 interface. The permitted values for If-Label are 1 through 255. 307 This 8-bit field is used for carrying the binding identifier. It 308 uniquely identifies a specific binding of the mobile node, to which 309 this request can be associated. Each binding identifier is 310 represented as an unsigned integer. The permitted values are 1 311 through 254. The BID value of 0 and 255 are reserved. The mobile 312 access gateway assigns a unique value for each of its interfaces and 313 includes them in the message. 315 This flag, if set to a value of (1), is to notify the local mobility 316 anchor to consider this request as a request to update the binding 317 lifetime of all the mobile node's bindings, upon accepting this 318 specific request. This flag MUST NOT be set to a value of (1), if 319 the value of the Registration Overwrite Flag (O) flag is set to a 320 value of (1). 322 This flag, if set to a value of (1), notifies the local mobility 323 anchor that upon accepting this request, it should replace all of the 324 mobile node's existing bindings with this binding. This flag MUST 325 NOT be set to a value of (1), if the value of the Bulk Re- 326 registration Flag (B) is set to a value of (1). This flag MUST be 327 set to a value of (0), in de-registration requests. 329 Reserved 331 This field is unused in this specification. The value MUST be set 332 to zero (0) by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver. 334 4.2. MAG Identifier Option 336 The MAG Identifier option is a new mobility header option defined for 337 use with Proxy Binding Update and Proxy Binding Acknowledgement 338 messages exchanged between the local mobility anchor and the mobile 339 access gateway. This mobility header option is used for conveying 340 the MAG's identity. 342 This option does not have any alignment requirements. 344 0 1 2 3 345 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 1 346 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 347 | Type | Length | Subtype | Reserved | 348 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 349 | Identifier ... ~ 350 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 352 Figure 4: MAG Identifier Option 354 Type 356 To be assigned by IANA. 358 Length 360 8-bit unsigned integer indicating the length of the option in 361 octets, excluding the type and length fields. 363 Subtype 365 One byte unsigned integer used for identifying the type of the 366 Identifier field. Accepted values for this field are the 367 registered type values from the Mobile Node Identifier Option 368 Subtypes registry. 370 Reserved 372 This field is unused in this specification. The value MUST be set 373 to zero (0) by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver. 375 Identifier 377 A variable length identifier of type indicated in the Subtype 378 field. 380 4.3. New Status Code for Proxy Binding Acknowledgement 382 This document defines the following new Status Code value for use in 383 Proxy Binding Acknowledgement message. 385 CANNOT_SUPPORT_MULTIPATH_BINDING (Cannot Support Multipath Binding): 386 388 5. IANA Considerations 390 This document requires the following IANA actions. 392 o Action-1: This specification defines a new mobility option, the 393 MAG Multipath-Binding option. The format of this option is 394 described in Section 4.1. The type value for this 395 mobility option needs to be allocated from the Mobility Options 396 registry at . 397 RFC Editor: Please replace in Section 4.1 with the 398 assigned value and update this section accordingly. 400 o Action-2: This specification defines a new mobility option, the 401 MAG Identifier option. The format of this option is described in 402 Section 4.2. The type value for this mobility option 403 needs to be allocated from the Mobility Options registry at 404 . RFC 405 Editor: Please replace in Section 4.2 with the assigned 406 value and update this section accordingly. 408 o Action-4: This document defines a new status value, 409 CANNOT_SUPPORT_MULTIPATH_BINDING () for use in Proxy 410 Binding Acknowledgement message, as described in Section 4.3. 411 This value is to be assigned from the "Status Codes" registry at 412 . The 413 allocated value has to be greater than 127. RFC Editor: Please 414 replace in Section 4.3 with the assigned value and update 415 this section accordingly. 