idnits 2.17.1 draft-patil-mext-dmm-approaches-02.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 (October 31, 2011) is 4554 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Individual Submission B. Patil, Ed. 3 Internet-Draft Nokia 4 Intended status: Informational C. Williams 5 Expires: May 3, 2012 MCSR Labs 6 J. Korhonen 7 Nokia Siemens Networks 8 October 31, 2011 10 Approaches to Distributed mobility management using Mobile IPv6 and its 11 extensions 12 draft-patil-mext-dmm-approaches-02 14 Abstract 16 Mobility solutions at the IP layer have been specified in the IETF 17 for IPv4 and IPv6. These solutions include host and network based 18 mobility. All of the mobility protocols enable IP session continuity 19 by providing the mobile host with an IP address or prefix that 20 remains constant even as the host moves and attaches to different 21 access networks and points of attachment. Mobile hosts are anchored 22 at a gateway via a tunnel and the address/prefix provided to the host 23 via the gateway remains unchanged across mobility events. All IP 24 sessions initiated or terminated at a mobile host are anchored via 25 the gateway. A gateway centric approach raises certain concerns in 26 terms of cost and efficiency. A mobility model wherein the mobility 27 functions are distributed is a way of alleviating the concerns of a 28 gateway centric approach. This document considers ways to alleviate 29 anchored mobility issues with approaches that could be considered in 30 a deployment. 32 Status of this Memo 34 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 35 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 37 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 38 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 39 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 40 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 42 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 43 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 44 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 45 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 47 This Internet-Draft will expire on May 3, 2012. 49 Copyright Notice 51 Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 52 document authors. All rights reserved. 54 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 55 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 56 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 57 publication of this document. Please review these documents 58 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 59 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 60 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 61 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 62 described in the Simplified BSD License. 64 Table of Contents 66 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 67 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 68 3. Problem statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 69 4. Issues with current mobility models . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 70 4.1. Backhauling all traffic to a centralized GW . . . . . . . 5 71 4.2. Latency Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 72 4.3. Inefficient Routing and signaling overhead . . . . . . . . 6 73 4.4. Scalability and cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 74 5. Enhancements to improve mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 75 5.1. HMIPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 76 5.2. Dynamic assignment of HA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 77 5.3. Route Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 78 6. Distributed mobility - What does it imply . . . . . . . . . . 8 79 7. Approaches using current protocols for distributed mobility . 9 80 8. Potential future work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 81 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 82 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 83 11. Summary and Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 84 12. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 85 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 87 1. Introduction 89 Mobility solutions at the IP layer have been specified in the IETF 90 for IPv4 and IPv6. These solutions include host and network based 91 mobility. All of the mobility protocols enable IP session continuity 92 by providing the mobile host with an IP address or prefix that 93 remains constant even as the host moves and attaches to different 94 access networks and points of attachment. Mobile hosts are anchored 95 at a gateway via a tunnel and the address/prefix provided to the host 96 via the gateway remains unchanged across mobility events. All IP 97 sessions initiated or terminated at a mobile host are anchored via 98 the gateway. There are issues and concerns with such a mobility 99 model which are discussed in this document. A mobility model wherein 100 the mobility functions are distributed is a way of alleviating the 101 concerns of a gateway centric approach. This document also considers 102 ways to alleviate anchored mobility issues with approaches that could 103 be considered in a deployment. 