idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-dmm-mag-multihoming-02.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 (July 25, 2016) is 2825 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: January 26, 2017 Samsung 6 S. Gundavelli 7 Cisco 8 July 25, 2016 10 MAG Multipath Binding Option 11 draft-ietf-dmm-mag-multihoming-02.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 January 26, 2017. 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 59 2. Conventions and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 60 2.1. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 61 2.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 71 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 72 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 73 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 74 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 75 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 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 is 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 The current version of Proxy Mobile IPv6 does not allow a MAG to 155 register more than one proxy Care-of-Adresse to the LMA. In other 156 words, only one MAG/LMA link, i.e. IP-in-IP tunnel, can be used at 157 the same time. This document overcomes this limitation by defining 158 the multiple proxy Care-of Addresses (pCoAs) extension for Proxy 159 Mobile 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 176 IP-within-IP encapsulation [RFC2473], [RFC4213] 178 3. Overview 180 3.1. Example Call Flow 182 Figure 2 is the callflow detailing multi-access support with PMIPv6. 183 The MAG in this example scenario is equipped with both WLAN and LTE 184 interfaces and is also configured with the multihoming functionality. 185 The steps of the callflow are as follows: 187 Steps (1) and (2): the MAG attaches to both WLAN and LTE networks; 188 the MAG obtains respectively two different proxy care-of-addresses 189 (pCoA). 191 Step (3): The MAG sends, over the WLAN access, a Proxy Binding Update 192 (PBU) message, with the new MAG Multipath Binding (MMB) and MAG 193 Identifier (MAG-NAI) options to the LMA. A logical-NAI (MAG-NAI) 194 with ALWAYS-ON configuration is enabled on the MAG. The mobility 195 session that is created (i.e. create a Binding Cache Entry) on the 196 LMA is for the logical-NAI. The LMA and allocates a Home Network 197 Prefix (HNP), that shall be delegated to mobile nodes, to the MAG. 199 Step (4): the LMA sends back a Proxy Binding Acknowledgement (PBA) 200 including the HNP allocated to the MAG. 202 Step (5): IP tunnel (IP-in-IP, GRE ...) is created over the WLAN 203 access. 205 Steps (6) to (8): The MAG repeats steps (3) to (5) on the LTE access. 206 The MAG includes the HNP, received on step (4) in the PBU. The LMA 207 update its binding cache by creating a new mobility session for this 208 MAG. 210 Steps (9) and (10): The IP hosts MN_1 and MN_2 are assigned IP 211 addresses from the mobile network prefix delegated by the MAG. 213 +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ 214 | MN_1| | MN_2| | MAG | | WLAN| | LTE | | LMA | 215 +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ 216 | | | | | | 217 | | | | | | 218 | | | (1) ATTACH | | | 219 | | | <--------> | | | 220 | | | (2) ATTACH | | 221 | | | <---------------------->| | 222 | | | (3) PBU (MAG-NAI, MMB) | 223 | | | ------------------------*-------------->| 224 | | | | 225 | | | Accept PBU 226 | | | (allocate HNP, 227 | | | create BCE) 228 | | | (4) PBA (MAG-NAI, HNP) | 229 | | | <-----------------------*---------------| 230 | | | (5) TUNNEL INTERFACE CREATION over WLAN | 231 | | |-============== TUNNEL ==*==============-| 232 | | | | 233 | | | (6) PBU (MAG-NAI, HNP, MMB) | 234 | | | -----------*--------------------------->| 235 | | | | 236 | | | Accept PBU 237 | | | (update BCE) 238 | | | (7) PBA (MAG-NAI, HNP) | 239 | | | <----------*--------------------------- | 240 | | | (8) TUNNEL INTERFACE CREATION over LTE | 241 | | |-===========*== TUNNEL =================-| 242 | (9) ATTACH | | 243 | <---------------> | | 244 | |(10) ATTACH| | 245 | |<--------> | | 247 Figure 2: Functional Separation of the Control and User Plane 249 3.2. Traffic distribution schemes 251 When receiving packets from the MN, the MAG distributes packets over 252 tunnels that have been established. Traffic distribution can be 253 managed either on a per-flow or on a per-packet basis: 255 o Per-flow traffic management: each IP flow (both upstream and 256 downstream) is mapped to a given tunnel, corresponding to a given 257 WAN interface. Flow binding extension [RFC6089] is used to 258 exchange, and synchronize, IP flow management policies (i.e. rules 259 associating traffic selectors [RFC6088] to a tunnel). 