417 6. Security Considerations 419 This specification allows a mobile access gateway to establish 420 multiple Proxy Mobile IPv6 tunnels with a local mobility anchor, by 421 registering a care-of address for each of its connected access 422 networks. This essentially allows the mobile node's IP traffic to be 423 routed through any of the tunnel paths and either based on a static 424 or a dynamically negotiated flow policy. This new capability has no 425 impact on the protocol security. Furthermore, this specification 426 defines two new mobility header options, MAG Multipath-Binding option 427 and the MAG Identifier option. These options are carried like any 428 other mobility header option as specified in [RFC5213]. Therefore, 429 it inherits security guidelines from [RFC5213]. Thus, this 430 specification does not weaken the security of Proxy Mobile IPv6 431 Protocol, and does not introduce any new security vulnerabilities. 433 7. Acknowledgements 435 The authors of this draft would like to acknowledge the discussions 436 and feedback on this topic from the members of the DMM working group. 438 8. References 440 8.1. Normative References 442 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 443 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/ 444 RFC2119, March 1997, 445 . 447 [RFC3963] Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., and P. 448 Thubert, "Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol", 449 RFC 3963, DOI 10.17487/RFC3963, January 2005, 450 . 452 [RFC5094] Devarapalli, V., Patel, A., and K. Leung, "Mobile IPv6 453 Vendor Specific Option", RFC 5094, DOI 10.17487/RFC5094, 454 December 2007, . 456 [RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., Ed., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V., 457 Chowdhury, K., and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6", 458 RFC 5213, DOI 10.17487/RFC5213, August 2008, 459 . 461 [RFC5648] Wakikawa, R., Ed., Devarapalli, V., Tsirtsis, G., Ernst, 462 T., and K. Nagami, "Multiple Care-of Addresses 463 Registration", RFC 5648, DOI 10.17487/RFC5648, 464 October 2009, . 466 [RFC5844] Wakikawa, R. and S. Gundavelli, "IPv4 Support for Proxy 467 Mobile IPv6", RFC 5844, DOI 10.17487/RFC5844, May 2010, 468 . 470 [RFC5845] Muhanna, A., Khalil, M., Gundavelli, S., and K. Leung, 471 "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) Key Option for Proxy 472 Mobile IPv6", RFC 5845, DOI 10.17487/RFC5845, June 2010, 473 . 475 [RFC6088] Tsirtsis, G., Giarreta, G., Soliman, H., and N. Montavont, 476 "Traffic Selectors for Flow Bindings", RFC 6088, 477 DOI 10.17487/RFC6088, January 2011, 478 . 480 [RFC6089] Tsirtsis, G., Soliman, H., Montavont, N., Giaretta, G., 481 and K. Kuladinithi, "Flow Bindings in Mobile IPv6 and 482 Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support", RFC 6089, 483 DOI 10.17487/RFC6089, January 2011, 484 . 486 [RFC6275] Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility 487 Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, DOI 10.17487/RFC6275, 488 July 2011, . 490 [RFC7148] Zhou, X., Korhonen, J., Williams, C., Gundavelli, S., and 491 CJ. Bernardos, "Prefix Delegation Support for Proxy Mobile 492 IPv6", RFC 7148, DOI 10.17487/RFC7148, March 2014, 493 . 495 8.2. Informative References 497 [RFC2473] Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Generic Packet Tunneling in 498 IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, DOI 10.17487/RFC2473, 499 December 1998, . 501 [RFC4213] Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms 502 for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213, DOI 10.17487/ 503 RFC4213, October 2005, 504 . 506 [RFC4908] Nagami, K., Uda, S., Ogashiwa, N., Esaki, H., Wakikawa, 507 R., and H. Ohnishi, "Multi-homing for small scale fixed 508 network Using Mobile IP and NEMO", RFC 4908, DOI 10.17487/ 509 RFC4908, June 2007, 510 . 512 Authors' Addresses 514 Pierrick Seite 515 Orange 516 4, rue du Clos Courtel, BP 91226 517 Cesson-Sevigne 35512 518 France 520 Email: pierrick.seite@orange.com 522 Alper Yegin 523 Samsung 524 Istanbul 525 Turkey 527 Email: alper.yegin@partner.samsung.com 529 Sri Gundavelli 530 Cisco 531 170 West Tasman Drive 532 San Jose, CA 95134 533 USA 535 Email: sgundave@cisco.com