idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-10.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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** There are 3 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 4 characters in excess of 72. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords, yet seems to have RFC 2119 boilerplate text. -- The document date (January 29, 2017) is 2642 days in the past. Is this intentional? -- Found something which looks like a code comment -- if you have code sections in the document, please surround them with '' and '' lines. Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Outdated reference: A later version (-07) exists of draft-sijeon-dmm-use-cases-api-source-05 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 6824 (Obsoleted by RFC 8684) Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 3 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 DMM Working Group A. Yegin 3 Internet-Draft Actility 4 Intended status: Informational D. Moses 5 Expires: August 2, 2017 Intel 6 K. Kweon 7 J. Lee 8 J. Park 9 Samsung 10 S. Jeon 11 Sungkyunkwan University 12 January 29, 2017 14 On Demand Mobility Management 15 draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-10 17 Abstract 19 Applications differ with respect to whether they need IP session 20 continuity and/or IP address reachability. The network providing the 21 same type of service to any mobile host and any application running 22 on the host yields inefficiencies. This document describes a 23 solution for taking the application needs into account in selectively 24 providing IP session continuity and IP address reachability on a per- 25 socket basis. 27 Status of This Memo 29 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 30 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 32 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 33 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 34 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 35 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 37 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 38 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 39 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 40 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 42 This Internet-Draft will expire on August 2, 2017. 44 Copyright Notice 46 Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 47 document authors. All rights reserved. 49 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 50 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 51 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 52 publication of this document. Please review these documents 53 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 54 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 55 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 56 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 57 described in the Simplified BSD License. 59 Table of Contents 61 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 62 2. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 63 3. Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 64 3.1. Types of IP Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 65 3.2. Granularity of Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 66 3.3. On Demand Nature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 67 3.4. Conveying the Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 68 4. Usage example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 69 5. Backwards Compatibility Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . 10 70 5.1. Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 71 5.2. IP Stack in the Mobile Host . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 72 5.3. Network Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 73 6. Summary of New Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 74 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 75 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 76 9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 77 10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 78 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 79 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 80 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 81 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 83 1. Introduction 85 In the context of Mobile IP [RFC5563][RFC6275][RFC5213][RFC5944], 86 following two attributes are defined for the IP service provided to 87 the mobile hosts: 89 IP session continuity: The ability to maintain an ongoing IP session 90 by keeping the same local end-point IP address throughout the session 91 despite the mobile host changing its point of attachment within the 92 IP network topology. The IP address of the host may change between 93 two independent IP sessions, but that does not jeopardize the IP 94 session continuity. IP session continuity is essential for mobile 95 hosts to maintain ongoing flows without any interruption. 