idnits 2.17.1 draft-seite-dmm-rg-multihoming-00.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 27, 2014) is 3462 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) == Missing Reference: 'MN' is mentioned on line 404, but not defined Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 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: April 30, 2015 Samsung 6 S. Gundavelli 7 Cisco 8 October 27, 2014 10 Multihoming support for Residential Gateways 11 draft-seite-dmm-rg-multihoming-00.txt 13 Abstract 15 The Quality-of-Experience of a fixed-network user can be 16 significantly improved by enabling the Residential Gateway (RG) 17 providing IP connectivity services to connect to the internet through 18 multiple access networks (Example: LTE and DSL) and use all the 19 available network bandwidth for the user traffic. This approach 20 enables a service provider to leverage all the availble access 21 networks and to offer guaranteed Quality-of-Service to the end-user 22 on any application basis. Furthermore, the mobility functions in the 23 residential gateway and in the service provider network will be able 24 to monitor the performance of all the access paths and dynamically 25 change the routing path for an application. This document 26 investigates the use of IP mobility protocols for supporting this 27 use-case and it also identifies the needed protocol extensions. 28 However, those extensions will be specified in a companion document. 30 Status of this Memo 32 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 33 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 35 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 36 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 37 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 38 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 40 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 41 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 42 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 43 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 45 This Internet-Draft will expire on April 30, 2015. 47 Copyright Notice 48 Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 49 document authors. All rights reserved. 51 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 52 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 53 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 54 publication of this document. Please review these documents 55 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 56 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 57 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 58 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 59 described in the Simplified BSD License. 61 Table of Contents 63 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 64 2. Conventions and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 65 2.1. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 66 2.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 67 3. Use-cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 68 4. Architectures and requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 69 4.1. Architectures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 70 4.2. Traffic distribution schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 71 4.3. Tunnelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 72 5. Solution Overview - PMIPv6 Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 73 5.1. Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 74 5.1.1. MAG Multipath-Binding Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 75 5.1.2. MAG Identifier Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 76 5.1.3. New Status Code for Proxy Binding Acknowledgement . . 12 77 5.2. Call Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 78 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 79 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 80 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 81 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 82 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 83 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 84 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 86 1. Introduction 88 Fixed access networks (e.g. DSL) usually provides Internet 89 connectivity via a Residential Gateway (RG) acting as the access 90 router. When equipped with different Wide Area Network (WAN) access 91 technologies (e.g. DSL and LTE), the RG could take benefit of 92 multihoming advantages such as redundancy, load balancing, load 93 sharing and so on. Besides, the Broadband Forum (BBF) has