261 o Per-packet management: the LMA and the MAG distribute packets, 262 belonging to a same IP flow, over more than one bindings (i.e. 263 more than one WAN interface). When operating at the IP packet 264 level, different packets distribution algorithms are possible. 265 For example, the algorithm may give precedence to one given 266 access: the MAG overflows traffic from the primary access, e.g. 267 WLAN, to the second one, only when load on primary access reaches 268 a given threshold. The distribution algorithm is left to 269 implementer but whatever the algorithm is, packets distribution 270 likely introduces packet latency and out-of-order delivery. LMA 271 and MAG shall thus be able to make reordering before packets 272 delivery. Sequence number can be can be used for that purpose, 273 for example using GRE with sequence number option [RFC5845]. 274 However, more detailed considerations on reordering and IP packet 275 distribution scheme (e.g. definition of packets distribution 276 algorithm) are out the scope of this document. 278 Because latency introduced by per-packet can cause injury to some 279 application, per-flow and per-packet distribution schemes could be 280 used in conjunction. For example, high throughput services (e.g. 281 video streaming) may benefit from per-packet distribution scheme, 282 while latency sensitive applications (e.g. VoIP) are not be spread 283 over different WAN paths. IP flow mobility extensions, [RFC6089] and 284 [RFC6088], can be used to provision the MAG with such flow policies. 286 4. Protocol Extensions 288 4.1. MAG Multipath-Binding Option 290 The MAG Multipath-Binding option is a new mobility header option 291 defined for use with Proxy Binding Update and Proxy Binding 292 Acknowledgement messages exchanged between the local mobility anchor 293 and the mobile access gateway. 295 This mobility header option is used for requesting multipath support. 296 It indicates that the mobile access gateway is requesting the local 297 mobility anchor to register the current care-of address associated 298 with the request as one of the many care-addresses through which the 299 mobile access gateway can be reached. It is also for carrying the 300 information related to the access network associated with the care-of 301 address. 303 The MAG Multipath-Binding option has an alignment requirement of 304 8n+2. Its format is as shown in Figure 3: 306 0 1 2 3 307 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 1 308 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 309 | Type | Length | If-ATT | If-Label | 310 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 311 | Binding-Id |B|O| RESERVED | 312 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 314 Figure 3: MAG Multipath Binding Option 316 Type 318 To be assigned by IANA. 320 Length 322 8-bit unsigned integer indicating the length of the option in 323 octets, excluding the type and length fields. 325 Interface Access-Technology Type (If-ATT) 327 This 8-bit field identifies the Access-Technology type of the 328 interface through which the mobile node is connected. The 329 permitted values for this are from the Access Technology Type 330 registry defined in [RFC5213]. 332 Interface Label (If-Label) 334 This 8-bit field represents the interface label represented as an 335 unsigned integer. The MAG identifies the label for each of the 336 interfaces through which it registers a pCoA with the LMA. When 337 using static traffic flow policies on the mobile node and the home 338 agent, the label can be used for generating forwarding policies. 339 For example, the operator may have policy which binds traffic for 340 Application "X" needs to interface with Label "Y". When a 341 registration through an interface matching Label "Y" gets 342 activated, the home agent and the mobile node can dynamically 343 generate a forwarding policy for forwarding traffic for 344 Application "X" through mobile IP tunnel matching Label "Y". Both 345 the home agent and the mobile node can route the Application-X 346 traffic through that interface. The permitted values for If-Label 347 are 1 through 255. 