97 IP address reachability: The ability to maintain the same IP address 98 for an extended period of time. The IP address stays the same across 99 independent IP sessions, and even in the absence of any IP session. 100 The IP address may be published in a long-term registry (e.g., DNS), 101 and it is made available for serving incoming (e.g., TCP) 102 connections. IP address reachability is essential for mobile hosts 103 to use specific/published IP addresses. 105 Mobile IP is designed to provide both IP session continuity and IP 106 address reachability to mobile hosts. Architectures utilizing these 107 protocols (e.g., 3GPP, 3GPP2, WIMAX) ensure that any mobile host 108 attached to the compliant networks can enjoy these benefits. Any 109 application running on these mobile hosts is subjected to the same 110 treatment with respect to the IP session continuity and IP address 111 reachability. 113 It should be noted that in reality not every application may need 114 those benefits. IP address reachability is required for applications 115 running as servers (e.g., a web server running on the mobile host). 116 But, a typical client application (e.g., web browser) does not 117 necessarily require IP address reachability. Similarly, IP session 118 continuity is not required for all types of applications either. 119 Applications performing brief communication (e.g., DNS client) can 120 survive without having IP session continuity support. 122 Achieving IP session continuity and IP address reachability by using 123 Mobile IP incurs some cost. Mobile IP protocol forces the mobile 124 host's IP traffic to traverse a centrally-located router (Home Agent, 125 HA), which incurs additional transmission latency and use of 126 additional network resources, adds to the network CAPEX and OPEX, and 127 decreases the reliability of the network due to the introduction of a 128 single point of failure [RFC7333]. Therefore, IP session continuity 129 and IP address reachability should be be provided only when needed. 131 Furthermore, when an application needs session continuity, it may be 132 able to satisfy that need by using a solution above the IP layer, 133 such as MPTCP [RFC6824], SIP mobility [RFC3261], or an application- 134 layer mobility solution. Those higher-layer solutions are not 135 subject to the same issues that arise with the use of Mobile IP since 136 they can utilize the most direct data path between the end-points. 137 But, if Mobile IP is being applied to the mobile host, those higher- 138 layer protocols are rendered useless because their operation is 139 inhibited by the Mobile IP. Since Mobile IP ensures that the IP 140 address of the mobile host remains fixed (despite the location and 141 movement of the mobile host), the higher-layer protocols never detect 142 the IP-layer change and never engage in mobility management. 144 This document proposes a solution for the applications running on the 145 mobile host to indicate whether they need IP session continuity or IP 146 address reachability. The network protocol stack on the mobile host, 147 in conjunction with the network infrastructure, would provide the 148 required type of IP service. It is for the benefit of both the users 149 and the network operators not to engage an extra level of service 150 unless it is absolutely necessary. So it is expected that 151 applications and networks compliant with this specification would 152 utilize this solution to use network resources more efficiently. 154 2. Notational Conventions 156 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 157 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 158 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 160 3. Solution 162 3.1. Types of IP Addresses 164 Three types of IP addresses are defined with respect to the mobility 165 management. 167 - Fixed IP Address 169 A Fixed IP address is an address with a guarantee to be valid for a 170 very long time, regardless of whether it is being used in any packet 171 to/from the mobile host, or whether or not the mobile host is 172 connected to the network, or whether it moves from one point-of- 173 attachment to another (with a different subnet or IP prefix) while it 174 is connected. 176 Fixed IP addresses are required by applications that need both IP 177 session continuity and IP address reachability. 