105 Mobile IPv6 as specified in [RFC6275] [RFC3776] is a host based 106 mobility protocol. It requires the MN to be anchored at a home 107 agent. The home agent assigns the MN an IPv6 address or prefix that 108 is static for the duration of the registration period. Similarly 109 Proxy Mobile IPv6 [RFC5213] is a network based mobility protocol in 110 which the mobility access gateway (MAG) assigns the MN a prefix 111 provided by the local mobility anchor (LMA) for the duration of a 112 valid registration. This prefix does not change across mobility 113 events. The home agent and LMA entities can be viewed as centralized 114 gateways. These gateways generally serve a large number of mobile 115 hosts. All traffic to/from mobile hosts associated with an HA/LMA is 116 routed through these gateways and as a result raises concerns such as 117 : 119 1. single point of failure, 121 2. backhauling traffic to the gateway, 123 3. latency as a result of backhauling and additional processing, 125 4. cost and complexity, etc. 127 These issues are discussed in further detail in the document. It 128 should also be noted that in addition to mobility for hosts, there is 129 also specifications that deal with networks that are mobile. Network 130 mobility is specified in [RFC3963] 132 The mobility working groups in the IETF have extended the basic 133 protocols to address various issues and concerns. Hierarchical 134 Mobile IP [RFC5380] and flow mobility [RFC6088], [RFC6089] are just a 135 few examples. Many of these extensions can be utilized in 136 deployments to alleviate the issues that arise from an anchored 137 mobility solution. A few approaches to how a distributed mobility 138 model could be deployed using current protocols and extensions are 139 also discussed in this document. 141 2. Terminology 143 Distributed Mobility 145 The term distributed mobility refers to an architecture in which 146 the mobility function is distributed across multiple levels in a 147 deployment. The mobility function could be provided by an access 148 point or base-station or it could be a part of the access network. 149 Distributed mobility would enable session continuity for hosts 150 while not requiring that they be anchored at a single gateway 151 (home agent) all the time. 153 3. Problem statement 155 The lack of support for mobility at the IP layer has been addressed 156 in IPv6 with the specification of Mobile IPv6 [RFC6275]. Various 157 extensions to the protocol such as support for multiple care-of- 158 addresses as well as the ability to operate while attached to an IPv4 159 network using Dual-stack Mobile IPv6 [RFC5555] have been specified. 160 The protocol has not been widely implemented or deployed as of date 161 for various reasons. 163 The Internet has evolved to support real-time applications such as 164 voice, multimedia streaming etc. These applications require low 165 latency as well as no (or minimal) interruptions when switching 166 interfaces or networks. Current IP mobility solutions based on 167 Mobile IPv6 are well suited for non-real-time applications which are 168 able to handle the delay which is caused by a mobile node doing a 169 handover between networks or switching interfaces. Optimizations to 170 support real time applications have also been specified such as 171 FMIPv6 [RFC5568]. The centralized gateway approach of Mobile IPv6 172 has multiple issues and raises concerns that are captured in this 173 document. One of the ideas is to move the mobility gateway closer to 174 the actual point of attachment. This has benefits in terms of 175 reduced latency but it also causes other issues such as the ability 176 to support mobility when the MN moves to a different access network 177 or the ability to do charging at a central node. Distributed 178 mobility is an approach that has some merit and worth studying 179 further. At the same time the issues that are driving the mobility 180 solutions towards a different model can be addressed by existing 181 protocols with various extensions. The problems of a centralized 182 gateway approach and reasons for considering distributed mobility 183 need to be deeply analyzed and understood before beginning work on 184 entirely new protocols for solving IP mobility. 