recently 94 initiated a new standardization effort, "Hybrid Access for Broadband 95 Networks" [WT-348] to address this use-case. The multihomed RG use- 96 case has been identified as an IP mobility scenario for a while 97 [RFC4908]. In a fix network context, like in the "Hybrid Access for 98 Broadband Networks" scenario, IP mobility protocols are obviously not 99 used to manage user mobility, but for their subscriber and traffic 100 management capabilities (e.g. move IP traffic between WAN interfaces 101 while maintaining IP session continuity). Moreover, the hybrid 102 access system can take benefit from the policy routing (i.e. IP flow 103 routing policies) capability of the IP mobility protocols. 105 This document refreshes [RFC4908] by describing how to use the IP 106 mobility protocols (e.g. [RFC3753], [RFC6275] and [RFC5213]) and 107 their extensions (e.g. Multiple care-of-address [RFC5648], IP flow 108 mobility [RFC6089])to address the Hybrid Access issue. The usual IP 109 mobility protocols operations allows sharing WAN interfaces on an IP 110 flow basis: a multihomed RG uses simultaneously more that one WAN 111 interface (e.g. DSL and LTE) and each IP flow is bounded to one of 112 the available interfaces, as per IP flow mobility use-case [RFC6089]. 113 "Hybrid access" use-case is also expected to operate on a IP packet 114 basis: packets of a single IP flow are distributed over more than one 115 WAN interface, i.e. the system performs WAN interfaces bonding to 116 provide higher WAN bandwidth to a single IP flow. Although interface 117 bonding differs from the usual IP mobility operations, this document 118 addresses this use-case as well. Actually, IP mobility protocols 119 allow to establish and maintain the forwarding plane in user, of 120 flow, mobility situation (i.e. using IP tunnels); but nothing prevent 121 to use this data plane on a per packet basis. It must be noted that 122 this traffic distribution scheme may raise tricky packet reordering 123 and buffering issues. However, addressing these issues is out the 124 scope of this document. At last, this document identifies new 125 mobility options that would be necessary to address some of the 126 hybrid access use-case. These extensions will be defined in a 127 companion document. 129 Document requires additional updates and efforts are in progress. 131 Flow-1 132 | 133 |Flow-2 _----_ 134 | | CoA-1 _( )_ Tunnel-1 135 | | .---=======( LTE )========\ Flow-1 136 | | | (_ _) \Flow-4 137 | | | '----' \ 138 | | +=====+ \ +=====+ _----_ 139 | '-| | \ | | _( )_ 140 '---| CPE | | BNG |-( Internet )-- 141 .---| | | | (_ _) 142 | .-| | / | | '----' 143 | | +=====+ / +=====+ 144 | | | _----_ / 145 | | | CoA-2 _( )_ Tunnel-2 / 146 | | .---=======( DSL )========/ Flow-2 147 | | (_ _) Flow-3 148 | | '----' 149 |Flow-3 150 | 151 Flow0=-4 153 Figure 1: Hybrid-Access With PMIPv6 155 2. Conventions and Terminology 157 2.1. Conventions 159 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 160 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 161 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 163 2.2. Terminology 165 All mobility related terms used in this document are to be 166 interpreted as defined in [RFC5213], [RFC5844] and [RFC7148]. 167 Additionally, this document uses the following terms: 169 IP-in-IP 171 IP-within-IP encapsulation [RFC2473], [RFC4213] 173 3. Use-cases 175 The current evolution of the Internet usage makes users more and more 176 greedy of high throughput services (e.g. video streaming, file 177 downloading, peer-to-peer,....). However, upgrading the fix access, 178 to meet resulting high bandwidth demand, is sometimes difficult; for 179 example in historic cities downtown where only Internet access based 180 on old copper line is deployed. At the same time, these areas may be 181 within LTE coverage from which the user could benefit to access the 182 Internet services. In this situation "Hybrid access for Broadband 183 Networks" system, using a multiple WAN interfaces RG, may come into 184 play with the two following use-cases: 186 Load balancing: the hybrid access system uses simultaneously all 187 the available WAN interfaces and binds each application on one of 188 these interface, i.e. increase WAN bandwidth from the user 189 standpoint. The system must be able to identify traffic (e.g. 190 issued from a specific user, or terminal; or an application) and, 191 depending on its characteristics (e.g. QoS requirements), 192 forwards it on the most appropriate WAN interface. 