idnits 2.17.1 draft-ng-nemo-ce-req-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** It looks like you're using RFC 3978 boilerplate. You should update this to the boilerplate described in the IETF Trust License Policy document (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info), which is required now. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.1 on line 15. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5, updated by RFC 4748 on line 340. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 351. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 358. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 364. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (July 6, 2007) is 6132 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) ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 3753 (ref. '1') == Outdated reference: A later version (-06) exists of draft-ietf-nemo-terminology-05 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft: draft-ietf-nemo-terminology (ref. '2') == Outdated reference: A later version (-03) exists of draft-ietf-nemo-ro-space-analysis-02 == Outdated reference: A later version (-01) exists of draft-baldessari-c2ccc-nemo-req-00 == Outdated reference: A later version (-02) exists of draft-eddy-nemo-aero-reqs-00 Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 6 warnings (==), 7 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 NEMO Working Group C. Ng 3 Internet-Draft Panasonic Singapore Labs 4 Expires: January 7, 2008 July 6, 2007 6 Consumer Electronics Requirements for Network Mobility Route 7 Optimization 8 draft-ng-nemo-ce-req-00 10 Status of this Memo 12 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 13 applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 14 have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes 15 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 17 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 18 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 19 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 20 Drafts. 22 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 23 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 24 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 25 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 27 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 28 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 30 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 31 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 33 This Internet-Draft will expire on January 7, 2008. 35 Copyright Notice 37 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). 39 Abstract 41 This document illustrates different deployments of Network Mobility 42 (NEMO) from the consumer electronics perspective. From these 43 deployments, a set of requirements is deduced for Route Optimization 44 (RO) with NEMO. 46 Table of Contents 48 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 49 2. Deployments of Personal Mobile Router . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 50 2.1. Simple Personal Area Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 51 2.2. Personal Mobile Router in a Car . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 52 2.3. Residence Home Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 53 3. Consumer Electronics Requirements for Route Optimization . . . 7 54 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 55 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 56 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 57 6.1. Normative Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 58 6.2. Informative Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 59 Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 60 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 61 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 12 63 1. Introduction 65 Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support [3] allows a whole network to 66 change its point of attachment while maintaining reachability and 67 session continuity. [4] and [5] investigate the inefficiencies in 68 NEMO Basic Support, and analyze the solution space for Route 69 Optimization (RO) with NEMO from a technical perspective. 71 This document explores the different deployment scenarios of NEMO 72 from the perspective of consumer electronics. This mainly entails a 73 personal device, called the Personal Mobile Router, as the primary 74 node which a user utilizes to allow the user's other devices to 75 communicate with other nodes in the global Internet. This is 76 detailed in Section 2. From these deployments, a set of requirements 77 is inferred in Section 3. 79 It is expected for readers to be familiar with terminologies related 80 to mobility in [1] and NEMO related terms defined in [2]. Interested 81 readers may also refer to [6] and [7] for the requirements from the 82 automobile and aviation industries respectively. 84 2. Deployments of Personal Mobile Router 86 The Personal Mobile Router is generally envisaged as a mobile 87 communications device, most probably a cellular handphone, with 88 embedded router functionality so as to allow other personal devices 89 (such as MP3 Players, Digital Cameras) to access the global Internet. 90 In such a deployment, it is expected for the Personal Mobile Router 91 to provide all the routing capabilities of the personal area network. 92 This means that one would generally not expect devices (i.e. LFNs) 93 such as digital camera or music players to have routing capabilities. 94 In other words, LFNs are envisaged as simple IPv6 hosts. 96 However, it is possible for there to be a Local Mobile Node (MNN) in 97 the personal area network. For instance, a laptop or a WLAN-enabled 98 PDA can break off from the personal area network and connect to the 99 Internet on its own. Thus, the device becomes a MIPv6 host, with its 100 home address configured from the Mobile Network Prefix of the 101 personal area network. 