186 4. Issues with current mobility models 188 Current mobility protocols have been designed with a stable 189 topologically correct anchoring gateway in mind. They just do not 190 tolerate mid-session anchor relocation. HMIP6, HA Switch, HA- 191 reliability and LMA Redirect are attempts in that direction but fail 192 or fall short. 194 In addition, one of the key deployment considerations of Mobile IPv6 195 is the location of each of the home agents or gateways, both 196 initially and over time. Each operator has unique requirements; 197 therefore, no single deployment model will suit all operators. The 198 operator's own organizational structure could also influence the 199 mobility architecture. Some operators have network OAM 200 responsibilities that are assigned geographically, while others use a 201 more centralized model. The deployment architecture that has been 202 traditionally put forth is to have centralized gateway elements where 203 all mobility control and data traffic is routed through them. 205 4.1. Backhauling all traffic to a centralized GW 207 A centralized home agent/gateway approach leads to backhauling all 208 traffic to the node which has unfavorable operational consequences. 210 The sheer volume of the aggregated throughput traffic to backhaul all 211 user data from a local aggregation anchor to centralized data centers 212 with home gateways can be expensive in many scenarios. With high 213 density deployments, the centralized architecture leads to heavy 214 backhaul utilization, and the inability to distribute load quickly 215 manifests unfavorably. In addition, local user traffic does not 216 remain local. User traffic must travel all the way to the 217 centralized gateway and back, even if the corresponding peer is 218 topologically closer. 220 In addition, a centralized gateway model increases the cost of 221 backhaul by preventing the off-loading of high-bandwidth services 222 locally. Instead high-bandwidth services have their traffic 223 backhauled to a centralized gateway in a data center. This will 224 increase the distances and possibly the capacity associated with any 225 backhaul. 227 4.2. Latency Considerations 229 While the support for Internet offload of user data can significantly 230 reduce the core network backhaul, the mobility management element may 231 be strategically positioned deeper in the network to efficiently 232 set-up and process the signaling and control including optional 233 policies. Such a hybrid architecture can provide for supporting a 234 mix of real-time and non-real-time broadband services. Real-time 235 applications can benefit from lower latencies by having data closer 236 to the subscriber and peers and not backhauled. Non-real-time 237 applications (such as e-mail) derive no such performance benefit and 238 may have a more centralized traffic approach. 240 Current mobility models handle offload cases poorly. A consideration 241 may be to clearly make a working toolbox for applications to select a 242 prefix with anchored mobility and a prefix without anchoring. 244 4.3. Inefficient Routing and signaling overhead 246 Inefficient routing mechanism of a completely centralized mobility 247 deployment approach causes QoS deterioration and may lead to heavy 248 network congestion in the core. 250 In the centralized approach only the HA and the CNs manage a nodes 251 mobility. Mobility signaling occurs each time a mobile node changes 252 its point-of-attachment regardless of the locality and amplitude of 253 its movement. As a consequence, the same level of signaling load is 254 introduced independently of the user's mobility pattern. For 255 example, if the HA and/or CNs are far from the MN, even if the MNs 256 movement is small, the mobility signaling messages travel across 257 several IP networks, the latencies of which reduce handover speed. 258 Furthermore, route optimization which supports direct routing from 259 CNs to the mobile node, generates excessive mobility messages and 260 adds a significant extra load to the network. 262 4.4. Scalability and cost 264 In a completely centralized Mobile IPv6-based deployment approach, 265 the home agent becomes a single point of failure. Also, a 266 distributed deployment approach may provide better overall capacity 267 and performance, but this must be weighed against the increase in 268 capital costs for deployment of local distributed gateways. In 269 addition, a completely centralized deployment model makes it 270 difficult to scale with a large number of mobile nodes. Scalability 271 costs are weighted from many perspectives such as the number of nodes 272 in the overall system, the geographic distance of the traffic, the 273 number of autonomous parties in the deployment approach and others. 