idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-dmm-mag-multihoming-04.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 (June 30, 2017) is 2486 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: January 1, 2018 Actility 6 S. Gundavelli 7 Cisco 8 June 30, 2017 10 MAG Multipath Binding Option 11 draft-ietf-dmm-mag-multihoming-04.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 January 1, 2018. 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 69 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 70 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 71 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 72 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 73 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 74 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 76 1. Introduction 78 Multihoming support on IP hosts can greatly improve the user 79 experience. With the simultaneoous use of multiple access networks, 80 multihoming brings better network connectivity, reliability and 81 improved quality of communication. Following are some of the goals 82 and benefits of multihoming support: 84 o Redundancy/Fault-Recovery 86 o Load balancing 88 o Load sharing 90 o Preferences settings 92 According to [RFC4908], users of Small-Scale Networks can take 93 benefit of multihoming using mobile IP [RFC6275] and Network Mobility 94 (NEMO) [RFC3963] architecture in a mobile and fixed networking 95 environment. This document is introducing the concept of multiple 96 Care-of Addresses (CoAs) [RFC5648] that have been specified since 97 then. 99 The motivation for this work is to extend Proxy Mobile IPv6 protocol 100 with multihoming extensions [RFC4908] for realizing the following 101 capabilities: 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 LMA, 339 the label can be used for generating forwarding rules. For 340 example, the operator may have policy which binds traffic for 341 Application "X" to an interface with Label "Y". When a 342 registration through an interface matching Label "Y" gets 343 activated, the LMA and the mobile node can dynamically generate a 344 forwarding policy for forwarding traffic for Application "X" 345 through the tunnel matching Label "Y". Both the LMA and the 346 mobile node can route the Application-X traffic through that 347 interface. The permitted values for If-Label are 1 through 255. 349 Binding-Identifier (BID) 350 This 8-bit field is used for carrying the binding identifier. It 351 uniquely identifies a specific binding of the mobile node, to 352 which this request can be associated. Each binding identifier is 353 represented as an unsigned integer. The permitted values are 1 354 through 254. The BID value of 0 and 255 are reserved. The mobile 355 access gateway assigns a unique value for each of its interfaces 356 and includes them in the message. 358 Bulk Re-registration Flag (B) 360 This flag, if set to a value of (1), is to notify the local 361 mobility anchor to consider this request as a request to update 362 the binding lifetime of all the mobile node's bindings, upon 363 accepting this specific request. This flag MUST NOT be set to a 364 value of (1), if the value of the Registration Overwrite Flag (O) 365 is set to a value of (1). 367 Binding Overwrite (O) 369 This flag, if set to a value of (1), notifies the local mobility 370 anchor that upon accepting this request, it should replace all of 371 the mobile node's existing bindings with this binding. This flag 372 MUST NOT be set to a value of (1), if the value of the Bulk Re- 373 registration Flag (B) is set to a value of (1). This flag MUST be 374 set to a value of (0), in de-registration requests. 376 Reserved 378 This field is unused in this specification. The value MUST be set 379 to zero (0) by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver. 381 4.2. MAG Identifier Option 383 The MAG Identifier option is a new mobility header option defined for 384 use with Proxy Binding Update and Proxy Binding Acknowledgement 385 messages exchanged between the local mobility anchor and the mobile 386 access gateway. This mobility header option is used for conveying 387 the MAG's identity. 389 This option does not have any alignment requirements. 391 0 1 2 3 392 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 1 393 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 394 | Type | Length | Subtype | Reserved | 395 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 396 | Identifier ... ~ 397 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 399 Figure 4: MAG Identifier Option 401 Type 403 To be assigned by IANA. 405 Length 407 8-bit unsigned integer indicating the length of the option in 408 octets, excluding the type and length fields. 410 Subtype 412 One byte unsigned integer used for identifying the type of the 413 Identifier field. Accepted values for this field are the 414 registered type values from the Mobile Node Identifier Option 415 Subtypes registry. 417 Reserved 419 This field is unused in this specification. The value MUST be set 420 to zero (0) by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver. 422 Identifier 424 A variable length identifier of type indicated in the Subtype 425 field. 427 4.3. New Status Code for Proxy Binding Acknowledgement 429 This document defines the following new Status Code value for use in 430 Proxy Binding Acknowledgement message. 432 The LMA SHOULD use this error code when rejecting a Proxy Binding 433 Update message from a MAG requesting a multipath binding. Following 434 is the potential reason for rejecting the request: 436 o The LMA does not support multipath binding. 