179 - Session-lasting IP Address 181 A session-lasting IP address is an address with a guarantee to be 182 valid throughout the IP session(s) for which it was requested. It is 183 guaranteed to be valid even after the mobile host had moved from one 184 point-of-attachment to another (with a different subnet or IP 185 prefix). 187 Session-lasting IP addresses are required by applications that need 188 IP session continuity but do not need IP address reachability. 190 - Non-persistent IP Address 191 This type of IP address provides neither IP session continuity nor IP 192 address reachability. The IP address is obtained from the serving IP 193 gateway and it is not maintained across gateway changes. In other 194 words, the IP address may be released and replaced by a new IP 195 address when the IP gateway changes due to the movement of the mobile 196 host. 198 Applications running as servers at a published IP address require a 199 Fixed IP Address. Long-standing applications (e.g., an SSH session) 200 may also require this type of address. Enterprise applications that 201 connect to an enterprise network via virtual LAN require a Fixed IP 202 Address. 204 Applications with short-lived transient IP sessions can use Session- 205 lasting IP Addresses. For example: Web browsers. 207 Applications with very short IP sessions, such as DNS clients and 208 instant messengers, can utilize Non-persistent IP Addresses. Even 209 though they could very well use Fixed or Session-lasting IP 210 Addresses, the transmission latency would be minimized when a Non- 211 persistent IP Addresses are used. 213 The network creates the desired guarantee (Fixed, Session-lasting or 214 Non-persistent) by either assigning the address prefix (as part of a 215 stateless address generation process), or by assigning an IP address 216 (as part of a stateful IP address generation). 218 The exact mechanism of prefix or address assignment is outside the 219 scope of this specification. 221 3.2. Granularity of Selection 223 The IP address type selection is made on a per-socket granularity. 224 Different parts of the same application may have different needs. 225 For example, control-plane of an application may require a Fixed IP 226 Address in order to stay reachable, whereas data-plane of the same 227 application may be satisfied with a Session-lasting IP Address. 229 3.3. On Demand Nature 231 At any point in time, a mobile host may have a combination of IP 232 addresses configured. Zero or more Non-persistent, zero or more 233 Session-lasting, and zero or more Fixed IP addresses may be 234 configured on the IP stack of the host. The combination may be as a 235 result of the host policy, application demand, or a mix of the two. 237 When an application requires a specific type of IP address and such 238 address is not already configured on the host, the IP stack shall 239 attempt to configure one. For example, a host may not always have a 240 Session-lasting IP address available. When an application requests 241 one, the IP stack shall make an attempt to configure one by issuing a 242 request to the network (see section Section 3.4 for more details). 243 If the operation fails, the IP stack shall fail the associated socket 244 request. If successful, a Session-lasting IP Address gets configured 245 on the mobile host. If another socket requests a Session-lasting IP 246 address at a later time, the same IP address may be served to that 247 socket as well. When the last socket using the same configured IP 248 address is closed, the IP address may be released or kept for future 249 applications that may be launched and require a Session-lasting IP 250 address. 252 In some cases it might be preferable for the mobile host to request a 253 new Session-lasting IP address for a new opening of an IP session 254 (even though one was already assigned to the mobile host by the 255 network and might be in use in a different, already active IP 256 session). It is outside the scope of this specification to define 257 criteria for selecting to use available addresses or choose to 258 request new ones. It supports both alternatives (and any 259 combination). 261 It is outside the scope of this specification to define how the host 262 requests a specific type of address (Fixed, Session-lasting or Non- 263 persistent) and how the network indicates the type of address in its 264 advertisement of IP prefixes or addresses (or in its reply to a 265 request). 267 The following are matters of policy, which may be dictated by the 268 host itself, the network operator, or the system architecture 269 standard: 271 - The initial set of IP addresses configured on the host at boot 272 time. 274 - Permission to grant various types of IP addresses to a requesting 275 application. 