275 5. Enhancements to improve mobility 277 Enhancements to the Mobile IPv6 protocol have been done to improve 278 mobile communications in certain scenarios so that mobility 279 operations are efficient and optimized.. A key area of enhancements 280 is in reducing the delays in the data path redirection operation that 281 is defined in Mobile IPv6 operations. Mobile IPv6 has adopted route 282 optimization and HMIPv6 to reduce the traversal of data traffic to 283 the mobile nodes new location changes in its point of attachment. 284 Delays in data traffic redirection will depend upon the location of 285 the anchor agent that performs the redirection. As such enhancements 286 focus on moving these anchor agents closer to the mobile node. 288 5.1. HMIPv6 290 Using Mobile IPv6, a mobile node sends location updates to any node 291 it corresponds with each time it changes its location, and at 292 intermittent intervals otherwise. This involves a lot of signaling 293 and processing, and requires a lot of resources. Furthermore, 294 although it is not necessary for external hosts to be updated when a 295 mobile nodes moves locally, these updates occur for both local and 296 global moves. Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 (HMIPv6)is designed to 297 enhance mobility support in MIPv6 and micro-mobility management. The 298 benefit of the HMIPv6 enhancement is to reduce the amount of 299 signaling required and to improve handoff speed. 301 The key concept behind HMIPv6 is to locally handle handovers by the 302 usage of an entity called the Mobility Anchor Point (MAP) located at 303 any level in a hierarchical network of routers. The major issue on 304 HMIPv6 is designing the MAP selection scheme that can reduce frequent 305 handover mobility signaling and improve handover performance. 307 5.2. Dynamic assignment of HA 309 Dynamic assignment of HA is an enhancement to reduce both the 310 signaling traffic and the data traffic to the home network. The 311 dynamic HA assignment may take into account the geographical 312 proximity of the HA to the mobile node. It may also consider 313 performance factors such as HA load-balancing or other criteria. 315 5.3. Route Optimization 317 Mobile IPv6 Route optimization is an enhancement to optimize the data 318 path between two communicating nodes despite changes in the IP 319 connectivity on the mobile node side. The data path reduction 320 between the communicating nodes helps to reduce one way packet delay 321 when both nodes are under the same localized domain and the mobility 322 gateway is far away. The process of reducing data path is referred 323 to as route optimization. Route optimization helps reduce the delay 324 and thus important for real-time applications. An enhanced version 325 of route optimization may also enable continued communications during 326 periods of temporary home-agent unavailability. 328 6. Distributed mobility - What does it imply 330 Mobility is a service that provides significant value to a network 331 operator. The ability to offer connectivity and services that work 332 seamlessly across mobility events such as the switching of an access 333 network type etc. creates a much superior end-user experience and 334 thereby a demand for such service. Cellular networks have offered 335 mobility for voice and messaging (short message service) since the 336 late 80s and early 90s. These networks have been evolving and are 337 now offering broadband data services and Internet connectivity. The 338 network architectures are also using Internet protocols and 339 technologies to a significant extent. Traditionally the 340 architectures of these networks has been hierarchical in nature. 341 While such an architecture served operators well in the past, it has 342 limitations when it comes to offering data services and Internet 343 connectivity. There is an effort to distribute functionality that 344 generally has resided in centralized gateways much more closer to the 345 edge of the network. The line between the access and core network is 346 fading and hence a need to rethink how mobility service is affected 347 in such an evolving architecture. 349 Distributed mobility is a way to deploy existing mobility solutions 350 that do not require a mobile host to be anchored at a gateway all the 351 time but instead be attached to different mobility agents/gateways in 352 the network depending on the access, location and other factors. 