idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-dmm-mag-multihoming-03.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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (May 31, 2017) is 2515 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: 0 errors (**), 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: December 2, 2017 Actility 6 S. Gundavelli 7 Cisco 8 May 31, 2017 10 MAG Multipath Binding Option 11 draft-ietf-dmm-mag-multihoming-03.txt 13 Abstract 15 This specification defines extensions to the Proxy Mobile IPv6 16 protocol for allowing a mobile access gateway to register more than 17 one proxy care-of-address with the local mobility anchor and to 18 simultaneously establish multiple IP tunnels with the local mobility 19 anchor. This capability allows the mobile access gateway to utilize 20 all the available access networks for routing mobile node's IP 21 traffic. 23 Status of this Memo 25 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 26 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 28 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 29 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 30 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 31 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 33 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 34 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 35 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 36 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 38 This Internet-Draft will expire on December 2, 2017. 40 Copyright Notice 42 Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 43 document authors. All rights reserved. 45 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 46 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 47 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 48 publication of this document. Please review these documents 49 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 50 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 51 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 52 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 53 described in the Simplified BSD License. 55 Table of Contents 57 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 58 2. Conventions and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 59 2.1. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 60 2.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 61 3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 62 3.1. Example Call Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 63 3.2. Traffic distribution schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 64 4. Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 65 4.1. MAG Multipath-Binding Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 66 4.2. MAG Identifier Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 67 4.3. New Status Code for Proxy Binding Acknowledgement . . . . 10 68 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 69 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 70 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 71 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 72 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 73 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 74 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 76 1. Introduction 78 Using several links, the multihoming technology can improve 79 connectivity availability and quality of communications; the goals 80 and benefits of multihoming are as follows: 82 o Redundancy/Fault-Recovery 84 o Load balancing 86 o Load sharing 88 o Preferences settings 90 According to [RFC4908], users of Small-Scale Networks can take 91 benefit of multihoming using mobile IP [RFC6275] and Network Mobility 92 (NEMO) [RFC3963] architecture in a mobile and fixed networking 93 environment. This document is introducing the concept of multiple 94 Care-of Addresses (CoAs) [RFC5648] that have been specified since 95 then. 97 In the continuation of c, a Proxy Mobile IPv6 [RFC5213] based 98 multihomed achitecture could be defined to enable Multi-WAN support 99 for Small-Scale Fixed Networks. The motivation to update [RFC4908] 100 with proxy Mobile IPv6 is to leverage on latest mobility working 101 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 162 2.1. Conventions 164 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 165 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 166 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 168 2.2. Terminology 170 All mobility related terms used in this document are to be 171 interpreted as defined in [RFC5213], [RFC5844] and [RFC7148]. 172 Additionally, this document uses the following terms: 174 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). Packet distribution can be done 264 either at the transport level, e.g. using MPTCP or at When 265 operating at the IP packet level, different packets distribution 266 algorithms are possible. For example, the algorithm may give 267 precedence to one given access: the MAG overflows traffic from the 268 primary access, e.g. WLAN, to the second one, only when load on 269 primary access reaches a given threshold. The distribution 270 algorithm is left to implementer but whatever the algorithm is, 271 packets distribution likely introduces packet latency and out-of- 272 order delivery. LMA and MAG shall thus be able to make reordering 273 before packets delivery. Sequence number can be can be used for 274 that purpose, for example using GRE with sequence number option 275 [RFC5845]. However, more detailed considerations on reordering 276 and IP packet distribution scheme (e.g. definition of packets 277 distribution algorithm) are out the scope of this document. 