277 - Determination of a default address type when an application does 278 not make any explicit indication, whether it already supports the 279 required API or it is just a legacy application. 281 3.4. Conveying the Selection 283 The selection of the address type is conveyed from the applications 284 to the IP stack in order to influence the source address selection 285 algorithm [RFC6724]. 287 The current source address selection algorithm operates on the 288 available set of IP addresses, when selecting an address. According 289 to the proposed solution, if the requested IP address type is not 290 available at the time of the request, the IP stack shall make an 291 attempt to configure one such IP address. The selected IP address 292 shall be compliant with the requested IP address type, whether it is 293 selected among available addresses or dynamically configured. In the 294 absence of a matching type (because it is not available and not 295 configurable on demand), the source address selection algorithm shall 296 return an empty set. 298 A Socket API-based interface for enabling applications to influence 299 the source address selection algorithm is described in [RFC5014]. 300 That specification defines IPV6_ADDR_PREFERENCES option at the 301 IPPROTO_IPV6 level. That option can be used with setsockopt() and 302 getsockopt() calls to set and get address selection preferences. 304 Furthermore, that RFC also specifies two flags that relate to IP 305 mobility management: IPV6_PREFER_SRC_HOME and IPV6_PREFER_SRC_COA. 306 These flags are used for influencing the source address selection to 307 prefer either a Home Address or a Care-of Address. 309 Unfortunately, these flags do not satisfy the aforementioned needs 310 due to the following reasons: 312 - Current flags indicate a "preference" whereas there is a need for 313 indicating "requirement". Source address selection algorithm does 314 not have to produce an IP address compliant with the "preference" , 315 but it has to produce an IP address compliant with the "requirement". 317 - Current flags influence the selection made among available IP 318 addresses. The new flags force the IP stack to configure a compliant 319 IP address if none is available at the time of the request. 321 - The Home vs. Care-of Address distinction is not sufficient to 322 capture the three different types of IP addresses described in 323 Section 2.1. 325 The following new flags are defined in this document and they shall 326 be used with Socket API in compliance with [RFC5014]: 328 IPV6_REQUIRE_FIXED_IP /* Require a Fixed IP address as source */ 330 IPV6_REQUIRE_SESSION_LASTING_IP /* Require a Session-lasting IP 331 address as source */ 333 IPV6_REQUIRE_NON_PERSISTENT_IP /* Require a Non-persistent IP address 334 as source */ 335 Only one of these flags may be set on the same socket. If an 336 application attempts to set more than one flag, the most recent 337 setting will be the one in effect. 339 When any of these new flags is used, the IPV6_PREFER_SRC_HOME and 340 IPV6_PREFER_SRC_COA flags, if used, shall be ignored. 342 These new flags are used with setsockopt()/getsockopt(), 343 getaddrinfo(), and inet6_is_srcaddr() functions [RFC5014]. Similar 344 to the setsockopt()/getsockopt() calls, the getaddrinfo() call shall 345 also trigger configuration of the required IP address type, if one is 346 not already available. When the new flags are used with 347 getaddrinfo() and the triggered configuration fails, the 348 getaddrinfo() call shall ignore that failure (i.e., not return an 349 error code to indicate that failure). Only the setsockopt() shall 350 return an error when configuration of the requested IP address type 351 fails. 353 When the IP stack is required to use a source IP address of a 354 specified type, it can perform one of the following: It can use an 355 existing address (if it has one), or it can create a new one from an 356 existing prefix of the desired type. If the host does not already 357 have an IPv6 prefix of the specific type, it can request one from the 358 network. 360 Using an existing address from an existing prefix is faster but might 361 yield a less optimal route (if a hand-off event occurred since its 362 configuration), on the other hand, acquiring a new IP prefix from the 363 network may take some time (due to signaling exchange with the 364 network) and may fail due to network policies. 