353 Session continuity via distributed mobility is expected to be on par 354 with that provided by an anchored mobility solution. 356 Does it require an entirely new approach to mobility architectures 357 that would be based on the goal of distributing mobility related 358 functions? It is an easy option to consider redesigning on a clean 359 sheet of paper. However this is not a pragmatic approach. It is 360 much more optimal to consider what are the issues that are created as 361 a result of a centralized gateway architecture and then develop 362 extensions to the protocols and, deployment models, that can address 363 those issues. The implications of distributed mobility architectures 364 on access and core networks needs to be also considered in any 365 design. 367 7. Approaches using current protocols for distributed mobility 369 We believe that most of the needed basic protocol functionality for 370 distributed mobility management is already there. What is missing 371 seem to be related to general system level design and lack of 372 mobility aware APIs for application developers. One of the simple 373 approaches for distributed mobility management is to avoid 374 traditional "anchored mobility" like Mobile IPv6 when possible and 375 rather use local (care-of) addresses for the communication. Use of 376 local addressing also implies less mobility related signaling load in 377 the network. For example [RFC5014] already provides means for an 378 application to explicitly request for a prefix that has mobility 379 characteristics (IPV6_PREFER_SRC_HOME) or a prefix that is local to 380 the current access network (IPV6_PREFER_SRC_COA). It is not 381 guaranteed that the IP stack in the MN would always respect the 382 suggestion received from the application. In general it is also 383 important that possible solutions in distributed mobility management 384 space requires minimal changes in mobile hosts. 386 Another aspect that is in interest of distributed mobility management 387 concentrates on allocating mobility anchors that are topologically 388 close to the MN. Existing protocols such as HMIPv6 [RFC5380] provide 389 a solution that is close what is needed. What might be needed in 390 addition is a mechanism to "chain" multiple MAP-domain to extend the 391 micro-mobility area, or provide another RFC5014 like prefix type 392 (IPV6_PREFER_SRC_MAP). We could also consider Mobile IPv6 + Proxy 393 Mobile IPv6 interactions Scenario A.1 in 394 [I-D.ietf-netlmm-mip-interactions] a similar solution. Finally, yet 395 another approach for exploiting locality are Proxy Mobile IPv6 396 localized routing solutions [I-D.ietf-netext-pmip6-lr-ps] which 397 allows bypassing the remote central Local Mobility Anchor when ever 398 possible and have a direct communication via closer to MNs Mobile 399 Access Gateways. 401 Home Agent Switch [RFC5142] extension to Mobile IPv6, Runtime LMA 402 assignment [I-D.ietf-netext-redirect] extension to Proxy Mobile IPv6 403 and Mobile IPv4 Dynamic HA Assignment [RFC4433] all provide solutions 404 to dynamically assign a mobility anchor to the MN. What is missing 405 from these solutions, is a protocol or rather a system level solution 406 for a "seamless mobility anchor relocation" during an existing 407 mobility session. However, that would be rather challenging due the 408 fact that a mobility anchor relocation usually implies topological 409 location chance in the network, which would also mean different 410 prefixes/subnetworks for home addresses from the IP routing point of 411 view. Within a reasonably small autonomous system or otherwise 412 restricted area maybe some kind of interior routing solution could be 413 used to assist mobility anchor relocation. 415 8. Potential future work 417 As the MEXT working group evolves and transitions to one that is 418 focused on dealing with distributed mobility, there is a need to 419 clearly understand the drivers for such an approach and whether these 420 could be dealt with via a framework that uses existing mobility 421 protocols and extensions and can be applied in a manner that deals 422 with those concerns. 424 One of the key efforts could be in understanding the key concerns 425 driving the need for a distributed mobility solution and identifying 426 various approaches using existing protocols and extensions to 427 overcome them. 429 1. Work on the generic solution for anchor relocation. This might 430 be a architecture describing work, rather than protocol work. I 431 believe we have most protocols already in place but not glued 432 together. 