349 Binding-Identifier (BID) 351 This 8-bit field is used for carrying the binding identifier. It 352 uniquely identifies a specific binding of the mobile node, to 353 which this request can be associated. Each binding identifier is 354 represented as an unsigned integer. The permitted values are 1 355 through 254. The BID value of 0 and 255 are reserved. The mobile 356 access gateway assigns a unique value for each of its interfaces 357 and includes them in the message. 359 Bulk Re-registration Flag (B) 361 This flag, if set to a value of (1), is to notify the local 362 mobility anchor to consider this request as a request to update 363 the binding lifetime of all the mobile node's bindings, upon 364 accepting this specific request. This flag MUST NOT be set to a 365 value of (1), if the value of the Registration Overwrite Flag (O) 366 is set to a value of (1). 368 Binding Overwrite (O) 370 This flag, if set to a value of (1), notifies the local mobility 371 anchor that upon accepting this request, it should replace all of 372 the mobile node's existing bindings with this binding. This flag 373 MUST NOT be set to a value of (1), if the value of the Bulk Re- 374 registration Flag (B) is set to a value of (1). This flag MUST be 375 set to a value of (0), in de-registration requests. 377 Reserved 379 This field is unused in this specification. The value MUST be set 380 to zero (0) by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver. 382 4.2. MAG Identifier Option 384 The MAG Identifier option is a new mobility header option defined for 385 use with Proxy Binding Update and Proxy Binding Acknowledgement 386 messages exchanged between the local mobility anchor and the mobile 387 access gateway. This mobility header option is used for conveying 388 the MAG's identity. 390 This option does not have any alignment requirements. 392 0 1 2 3 393 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 1 394 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 395 | Type | Length | Subtype | Reserved | 396 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 397 | Identifier ... ~ 398 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 400 Figure 4: MAG Identifier Option 402 Type 404 To be assigned by IANA. 406 Length 408 8-bit unsigned integer indicating the length of the option in 409 octets, excluding the type and length fields. 411 Subtype 413 One byte unsigned integer used for identifying the type of the 414 Identifier field. Accepted values for this field are the 415 registered type values from the Mobile Node Identifier Option 416 Subtypes registry. 418 Reserved 420 This field is unused in this specification. The value MUST be set 421 to zero (0) by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver. 423 Identifier 425 A variable length identifier of type indicated in the Subtype 426 field. 428 4.3. New Status Code for Proxy Binding Acknowledgement 430 This document defines the following new Status Code value for use in 431 Proxy Binding Acknowledgement message. 433 CANNOT_SUPPORT_MULTIPATH_BINDING (Cannot Support Multipath Binding): 434 436 5. IANA Considerations 438 This document requires the following IANA actions. 440 o Action-1: This specification defines a new mobility option, the 441 MAG Multipath-Binding option. The format of this option is 442 described in Section 4.1. The type value for this 443 mobility option needs to be allocated from the Mobility Options 444 registry at . 445 RFC Editor: Please replace in Section 4.1 with the 446 assigned value and update this section accordingly. 448 o Action-2: This specification defines a new mobility option, the 449 MAG Identifier option. The format of this option is described in 450 Section 4.2. The type value for this mobility option 451 needs to be allocated from the Mobility Options registry at 452 . RFC 453 Editor: Please replace in Section 4.2 with the assigned 454 value and update this section accordingly. 456 o Action-3: This document defines a new status value, 457 CANNOT_SUPPORT_MULTIPATH_BINDING () for use in Proxy 458 Binding Acknowledgement message, as described in Section 4.3. 459 This value is to be assigned from the "Status Codes" registry at 460 . The 461 allocated value has to be greater than 127. RFC Editor: Please 462 replace in Section 4.3 with the assigned value and update 463 this section accordingly. 