366 An additional new flag - ON_NET flag - enables the application to 367 direct the IP stack whether to use a preconfigured source IP address 368 (if exists) or to request a new IPv6 prefix from the current serving 369 network and configure a new IP address: 371 IPV6_REQUIRE_SRC_ON_NET /* Set IP stack address allocation behavior 372 */ 374 If set, the IP stack will request a new IPv6 prefix of the desired 375 type from the current serving network and configure a new source IP 376 address. If reset, the IP stack will use a preconfigured one if 377 exists. If there is no preconfigured IP address of the desired type, 378 the IP stack will request a IPv6 prefix from the current serving 379 network (regardless of whether this flag is set or not). 381 The ON_NET flag must be used together with one of the 3 flags defined 382 above. If ON_NET flag is used without any of these flags, it must be 383 ignored. If the ON_NET flag is not used, the IP stack is free to 384 either use an existing IP address (if preconfigured) or access the 385 network to configure a new one (the decision is left to 386 implementation). 388 The following new error codes are also defined in the document and 389 will be used in the Socket API in compliance with [RFC5014]. 391 EAI_REQUIREDIPNOTSUPPORTED /* The network does not support the 392 ability to request that specific IP address type */ 394 EAI_REQUIREDIPFAILED /* The network could not assign that specific IP 395 address type */ 397 4. Usage example 399 The following example shows the code for creating a Stream socket 400 (TCP) with a Session-Lasting source IP address: 402 #include 403 #include 405 int s ; // Socket id 406 sockaddr_in6 serverAddress ; // server info for connect() 407 uint32_t flags = IPV6_REQUIRE_SESSION_LASTING_IP ; 408 // For requesting a Session-Lasting 409 // source IP address 411 // Create an IPv6 TCP socket 412 s = socket(AF_INET6, SOCK_STREAM, 0) ; 413 if (s!=0) { 414 // Handle socket creation error 415 // ... 416 } // if socket creation failed 417 else { 419 // Socket creation is successful 420 // The application cannot connect yet, since it wants to use a 421 // Session-Lasting source IP address It needs to request the 422 // Session-Lasting source IP before connecting 423 if (setsockopt(s, 424 IPPROTO_IPV6, 425 IPV6_ADDR_PREFERENCE, 426 (void *) flags, 427 sizeof(flags)) == 0){ 429 // setting session continuity to Session Lasting is successful 430 // The application can connect to the server 432 // Set the desired server's port# and IP address 433 serverAddress.sin6_port = serverPort ; 434 serverAddress.sin6_addr = serverIpAddress ; 436 // Connect to the server 437 if (connect(s, &serverAddress, sizeof(serverAddress))==0) { 438 // connect successful (3-way handshake has been completed 439 // with Session-Lasting source address. 440 // Continue application functionality 441 // ... 442 } // if connect() is successful 443 else { 444 // connect failed 445 // ... 446 // Application code that handles connect failure and closes 447 // the socket 448 // ... 449 } // if connect() failed 451 } // if the request of a Session-Lasting source address was successful 452 else { 453 // application code that does not use Session-lasting IP address 454 // The application may either connect without the desired 455 // Session-lasting service, or close the socket 456 //... 457 } // if the socket was successfully created but a Session-Lasting source 458 // address was not provided 459 } // if socket was created successfully 461 // The rest of the application's code 462 // .. 464 5. Backwards Compatibility Considerations 466 Backwards compatibility support is required by the following 3 types 467 of entities: 469 - The Applications on the mobile host 471 - The IP stack in the mobile host 473 - The network infrastructure 475 5.1. Applications 477 Legacy applications that do not support the new flags will use the 478 legacy API to the IP stack and will not enjoy On-Demand Mobility 479 feature. 481 Applications using the new flags must be aware that they may be 482 executed in environments that do not support the On-Demand Mobility 483 feature. Such environments may include legacy IP stack in the mobile 484 host, legacy network infrastructure, or both. In either case, the 485 API will return an error code and the invoking applications must 486 respond with using legacy calls without the On-Demand Mobility 487 feature. 489 5.2. IP Stack in the Mobile Host 491 New IP stacks must continue to support all legacy operations. If an 492 application does not use On-Demand Mobility feature, the IP stack 493 must respond in a legacy manner. 495 If the network infrastructure supports On-Demand Mobility feature, 496 the IP stack should follow the application request: If the 497 application requests a specific address type, the stack should 498 forward this request to the network. If the application does not 499 request an address type, the IP stack must not request an address 500 type and leave it to the network's default behavior to choose the 501 type of the allocated IP prefix. If an IP prefix was already 502 allocated to the host, the IP stack uses it and may not request a new 503 one from the network. 