103 This section illustrates three different deployment scenarios with 104 respect to the Personal Mobile Router. First is a simple personal 105 area network where NEMO services is provided by a service provider 106 (such as an telecommunications operator). Next is the deployment 107 where the Personal Mobile Router is docked within a car and serves as 108 an additional Mobile Router for the car network. The last scenario 109 is the case where the Personal Mobile Router obtains a network prefix 110 not directly from its Internet service providers. Instead, the 111 network prefix is allocated from the user's residence. 113 2.1. Simple Personal Area Network 115 The simplest deployment is when the Personal Mobile Router is simply 116 used to provide Internet access to other devices in a user's personal 117 area network. This is the case where the user subscribes to a 118 mobility service provider that allocates a network prefix for the 119 user's personal area network. One example of this is the 3GPP 120 Personal Network Management services [8]. 122 For this scenario, typical communications will be audio/video 123 streaming from a multimedia content server to the music/video player 124 in the user's personal area network. This is a case of 125 communications between a LFN with a CN in the global internet. 127 An alternative situation will be communications between devices from 128 two (or more) different personal area networks. For example, two 129 different users may engage in a game with their personal 130 entertainment devices (such as Nintendo or Play Station portables), 131 or share their audio files stored in their music players. This is a 132 case of communications between two LFNs from different NEMO. 134 2.2. Personal Mobile Router in a Car 136 A second scenario involving the Personal Mobile Router is when the 137 user docks the Personal Mobile Router into a car network. This 138 allows the communications devices in the vehicle to use the Personal 139 Mobile Router to access information from the Internet. It also 140 allows the personal devices in the personal area network to use the 141 Mobile Router in the vehicle network to communicate with 142 correspondent nodes on the Internet. In other words, the two mobile 143 networks (personal area network and vehicle network) merges to form a 144 multihomed network. 146 In such a merged network, the vehicle network devices and the 147 personal area network devices will continue to use their own original 148 network prefixes to communicate with external nodes. Hence, one way 149 to view this is to treat it as if the two Mobile Routers attaches to 150 each other, and uses each other as an additional access router. This 151 implies that the a communication between a MNN and a correspondent 152 node may go through two Mobile Routers (e.g. the communication from 153 the car navigation device to a traffic condition server passes 154 through first the Mobile Router of the car, and then the Personal 155 Mobile Router). Hence, this can be viewed as a case of a nested 156 NEMO. 158 2.3. Residence Home Network 160 This scenario is a special deployment as it differs from the usual 161 subscription model than is more commonly used. Basically, in this 162 scenario, the home network of the Personal Mobile Router (as far as 163 NEMO is concerned) is literally the "home" -- i.e. the residence of 164 the user. It is envisioned that the user deploys a residence-wide 165 network with a set-top box serving as the gateway. This set-top box 166 is connected to the Internet via broadband connection (cable or ADSL) 167 and obtains an IPv6 prefix from the ISP. Part of the IPv6 prefix 168 obtained is then assigned as the prefix for the user's personal are 169 network (i.e. the Mobile Network Prefix for the personal area 170 network). The set-top box is thus configured as the home agent of 171 the Personal Mobile Router. 173 Typically, the devices in the personal area network (i.e. LFNs) 174 would communicate mostly with other devices in the residence network 175 (e.g. personal video player accessing movie stored in a digital video 176 recorder in the residence). In such situation, route optimization is 177 redundant. However, there exist situations where multiple personal 178 area networks (each belonging to different family members) belong to 179 the same residence network. Devices from these different personal 180 area networks may communicate with each other often enough. In the 181 latter situation, it is a case of two MNNs from different NEMO 182 communicating with each other. 184 3. Consumer Electronics Requirements for Route Optimization 186 Not all communications involving personal area network require route 187 optimization. There are, however, two particular use cases where 188 route optimization is highly desirable. The first use case is when 189 devices in a personal area network are used for real time interactive 190 applications which are sensitive to round trip delays. Examples 191 include voice-over-IP communications and multiplayer gaming sessions. 192 This usually entails communications between two devices from two 193 different personal area network, as illustrated in Section 2.1 and 194 Section 2.3. In such cases, there might be two different home agents 195 involved (one for each NEMO), hence making the improvement in delay 196 reduction of route optimization more significant. The second use 197 case is when the home network is congested, or otherwise bandwidth- 198 limited. One example is the residence home network as described in 199 Section 2.3. Most broadband residence access are asymmetrical (i.e. 200 the uplink bandwidth is much smaller than the downlink bandwidth), 201 making it unsuitable for the home agent (e.g. set-top box) to forward 202 large amount of packets to Personal Mobile Routers. 204 Where route optimization is highly desirable, we can infer the 205 following requirements/features from the deployment scenarios 206 described in Section 2. 208 o LFNs should remain unmodified 210 Devices in the personal area network are envisaged as simple IPv6 211 node. The Personal Mobile Router is expected to provide route 212 optimization services for any consumer electronic devices that 213 connect to its personal area network. Thus, it is expected for 214 LFNs to be unmodified for route optimizations. 