279 Because latency introduced by per-packet can cause injury to some 280 application, per-flow and per-packet distribution schemes could be 281 used in conjunction. For example, high throughput services (e.g. 282 video streaming) may benefit from per-packet distribution scheme, 283 while latency sensitive applications (e.g. VoIP) are not be spread 284 over different WAN paths. IP flow mobility extensions, [RFC6089] and 285 [RFC6088], can be used to provision the MAG with such flow policies. 287 4. Protocol Extensions 289 4.1. MAG Multipath-Binding Option 291 The MAG Multipath-Binding option is a new mobility header option 292 defined for use with Proxy Binding Update and Proxy Binding 293 Acknowledgement messages exchanged between the local mobility anchor 294 and the mobile access gateway. 296 This mobility header option is used for requesting multipath support. 297 It indicates that the mobile access gateway is requesting the local 298 mobility anchor to register the current care-of address associated 299 with the request as one of the many care-addresses through which the 300 mobile access gateway can be reached. It is also for carrying the 301 information related to the access network associated with the care-of 302 address. 304 The MAG Multipath-Binding option has an alignment requirement of 305 8n+2. Its format is as shown in Figure 3: 307 0 1 2 3 308 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 1 309 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 310 | Type | Length | If-ATT | If-Label | 311 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 312 | Binding-Id |B|O| RESERVED | 313 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 315 Figure 3: MAG Multipath Binding Option 317 Type 319 To be assigned by IANA. 321 Length 323 8-bit unsigned integer indicating the length of the option in 324 octets, excluding the type and length fields. 326 Interface Access-Technology Type (If-ATT) 328 This 8-bit field identifies the Access-Technology type of the 329 interface through which the mobile node is connected. The 330 permitted values for this are from the Access Technology Type 331 registry defined in [RFC5213]. 333 Interface Label (If-Label) 335 This 8-bit field represents the interface label represented as an 336 unsigned integer. The MAG identifies the label for each of the 337 interfaces through which it registers a pCoA with the LMA. When 338 using static traffic flow policies on the mobile node and the home 339 agent, the label can be used for generating forwarding policies. 340 For example, the operator may have policy which binds traffic for 341 Application "X" needs to interface with Label "Y". When a 342 registration through an interface matching Label "Y" gets 343 activated, the home agent and the mobile node can dynamically 344 generate a forwarding policy for forwarding traffic for 345 Application "X" through mobile IP tunnel matching Label "Y". Both 346 the home agent and the mobile node can route the Application-X 347 traffic through that interface. The permitted values for If-Label 348 are 1 through 255. 350 Binding-Identifier (BID) 352 This 8-bit field is used for carrying the binding identifier. It 353 uniquely identifies a specific binding of the mobile node, to 354 which this request can be associated. Each binding identifier is 355 represented as an unsigned integer. The permitted values are 1 356 through 254. The BID value of 0 and 255 are reserved. The mobile 357 access gateway assigns a unique value for each of its interfaces 358 and includes them in the message. 360 Bulk Re-registration Flag (B) 362 This flag, if set to a value of (1), is to notify the local 363 mobility anchor to consider this request as a request to update 364 the binding lifetime of all the mobile node's bindings, upon 365 accepting this specific request. This flag MUST NOT be set to a 366 value of (1), if the value of the Registration Overwrite Flag (O) 367 is set to a value of (1). 369 Binding Overwrite (O) 371 This flag, if set to a value of (1), notifies the local mobility 372 anchor that upon accepting this request, it should replace all of 373 the mobile node's existing bindings with this binding. This flag 374 MUST NOT be set to a value of (1), if the value of the Bulk Re- 375 registration Flag (B) is set to a value of (1). This flag MUST be 376 set to a value of (0), in de-registration requests. 378 Reserved 380 This field is unused in this specification. The value MUST be set 381 to zero (0) by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver. 383 4.2. MAG Identifier Option 385 The MAG Identifier option is a new mobility header option defined for 386 use with Proxy Binding Update and Proxy Binding Acknowledgement 387 messages exchanged between the local mobility anchor and the mobile 388 access gateway. This mobility header option is used for conveying 389 the MAG's identity. 391 This option does not have any alignment requirements. 393 0 1 2 3 394 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 1 395 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 396 | Type | Length | Subtype | Reserved | 397 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 398 | Identifier ... ~ 399 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 401 Figure 4: MAG Identifier Option 403 Type 405 To be assigned by IANA. 407 Length 409 8-bit unsigned integer indicating the length of the option in 410 octets, excluding the type and length fields. 412 Subtype 414 One byte unsigned integer used for identifying the type of the 415 Identifier field. Accepted values for this field are the 416 registered type values from the Mobile Node Identifier Option 417 Subtypes registry. 419 Reserved 421 This field is unused in this specification. The value MUST be set 422 to zero (0) by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver. 424 Identifier 426 A variable length identifier of type indicated in the Subtype 427 field. 