194 Load sharing: The hybrid access allows the user to get access to 195 higher throughput services (e.g. IPTV). The RG is equipped with 196 and combines them to get additional WAN resources and provide 197 higher bandwidth per application. 199 4. Architectures and requirements 201 4.1. Architectures 203 Figure 2 depicts the architecture for hybrid access use-cases relying 204 on multiple WAN interfaces Residential Gateway. WAN interfaces can 205 be either physical (e.g. DSL, LTE) or virtual (e.g. VLAN). On the 206 network side, an aggregation gateway is in charge to distribute the 207 downlink traffic to the different WAN paths. Uplink traffic 208 management depends on the traffic distribution scheme (see 209 Section 4.2); it is detailed in section . In this architecture, the 210 RG can be viewed as a mobile router, or mobile node, (so, supporting 211 mobility management client) managing multiple local interfaces, i.e. 212 multiple care-of-addresses. IP mobility protocols (Mobile IPv6 213 [RFC6275]) or NEMO [RFC3963]), together with Multiple Care-of-Address 214 [RFC5648]), can thus be used to establish dynamically the forwarding 215 paths between the RG and the IP the aggregation gateway, so playing a 216 mobility anchor role. 218 The RG obtains local IP addresses, i.e. care-of-address, via legacy 219 IP allocation mechanisms (e.g. DHCP, SLAAC) of the WAN interfaces. 221 Then, in order to set-up data path up to the aggregation gateway 222 (i.e. mobility anchor), the RG uses the multiple care-of-addresses 223 [RFC5648] mobility option to registers these care-of-addresses to the 224 mobility anchor. Registration is managed using NEMO [RFC3963]) or 225 Mobile IPv6 [RFC6275] protocols. Bi-directional IP tunnels are 226 established, between the RG and the mobility anchor, over each WAN 227 interface. The mobility anchor provision the RG with a unique IP 228 address, i.e. Home Prefix/Address, through which the RG is reachable 229 from then Internet. When the Home Agent receives a data packet meant 230 for a node in the RG Network, it tunnels the packet to the RG to one 231 of the available care-of address. The selection of the care-of- 232 address depends on the traffic distribution scheme, operating either 233 on a IP flow or on packet basis (see Section 4.2). 235 IP Network #1 236 (e.g. DSL) 237 +------------+ _--------_ +------------+ 238 | | ( ) | | 239 |Residential +======(==IP-in-IP==)==+ | 240 | Gateway | (_ _) |Aggregation | 241 | (RG) | (_______) | Gateway | 242 | | |(Home Agent)|------> 243 | Mobility | | | 244 | Client | | | 245 | | _--------_ | | 246 | | ( ) | | 247 | +======(==IP-in-IP==)==+ | 248 | | (_ _) | | 249 +-----+------+ (______) +------------+ 250 | IP Network #2 251 ----RG network---- (eg. LTE) 252 | 253 end-nodes 255 Figure 2: Multihomed RG architecture 257 Some deployment architecture, the hybrid access management is not 258 supported by the RG. For example, in Figure 3, DSL and LTE networks 259 are operated by two different operators and the hybrid access service 260 is provided by the mobile operator. 262 DSL access 263 +------------+ _--------_ +------------+ 264 | | ( ) | | 265 |Residential +======(==IP-in-IP==)==+ | 266 | Gateway | (_ _) |Aggregation | 267 +------------+ (_______) | Gateway | 268 | |(Home Agent)|------> 269 WLAN (RG network) | | 270 | LTE Access | | 271 +------------+ _--------_ | | 272 | | ( ) | | 273 | Mobility +======(==IP-in-IP==)==+ | 274 | Client | (_ _) | | 275 +-----+------+ (______) +------------+ 276 | 277 Hybrid access network 278 | 279 end-nodes 281 Figure 3: split RG and hybrid access management 283 Proxy Mobile IPv6 [RFC5648] can be used to provide IP session 284 continuity when a mobile node moves between the cellular network to 285 the home network between RG, or between access router (e.g. RG). In 286 Proxy Mobile IPv6 architecture, the access router supporting mobility 287 management functions is called a Mobile Access Gateway (MAG). Being 288 functionally similar to the RG, the MAG could take benefit from the 289 hybrid access advantages. To do so, the MAG must be to manage 290 multiple care-of-addresses as depicted in Figure 4. 292 +------------+ 293 +------------+ | | 294 | +==PMIP Tunnel / DSL===+ | 295 | MAG #1 | | | 296 | +==PMIP tunnel / LTE===+ | 297 +------------+ | LMA | 298 | | | 299 MN#2| -------- | |------> 300 | MN#1-( LTE )===========| | 301 | | ( ) | | 302 V V -------- | | 303 +------------+ | | 304 | +==PMIP Tunnel / DSL===+ | 305 | MAG #2 | | | 306 | +==PMIP tunnel / LTE===+ | 307 +------------+ +------------+ 309 Figure 4: Multihomed MAG for PMIP 311 4.2. Traffic distribution schemes 313 IP mobility protocols allow to establish the forwarding plane over 314 the WAN interfaces of a multihomed RG. Then, traffic distribution 315 schemes define the way to distribute data packets over these paths 316 (i.e. IP tunnels). Traffic distribution can be managed either on a 317 per-flow or on a per-packet basis: 319 o per-flow traffic management: each IP flow (both upstream and 320 downstream) is mapped to a given mobile IP tunnel, corresponding 321 to a given WAN interface. This scenario is based on IP flow 322 mobility mechanism using the Flow binding extension [RFC6089]. 