216 o Processing load of MR should be as low as possible 218 The Personal Mobile Router is a small mobile device (e.g. 219 handphone) that is limited in battery power. Hence, any route 220 optimization solution should not significantly increases the 221 processing load of the MR. 223 o MR-to-MR route optimization 225 As seen in Section 2, most of the communications we envisaged are 226 in the form of a MNN communicating with another MNN in different 227 personal area networks. As we do not expect MNNs to be involved 228 in route optimization signaling, a suitable route optimization 229 would likely be between the two MRs. 231 o Nested-NEMO route optimization 233 In Section 2.2, a scenario is illustrated where the Personal 234 Mobile Router is attaching to the car mobile router for Internet 235 access (and vice versa). If the car mobile router performs route 236 optimization for its network, then the Personal Mobile Router can 237 run a separate route optimization session to achieve fully- 238 optimized route. Alternatively, it is also possible for the 239 Personal Mobile Router to support some mechanism that achieve 240 nested-NEMO route optimization. 242 o Security Consideration 244 Security is a prime consideration in the deployment of Personal 245 Mobile Router, since the personal area network may store private 246 information. In general, a personal area network would not allow 247 external devices to attach to the mobile network, hence the 248 Personal Mobile Router will the most important gateway in which 249 security of the personal area network is enforced. As such, any 250 route optimization solution should not expose the Personal Mobile 251 Router to additional risk as compared to NEMO Basic Support. 253 Particularly, it must not be possible for other nodes to claim 254 ownership of the Mobile Network Prefix (in entirety or in parts). 255 Additionally, denail-of service attacks on the Personal Mobile 256 Router (e.g. by forcing the Personal Mobile Router to send a huge 257 amount of signaling packets or to maintain a large number of 258 signaling states) must not be possible. 260 4. IANA Considerations 262 This is an informational document and does not require any IANA 263 action. 265 5. Security Considerations 267 Security is a prime consideration in the deployment of Personal 268 Mobile Router. The requirements for security involving the Personal 269 Mobile Router is discussed in Section 3. 271 6. References 273 6.1. Normative Reference 275 [1] Manner, J. and M. Kojo, "Mobility Related Terminology", 276 RFC 3753, June 2004. 278 [2] Ernst, T. and H. Lach, "Network Mobility Support Terminology", 279 draft-ietf-nemo-terminology-05 (work in progress), March 2006. 281 6.2. Informative Reference 283 [3] Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., and P. Thubert, 284 "Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol", RFC 3963, 285 January 2005. 287 [4] Ng, C., Thubert, P., Watari, M., and F. Zhao, "Network Mobility 288 Route Optimization Problem Statement", 289 draft-ietf-nemo-ro-problem-statement-03 (work in progress), 290 September 2006. 292 [5] Ng, C., Thubert, P., Zhao, F., and M. Watari, "Network Mobility 293 Route Optimization Solution Space Analysis", 294 draft-ietf-nemo-ro-space-analysis-02 (work in progress), 295 February 2006. 297 [6] Baldessari, R., "C2C-C Consortium Requirements for Usage of NEMO 298 in VANETs", draft-baldessari-c2ccc-nemo-req-00 (work in 299 progress), February 2007. 301 [7] Eddy, W., "NEMO Route Optimization Requirements for Operational 302 Use in Aeronautics and Space Exploration Mobile Networks", 303 draft-eddy-nemo-aero-reqs-00 (work in progress), April 2007. 305 [8] "Service requirements for Personal Network Management (PNM)", 306 3GPP TS 22.259, June 2006. 308 Appendix A. Change Log 310 o draft-ng-nemo-ro-req-00: 312 * Initial version. 314 Author's Address 316 Chan-Wah Ng 317 Panasonic Singapore Laboratories Pte Ltd 318 Blk 1022 Tai Seng Ave #06-3530 319 Tai Seng Industrial Estate 320 Singapore 534415 321 SG 323 Phone: +65 65505420 324 Email: chanwah.ng@sg.panasonic.com 326 Full Copyright Statement 328 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). 330 This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions 331 contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors 332 retain all their rights. 334 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 335 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 336 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND 337 THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS 338 OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF 339 THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 340 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 342 Intellectual Property 344 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 345 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 346 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 347 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 348 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 349 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 350 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 351 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 353 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 354 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 355 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 356 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 357 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 358 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 360 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 361 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 362 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 363 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 364 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 366 Acknowledgment 368 Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF 369 Administrative Support Activity (IASA).