429 4.3. New Status Code for Proxy Binding Acknowledgement 431 This document defines the following new Status Code value for use in 432 Proxy Binding Acknowledgement message. 434 CANNOT_SUPPORT_MULTIPATH_BINDING (Cannot Support Multipath Binding): 435 437 5. IANA Considerations 439 This document requires the following IANA actions. 441 o Action-1: This specification defines a new mobility option, the 442 MAG Multipath-Binding option. The format of this option is 443 described in Section 4.1. The type value for this 444 mobility option needs to be allocated from the Mobility Options 445 registry at . 446 RFC Editor: Please replace in Section 4.1 with the 447 assigned value and update this section accordingly. 449 o Action-2: This specification defines a new mobility option, the 450 MAG Identifier option. The format of this option is described in 451 Section 4.2. The type value for this mobility option 452 needs to be allocated from the Mobility Options registry at 453 . RFC 454 Editor: Please replace in Section 4.2 with the assigned 455 value and update this section accordingly. 457 o Action-3: This document defines a new status value, 458 CANNOT_SUPPORT_MULTIPATH_BINDING () for use in Proxy 459 Binding Acknowledgement message, as described in Section 4.3. 460 This value is to be assigned from the "Status Codes" registry at 461 . The 462 allocated value has to be greater than 127. RFC Editor: Please 463 replace in Section 4.3 with the assigned value and update 464 this section accordingly. 466 6. Security Considerations 468 This specification allows a mobile access gateway to establish 469 multiple Proxy Mobile IPv6 tunnels with a local mobility anchor, by 470 registering a care-of address for each of its connected access 471 networks. This essentially allows the mobile node's IP traffic to be 472 routed through any of the tunnel paths and either based on a static 473 or a dynamically negotiated flow policy. This new capability has no 474 impact on the protocol security. Furthermore, this specification 475 defines two new mobility header options, MAG Multipath-Binding option 476 and the MAG Identifier option. These options are carried like any 477 other mobility header option as specified in [RFC5213]. Therefore, 478 it inherits security guidelines from [RFC5213]. Thus, this 479 specification does not weaken the security of Proxy Mobile IPv6 480 Protocol, and does not introduce any new security vulnerabilities. 482 7. Acknowledgements 484 The authors of this draft would like to acknowledge the discussions 485 and feedback on this topic from the members of the DMM working group. 486 The authors would also like to thank Jouni Korhonen, Jong Hyouk Lee, 487 Dirk Von-Hugo, Seil Jeon and Carlos Bernardos for their review 488 feedback. 490 8. References 492 8.1. Normative References 494 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 495 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/ 496 RFC2119, March 1997, 497 . 499 [RFC3963] Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., and P. 500 Thubert, "Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol", 501 RFC 3963, DOI 10.17487/RFC3963, January 2005, 502 . 504 [RFC5094] Devarapalli, V., Patel, A., and K. Leung, "Mobile IPv6 505 Vendor Specific Option", RFC 5094, DOI 10.17487/RFC5094, 506 December 2007, . 508 [RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., Ed., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V., 509 Chowdhury, K., and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6", 510 RFC 5213, DOI 10.17487/RFC5213, August 2008, 511 . 513 [RFC5648] Wakikawa, R., Ed., Devarapalli, V., Tsirtsis, G., Ernst, 514 T., and K. Nagami, "Multiple Care-of Addresses 515 Registration", RFC 5648, DOI 10.17487/RFC5648, 516 October 2009, . 518 [RFC5844] Wakikawa, R. and S. Gundavelli, "IPv4 Support for Proxy 519 Mobile IPv6", RFC 5844, DOI 10.17487/RFC5844, May 2010, 520 . 522 [RFC5845] Muhanna, A., Khalil, M., Gundavelli, S., and K. Leung, 523 "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) Key Option for Proxy 524 Mobile IPv6", RFC 5845, DOI 10.17487/RFC5845, June 2010, 525 . 527 [RFC6088] Tsirtsis, G., Giarreta, G., Soliman, H., and N. Montavont, 528 "Traffic Selectors for Flow Bindings", RFC 6088, 529 DOI 10.17487/RFC6088, January 2011, 530 . 532 [RFC6089] Tsirtsis, G., Soliman, H., Montavont, N., Giaretta, G., 533 and K. Kuladinithi, "Flow Bindings in Mobile IPv6 and 534 Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support", RFC 6089, 535 DOI 10.17487/RFC6089, January 2011, 536 . 538 [RFC6275] Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility 539 Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, DOI 10.17487/RFC6275, 540 July 2011, . 542 [RFC7148] Zhou, X., Korhonen, J., Williams, C., Gundavelli, S., and 543 CJ. Bernardos, "Prefix Delegation Support for Proxy Mobile 544 IPv6", RFC 7148, DOI 10.17487/RFC7148, March 2014, 545 . 547 8.2. Informative References 549 [RFC2473] Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Generic Packet Tunneling in 550 IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, DOI 10.17487/RFC2473, 551 December 1998, . 553 [RFC4213] Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms 554 for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213, DOI 10.17487/ 555 RFC4213, October 2005, 556 . 558 [RFC4908] Nagami, K., Uda, S., Ogashiwa, N., Esaki, H., Wakikawa, 559 R., and H. Ohnishi, "Multi-homing for small scale fixed 560 network Using Mobile IP and NEMO", RFC 4908, DOI 10.17487/ 561 RFC4908, June 2007, 562 . 564 Authors' Addresses 566 Pierrick Seite 567 Orange 568 4, rue du Clos Courtel, BP 91226 569 Cesson-Sevigne 35512 570 France 572 Email: pierrick.seite@orange.com 574 Alper Yegin 575 Actility 576 Turkey 578 Email: alper.yegin@actility.com 579 Sri Gundavelli 580 Cisco 581 170 West Tasman Drive 582 San Jose, CA 95134 583 USA 585 Email: sgundave@cisco.com