323 The mobility anchor provides IP session continuity when an IP flow 324 is moved from one WAN interfaces to another. The flow binding 325 extension allows the IP mobility anchor and the RG to exchange, 326 and synchronize, IP flow management policies (i.e. policy routing 327 rules associating traffic selectors [RFC6088] to mobility 328 bindings). 330 o Per-packet management: distribute the IP packets of a same IP 331 flow, or of a group of IP flows, over more than one WAN interface. 332 In this scenario, traffic management slightly differs from the 333 default mobile IP behaviour; the mobility entities (mobility ancho 334 and client) distribute packets, belonging to a same IP flow, over 335 more than one bindings simultaneously. The definition of control 336 algorithm of a Per-packet distribution scheme (how to distribute 337 packets) is out the scope of this document. When operating at the 338 packet level, traffic distribution scheme may introduce packet 339 latency and out-of-order delivery; it thus requires to introduce 340 buffering and reordering capabilities in both aggregation entities 341 (RG and mobility anchor). In this situation, using the GRE as 342 mobile tunnelling mechanism together with the GRE KEY option 343 [RFC5845] allows adding sequence number to GRE packets. This 344 sequence number can be used to reorder data traffic packets. More 345 detailed buffering and reordering considerations are out of the 346 scope of this document. 348 The traffic distribution scheme may require the RG and the to 349 exchange interface metrics to make traffic steering decision.For 350 example, the RG may sent its DSL synchronization rate to the mobility 351 anchor, so that the latter can make traffic forwarding decision 352 accordingly. In this case, the vendor specific mobility option 353 [RFC5094] can be used for that purpose. 355 Per-flow and per-packet distribution schemes are not exclusive 356 mechanisms; they can cohabit in the same hybrid access system. For 357 example, High throughput services (e.g. video streaming) may benefit 358 from per-packet distribution scheme, while some other may not. 360 Typically VoIP application are sensitive to latency and thus should 361 not be split over different WAN paths. In this situation, the 362 aggregation entities (RG and mobility anchor) must exchange traffic 363 management policies to associate distribution scheme, traffic and WAN 364 interface (physical or virtual). [RFC6088] and [RFC6089] define 365 traffic management on a flow basis but there is no such policy on a 366 per packet basis. 368 4.3. Tunnelling 370 The hybrid access system should be able to support multiple type of 371 tunnelling mechanisms: 373 o IP-in-IP: default IP mobility tunnelling mechanism. 375 o GRE: the GRE KEY option can allow to manage packet reordering 377 o GTP: Network based mobility management of the 3GPP cellular 378 networks use GTP as tunnelling mechanism. 380 o IPsec 382 5. Solution Overview - PMIPv6 Approach 384 The MAG functionality is enabled on the CPE and the LMA functionality 385 is enabled on the agregation gateway inside the SP network. 387 _----_ 388 CoA-1 _( )_ Tunnel-1 389 .---=======( LTE )========\ Flow-1 390 | (_ _) \Flow-4 391 | '----' \ 392 +=====+ \ +=====+ _----_ 393 | | \ | | _( )_ 394 | MAG | | LMA |-( Internet )-- 395 .---| | | | (_ _) 396 | |(CPE)| / | | '----' 397 | +=====+ / +=====+ 398 | | _----_ / 399 | | CoA-2 _( )_ Tunnel-2 / 400 | .---=======( Fixed )========/ Flow-2 401 | (_ _) Flow-3 402 | '----' 403 | 404 [MN] 405 Figure 5: Hybrid-Access With PMIPv6 407 5.1. Protocol Extensions 409 5.1.1. MAG Multipath-Binding Option 411 The MAG Multipath-Binding option is a new mobility header option 412 defined for use with Proxy Binding Update and Proxy Binding 413 Acknowledgement messages exchanged between the local mobility anchor 414 and the mobile access gateway. 416 This mobility header option is used for requesting multipath support. 417 It indicates that the mobile access gateway is requesting the local 418 mobility anchor to register the current care-of address associated 419 with the request as one of the many care-addresses through which the 420 mobile access gateway can be reached. It is also for carrying the 421 information related to the access network associated with the care-of 422 address. 