465 6. Security Considerations 467 This specification allows a mobile access gateway to establish 468 multiple Proxy Mobile IPv6 tunnels with a local mobility anchor, by 469 registering a care-of address for each of its connected access 470 networks. This essentially allows the mobile node's IP traffic to be 471 routed through any of the tunnel paths and either based on a static 472 or a dynamically negotiated flow policy. This new capability has no 473 impact on the protocol security. Furthermore, this specification 474 defines two new mobility header options, MAG Multipath-Binding option 475 and the MAG Identifier option. These options are carried like any 476 other mobility header option as specified in [RFC5213]. Therefore, 477 it inherits security guidelines from [RFC5213]. Thus, this 478 specification does not weaken the security of Proxy Mobile IPv6 479 Protocol, and does not introduce any new security vulnerabilities. 481 7. Acknowledgements 483 The authors of this draft would like to acknowledge the discussions 484 and feedback on this topic from the members of the DMM working group. 486 8. References 488 8.1. Normative References 490 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 491 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 492 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 493 . 495 [RFC3963] Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., and P. 496 Thubert, "Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol", 497 RFC 3963, DOI 10.17487/RFC3963, January 2005, 498 . 500 [RFC5094] Devarapalli, V., Patel, A., and K. Leung, "Mobile IPv6 501 Vendor Specific Option", RFC 5094, DOI 10.17487/RFC5094, 502 December 2007, . 504 [RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., Ed., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V., 505 Chowdhury, K., and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6", 506 RFC 5213, DOI 10.17487/RFC5213, August 2008, 507 . 509 [RFC5648] Wakikawa, R., Ed., Devarapalli, V., Tsirtsis, G., Ernst, 510 T., and K. Nagami, "Multiple Care-of Addresses 511 Registration", RFC 5648, DOI 10.17487/RFC5648, October 512 2009, . 514 [RFC5844] Wakikawa, R. and S. Gundavelli, "IPv4 Support for Proxy 515 Mobile IPv6", RFC 5844, DOI 10.17487/RFC5844, May 2010, 516 . 518 [RFC5845] Muhanna, A., Khalil, M., Gundavelli, S., and K. Leung, 519 "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) Key Option for Proxy 520 Mobile IPv6", RFC 5845, DOI 10.17487/RFC5845, June 2010, 521 . 523 [RFC6088] Tsirtsis, G., Giarreta, G., Soliman, H., and N. Montavont, 524 "Traffic Selectors for Flow Bindings", RFC 6088, 525 DOI 10.17487/RFC6088, January 2011, 526 . 528 [RFC6089] Tsirtsis, G., Soliman, H., Montavont, N., Giaretta, G., 529 and K. Kuladinithi, "Flow Bindings in Mobile IPv6 and 530 Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support", RFC 6089, 531 DOI 10.17487/RFC6089, January 2011, 532 . 534 [RFC6275] Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility 535 Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, DOI 10.17487/RFC6275, July 536 2011, . 538 [RFC7148] Zhou, X., Korhonen, J., Williams, C., Gundavelli, S., and 539 CJ. Bernardos, "Prefix Delegation Support for Proxy Mobile 540 IPv6", RFC 7148, DOI 10.17487/RFC7148, March 2014, 541 . 543 8.2. Informative References 545 [RFC2473] Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Generic Packet Tunneling in 546 IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, DOI 10.17487/RFC2473, 547 December 1998, . 549 [RFC4213] Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms 550 for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213, 551 DOI 10.17487/RFC4213, October 2005, 552 . 554 [RFC4908] Nagami, K., Uda, S., Ogashiwa, N., Esaki, H., Wakikawa, 555 R., and H. Ohnishi, "Multi-homing for small scale fixed 556 network Using Mobile IP and NEMO", RFC 4908, 557 DOI 10.17487/RFC4908, June 2007, 558 . 560 Authors' Addresses 562 Pierrick Seite 563 Orange 564 4, rue du Clos Courtel, BP 91226 565 Cesson-Sevigne 35512 566 France 568 Email: pierrick.seite@orange.com 570 Alper Yegin 571 Samsung 572 Istanbul 573 Turkey 575 Email: alper.yegin@partner.samsung.com 577 Sri Gundavelli 578 Cisco 579 170 West Tasman Drive 580 San Jose, CA 95134 581 USA 583 Email: sgundave@cisco.com