434 2. Work on address selection beyond RFC 5014 (with coloring i.e. the 435 end host stack knows properties of the prefix it got) and rapid 436 deprecation/renumbering of prefixes (needed when CoAs change and 437 applications try to use CoA for something local). This could 438 potentially be new protocol work an containers for coloring 439 prefixes (RA and DHCPv6) and how to handle local prefix 440 deprecation during handovers. 442 3. Work on localized mobility that does not involve signaling with 443 gateways or "mobility signaling". This could lead to work below 444 the IP layer, e.g. intra-AS mobility is handled using some 445 interior routing protocol enhancement. 447 9. IANA Considerations 449 This document has no requests to IANA. 451 10. Security Considerations 453 This document is a discussion of distributed mobility solutions. 454 Some of the approaches that are considered for deployment do have 455 security implications. However since the approaches being discussed 456 are based on existing mobility specifications developed within the 457 IETF, they have already been reviewed for security. This document 458 does not raise any new security concerns. 460 11. Summary and Conclusion 462 Distributed mobility is a way of deploying mobility protocols that 463 minimise the issues that arise from a centralized gateway centric 464 approach that comes from a hierarchical model. As the amount of 465 traffic in a network grows, operators are less willing to transport 466 all the traffic to a centralized gateway just for the sake of 467 enabling mobility. The mobility models have to evolve to meet the 468 changing environment of mobile networks and traffic patterns. 470 Using many of the extensions and protocols that have been defined for 471 Mobile IPv6 it is possible to deploy a mobility solution that meets 472 the criteria of distributed mobility architecture. The concerns fo a 473 centralized gateway approach can be addressed using deployment 474 techniques effectively. 476 12. Informative References 478 [I-D.ietf-netext-pmip6-lr-ps] 479 Liebsch, M., Jeong, S., and W. Wu, "PMIPv6 Localized 480 Routing Problem Statement", 481 draft-ietf-netext-pmip6-lr-ps-06 (work in progress), 482 March 2011. 484 [I-D.ietf-netext-redirect] 485 Korhonen, J., Gundavelli, S., Yokota, H., and X. Cui, 486 "Runtime LMA Assignment Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6", 487 draft-ietf-netext-redirect-12 (work in progress), 488 October 2011. 490 [I-D.ietf-netlmm-mip-interactions] 491 Giaretta, G., "Interactions between PMIPv6 and MIPv6: 492 scenarios and related issues", 493 draft-ietf-netlmm-mip-interactions-07 (work in progress), 494 October 2010. 496 [RFC3776] Arkko, J., Devarapalli, V., and F. Dupont, "Using IPsec to 497 Protect Mobile IPv6 Signaling Between Mobile Nodes and 498 Home Agents", RFC 3776, June 2004. 500 [RFC3963] Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., and P. 501 Thubert, "Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol", 502 RFC 3963, January 2005. 504 [RFC4433] Kulkarni, M., Patel, A., and K. Leung, "Mobile IPv4 505 Dynamic Home Agent (HA) Assignment", RFC 4433, March 2006. 507 [RFC5014] Nordmark, E., Chakrabarti, S., and J. Laganier, "IPv6 508 Socket API for Source Address Selection", RFC 5014, 509 September 2007. 511 [RFC5142] Haley, B., Devarapalli, V., Deng, H., and J. Kempf, 512 "Mobility Header Home Agent Switch Message", RFC 5142, 513 January 2008. 515 [RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V., Chowdhury, K., 516 and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 5213, August 2008. 518 [RFC5380] Soliman, H., Castelluccia, C., ElMalki, K., and L. 519 Bellier, "Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 (HMIPv6) Mobility 520 Management", RFC 5380, October 2008. 522 [RFC5555] Soliman, H., "Mobile IPv6 Support for Dual Stack Hosts and 523 Routers", RFC 5555, June 2009. 525 [RFC5568] Koodli, R., "Mobile IPv6 Fast Handovers", RFC 5568, 526 July 2009. 528 [RFC6088] Tsirtsis, G., Giarreta, G., Soliman, H., and N. Montavont, 529 "Traffic Selectors for Flow Bindings", RFC 6088, 530 January 2011. 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 January 2011. 537 [RFC6275] Perkins, C., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support 538 in IPv6", RFC 6275, July 2011. 540 Authors' Addresses 542 Basavaraj Patil (editor) 543 Nokia 544 6021 Connection drive 545 Irving, TX 75039 546 USA 548 Email: basavaraj.patil@nokia.com 549 Carl Williams 550 MCSR Labs 551 Palo Alto, CA 94306 552 USA 554 Email: carlw@mcsr-labs.org 556 Jouni Korhonen 557 Nokia Siemens Networks 558 Linnoitustie 6 559 FI-02600 Espoo 560 FINLAND 562 Email: jouni.nospam@gmail.com