505 5.3. Network Infrastructure 507 The network infrastructure may or may not support the On-Demand 508 Mobility feature. How the IP stack on the host and the network 509 infrastructure behave in case of a compatibility issue is outside the 510 scope of this API specification. 512 6. Summary of New Definitions 514 The following list summarizes the new constants definitions discussed 515 in this memo: 517 IPV6_REQUIRE_FIXED_IP 518 IPV6_REQUIRE_SESSION_LASTING_IP 519 IPV6_REQUIRE_NON_PERSISTENT_IP 520 IPV6_REQUIRE_SRC_ON_NET 521 EAI_REQUIREDIPNOTSUPPORTED 522 EAI_REQUIREDIPFAILED 524 IPV6_REQUIRE_FIXED_IP 525 IPV6_REQUIRE_SESSION_LASTING_IP 526 IPV6_REQUIRE_NON_PERSISTENT_IP 527 IPV6_REQUIRE_SRC_ON_NET 528 EAI_REQUIREDIPNOTSUPPORTED 529 EAI_REQUIREDIPFAILED 531 7. Security Considerations 533 The setting of certain IP address type on a given socket may be 534 restricted to privileged applications. For example, a Fixed IP 535 Address may be provided as a premium service and only certain 536 applications may be allowed to use them. Setting and enforcement of 537 such privileges are outside the scope of this document. 539 8. IANA Considerations 541 This document has no IANA considerations. 543 9. Contributors 545 This document was merged with [I-D.sijeon-dmm-use-cases-api-source]. 546 We would like to acknowledge the contribution of the following people 547 to that document as well: 549 Sergio Figueiredo 550 Altran Research, France 551 Email: sergio.figueiredo@altran.com 553 Younghan Kim 554 Soongsil University, Korea 555 Email: younghak@ssu.ac.kr 557 John Kaippallimalil 558 Huawei, USA 559 Email: john.kaippallimalil@huawei.com 561 10. Acknowledgements 563 We would like to thank Alexandru Petrescu, Jouni Korhonen, Sri 564 Gundavelli, Dave Dolson and Lorenzo Colitti for their valuable 565 comments and suggestions on this work. 567 11. References 569 11.1. Normative References 571 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 572 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 573 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 574 . 576 [RFC5014] Nordmark, E., Chakrabarti, S., and J. Laganier, "IPv6 577 Socket API for Source Address Selection", RFC 5014, 578 DOI 10.17487/RFC5014, September 2007, 579 . 581 [RFC6724] Thaler, D., Ed., Draves, R., Matsumoto, A., and T. Chown, 582 "Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol Version 6 583 (IPv6)", RFC 6724, DOI 10.17487/RFC6724, September 2012, 584 . 586 11.2. Informative References 588 [I-D.sijeon-dmm-use-cases-api-source] 589 Jeon, S., Figueiredo, S., Kim, Y., and J. Kaippallimalil, 590 "Use Cases and API Extension for Source IP Address 591 Selection", draft-sijeon-dmm-use-cases-api-source-05 (work 592 in progress), October 2016. 594 [RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, 595 A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. 596 Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, 597 DOI 10.17487/RFC3261, June 2002, 598 . 600 [RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., Ed., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V., 601 Chowdhury, K., and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6", 602 RFC 5213, DOI 10.17487/RFC5213, August 2008, 603 . 605 [RFC5563] Leung, K., Dommety, G., Yegani, P., and K. Chowdhury, 606 "WiMAX Forum / 3GPP2 Proxy Mobile IPv4", RFC 5563, 607 DOI 10.17487/RFC5563, February 2010, 608 . 610 [RFC5944] Perkins, C., Ed., "IP Mobility Support for IPv4, Revised", 611 RFC 5944, DOI 10.17487/RFC5944, November 2010, 612 . 614 [RFC6275] Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility 615 Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, DOI 10.17487/RFC6275, July 616 2011, . 618 [RFC6824] Ford, A., Raiciu, C., Handley, M., and O. Bonaventure, 619 "TCP Extensions for Multipath Operation with Multiple 620 Addresses", RFC 6824, DOI 10.17487/RFC6824, January 2013, 621 . 623 [RFC7333] Chan, H., Ed., Liu, D., Seite, P., Yokota, H., and J. 624 Korhonen, "Requirements for Distributed Mobility 625 Management", RFC 7333, DOI 10.17487/RFC7333, August 2014, 626 . 628 Authors' Addresses 630 Alper Yegin 631 Actility 632 Istanbul 633 Turkey 635 Email: alper.yegin@actility.com 637 Danny Moses 638 Intel Corporation 639 Petah Tikva 640 Israel 642 Email: danny.moses@intel.com 644 Kisuk Kweon 645 Samsung 646 Suwon 647 South Korea 649 Email: kisuk.kweon@samsung.com 650 Jinsung Lee 651 Samsung 652 Suwon 653 South Korea 655 Email: js81.lee@samsung.com 657 Jungshin Park 658 Samsung 659 Suwon 660 South Korea 662 Email: shin02.park@samsung.com 664 Seil Jeon 665 Sungkyunkwan University 666 Suwon 667 South Korea 669 Email: seiljeon@skku.edu