438 CANNOT_SUPPORT_MULTIPATH_BINDING (Cannot Support Multipath Binding): 440 442 5. IANA Considerations 444 This document requires the following IANA actions. 446 o Action-1: This specification defines a new mobility option, the 447 MAG Multipath-Binding option. The format of this option is 448 described in Section 4.1. The type value for this 449 mobility option needs to be allocated from the Mobility Options 450 registry at . 451 RFC Editor: Please replace in Section 4.1 with the 452 assigned value and update this section accordingly. 454 o Action-2: This specification defines a new mobility option, the 455 MAG Identifier option. The format of this option is described in 456 Section 4.2. The type value for this mobility option 457 needs to be allocated from the Mobility Options registry at 458 . RFC 459 Editor: Please replace in Section 4.2 with the assigned 460 value and update this section accordingly. 462 o Action-3: This document defines a new status value, 463 CANNOT_SUPPORT_MULTIPATH_BINDING () for use in Proxy 464 Binding Acknowledgement message, as described in Section 4.3. 465 This value is to be assigned from the "Status Codes" registry at 466 . The 467 allocated value has to be greater than 127. RFC Editor: Please 468 replace in Section 4.3 with the assigned value and update 469 this section accordingly. 471 6. Security Considerations 473 This specification allows a mobile access gateway to establish 474 multiple Proxy Mobile IPv6 tunnels with a local mobility anchor, by 475 registering a care-of address for each of its connected access 476 networks. This essentially allows the mobile node's IP traffic to be 477 routed through any of the tunnel paths based on the negotiated flow 478 policy. This new capability has no impact on the protocol security. 479 Furthermore, this specification defines two new mobility header 480 options, MAG Multipath-Binding option and the MAG Identifier option. 481 These options are carried like any other mobility header option as 482 specified in [RFC5213]. Therefore, it inherits security guidelines 483 from [RFC5213]. Thus, this specification does not weaken the 484 security of Proxy Mobile IPv6 Protocol, and does not introduce any 485 new security vulnerabilities. 487 7. Acknowledgements 489 The authors of this draft would like to acknowledge the discussions 490 and feedback on this topic from the members of the DMM working group. 491 The authors would also like to thank Jouni Korhonen, Jong Hyouk Lee, 492 Dirk Von-Hugo, Seil Jeon, Carlos Bernardos and Robert Sparks for 493 their review feedback. 495 8. References 497 8.1. Normative References 499 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 500 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/ 501 RFC2119, March 1997, 502 . 504 [RFC3963] Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., and P. 505 Thubert, "Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol", 506 RFC 3963, DOI 10.17487/RFC3963, January 2005, 507 . 509 [RFC5094] Devarapalli, V., Patel, A., and K. Leung, "Mobile IPv6 510 Vendor Specific Option", RFC 5094, DOI 10.17487/RFC5094, 511 December 2007, . 513 [RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., Ed., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V., 514 Chowdhury, K., and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6", 515 RFC 5213, DOI 10.17487/RFC5213, August 2008, 516 . 518 [RFC5648] Wakikawa, R., Ed., Devarapalli, V., Tsirtsis, G., Ernst, 519 T., and K. Nagami, "Multiple Care-of Addresses 520 Registration", RFC 5648, DOI 10.17487/RFC5648, 521 October 2009, . 523 [RFC5844] Wakikawa, R. and S. Gundavelli, "IPv4 Support for Proxy 524 Mobile IPv6", RFC 5844, DOI 10.17487/RFC5844, May 2010, 525 . 527 [RFC5845] Muhanna, A., Khalil, M., Gundavelli, S., and K. Leung, 528 "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) Key Option for Proxy 529 Mobile IPv6", RFC 5845, DOI 10.17487/RFC5845, June 2010, 530 . 532 [RFC6088] Tsirtsis, G., Giarreta, G., Soliman, H., and N. Montavont, 533 "Traffic Selectors for Flow Bindings", RFC 6088, 534 DOI 10.17487/RFC6088, January 2011, 535 . 537 [RFC6089] Tsirtsis, G., Soliman, H., Montavont, N., Giaretta, G., 538 and K. Kuladinithi, "Flow Bindings in Mobile IPv6 and 539 Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support", RFC 6089, 540 DOI 10.17487/RFC6089, January 2011, 541 . 543 [RFC6275] Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility 544 Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, DOI 10.17487/RFC6275, 545 July 2011, . 547 [RFC7148] Zhou, X., Korhonen, J., Williams, C., Gundavelli, S., and 548 CJ. Bernardos, "Prefix Delegation Support for Proxy Mobile 549 IPv6", RFC 7148, DOI 10.17487/RFC7148, March 2014, 550 . 552 8.2. Informative References 554 [RFC2473] Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Generic Packet Tunneling in 555 IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, DOI 10.17487/RFC2473, 556 December 1998, . 558 [RFC4213] Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms 559 for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213, DOI 10.17487/ 560 RFC4213, October 2005, 561 . 563 [RFC4908] Nagami, K., Uda, S., Ogashiwa, N., Esaki, H., Wakikawa, 564 R., and H. Ohnishi, "Multi-homing for small scale fixed 565 network Using Mobile IP and NEMO", RFC 4908, DOI 10.17487/ 566 RFC4908, June 2007, 567 . 569 Authors' Addresses 571 Pierrick Seite 572 Orange 573 4, rue du Clos Courtel, BP 91226 574 Cesson-Sevigne 35512 575 France 577 Email: pierrick.seite@orange.com 578 Alper Yegin 579 Actility 580 Turkey 582 Email: alper.yegin@actility.com 584 Sri Gundavelli 585 Cisco 586 170 West Tasman Drive 587 San Jose, CA 95134 588 USA 590 Email: sgundave@cisco.com