424 The MAG Multipath-Binding option has an alignment requirement of 425 8n+2. Its format is as shown in Figure 6: 427 0 1 2 3 428 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 1 429 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 430 | Type | Length | If-ATT | If-Label | 431 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 432 | Binding-Id |B|O| RESERVED | 433 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 435 Figure 6: MAG Multipath Binding Option 437 Type 439 To be assigned by IANA. 441 Length 443 8-bit unsigned integer indicating the length of the option in 444 octets, excluding the type and length fields. 446 This 8-bit field identifies the Access-Technology type of the 447 interface through which the mobile node is connected. The permitted 448 values for this are from the Access Technology Type registry defined 449 in [RFC5213]. 451 This 8-bit field represents the interface label represented as an 452 unsigned integer. The mobile node identifies the label for each of 453 the interfaces through which it registers a CoA with the home agent. 454 When using static traffic flow policies on the mobile node and the 455 home agent, the label can be used for generating forwarding policies. 456 For example, the operator may have policy which binds traffic for 457 Application "X" needs to interface with Label "Y". When a 458 registration through an interface matching Label "Y" gets activated, 459 the home agent and the mobile node can dynamically generate a 460 forwarding policy for forwarding traffic for Application "X" through 461 mobile IP tunnel matching Label "Y". Both the home agent and the 462 mobile node can route the Application-X traffic through that 463 interface. The permitted values for If-Label are 1 through 255. 465 This 8-bit field is used for carrying the binding identifier. It 466 uniquely identifies a specific binding of the mobile node, to which 467 this request can be associated. Each binding identifier is 468 represented as an unsigned integer. The permitted values are 1 469 through 254. The BID value of 0 and 255 are reserved. The mobile 470 access gateway assigns a unique value for each of its interfaces and 471 includes them in the message. 473 This flag, if set to a value of (1), is to notify the local mobility 474 anchor to consider this request as a request to update the binding 475 lifetime of all the mobile node's bindings, upon accepting this 476 specific request. This flag MUST NOT be set to a value of (1), if 477 the value of the Registration Overwrite Flag (O) flag is set to a 478 value of (1). 480 This flag, if set to a value of (1), notifies the local mobility 481 anchor that upon accepting this request, it should replace all of the 482 mobile node's existing bindings with this binding. This flag MUST 483 NOT be set to a value of (1), if the value of the Bulk Re- 484 registration Flag (B) is set to a value of (1). This flag MUST be 485 set to a value of (0), in de-registration requests. 487 Reserved 489 This field is unused in this specification. The value MUST be set 490 to zero (0) by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver. 492 5.1.2. MAG Identifier Option 494 The MAG Identifier option is a 496 This option does not have any alignment requirements. 498 0 1 2 3 499 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 1 500 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 501 | Type | Length | Subtype | Reserved | 502 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 503 | Identifier ... ~ 504 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 506 Figure 7: MAG Identifier Option 508 Type 510 To be assigned by IANA. 512 Length 514 8-bit unsigned integer indicating the length of the option in 515 octets, excluding the type and length fields. 517 Subtype 519 One byte unsigned integer used for identifying the type of the 520 Identifier field. Accepted values for this field are the 521 registered type values from the Mobile Node Identifier Option 522 Subtypes registry. 524 Reserved 526 This field is unused in this specification. The value MUST be set 527 to zero (0) by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver. 529 Identifier 531 A variable length identifier of type indicated in the Subtype 532 field. 534 5.1.3. New Status Code for Proxy Binding Acknowledgement 536 This document defines the following new Status Code value for use in 537 Proxy Binding Acknowledgement message. 539 CANNOT_SUPPORT_MULTIPATH_BINDING (Cannot Support Multipath Binding): 540 542 5.2. Call Flows 544 Figure 8 is the callflow detailing hybrid access support with PMIPv6. 545 The CPE in this example scenario is equipped with both WLAN and LTE 546 interfaces and is also configured with the MAG functionality. A 547 logical-NAI with ALWAYS-ON configuration is enabled on the MAG. The 548 mobility session that is created on the LMA is for the logical-NAI. 549 The IP hosts MN_1 and MN_2 are assigned IP addresses from the 550 delegated mobile network prefix. 552 +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ 553 | MN_1| | MN_2| | MAG | | WLAN| | LTE | | LMA | 554 +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ 555 | | | | | | 556 | | | | | | 557 | | | (1) ATTACH | | | 558 | | | <--------> | | | 559 | | | (2) ATTACH | | 560 | | | <---------------------->| | 561 | | | (3) PBU (NAI, MAG-NAI, DMNP, MMB) | 562 | | | ------------------------*----------> | 563 | | | (4) PBA (NAI, DMNP) | 564 | | | <-----------------------*----------- | 565 | | | (5) TUNNEL INTERFACE CREATION | 566 | | |-============== TUNNEL ==*===========-| 567 | | | | 568 | | | (6) PBU (NAI, MAG-NAI, DMNP, MMB) | 569 | | | -----------*-----------------------> | 570 | | | (7) PBA (NAI, DMNP) | 571 | | | <----------*------------------------ | 572 | | | (8) TUNNEL INTERFACE CREATION | 573 | | |-===========*== TUNNEL ==============-| 574 | (9) | | 575 | <------------------> | | 576 | | (10) | | 577 | |<-----------> | | 579 Figure 8: Functional Separation of the Control and User Plane 581 6. IANA Considerations 583 This document requires the following IANA actions. 585 o Action-1: This specification defines a new mobility option, the 586 MAG Multipath-Binding option. The format of this option is 587 described in Section 5.1.1. The type value for this 588 mobility option needs to be allocated from the Mobility Options 589 registry at . 591 RFC Editor: Please replace in Section 5.1.1 with the 592 assigned value and update this section accordingly. 594 o Action-2: This specification defines a new mobility option, the 595 MAG Identifier option. The format of this option is described in 596 Section 5.1.2. The type value for this mobility option 597 needs to be allocated from the Mobility Options registry at 598 . RFC 599 Editor: Please replace in Section 5.1.2 with the assigned 600 value and update this section accordingly. 602 o Action-4: This document defines a new status value, 603 CANNOT_SUPPORT_MULTIPATH_BINDING () for use in Proxy 604 Binding Acknowledgement message, as described in Section 5.1.3. 605 This value is to be assigned from the "Status Codes" registry at 606 . The 607 allocated value has to be greater than 127. RFC Editor: Please 608 replace in Section 5.1.3 with the assigned value and 609 update this section accordingly. 611 7. Security Considerations 613 This specification allows a mobile access gateway to establish 614 multiple Proxy Mobile IPv6 tunnels with a local mobility anchor, by 615 registering a care-of address for each of its connected access 616 networks. This essentially allows the mobile node's IP traffic to be 617 routed through any of the tunnel paths and either based on a static 618 or a dynamically negotiated flow policy. This new capability has no 619 impact on the protocol security. Furthermore, this specification 620 defines two new mobility header options, MAG Multipath-Binding option 621 and the MAG Identifier option. These options are carried like any 622 other mobility header option as specified in [RFC5213]. Therefore, 623 it inherits security guidelines from [RFC5213]. Thus, this 624 specification does not weaken the security of Proxy Mobile IPv6 625 Protocol, and does not introduce any new security vulnerabilities. 627 8. Acknowledgements 629 The authors of this draft would like to acknowledge the discussions 630 and feedback on this topic from the members of the Broadband Forum. 632 9. References 633 9.1. Normative References 635 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 636 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 638 [RFC3963] Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., and P. 639 Thubert, "Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol", 640 RFC 3963, January 2005. 642 [RFC5094] Devarapalli, V., Patel, A., and K. Leung, "Mobile IPv6 643 Vendor Specific Option", RFC 5094, December 2007. 645 [RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V., Chowdhury, K., 646 and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 5213, August 2008. 648 [RFC5648] Wakikawa, R., Devarapalli, V., Tsirtsis, G., Ernst, T., 649 and K. Nagami, "Multiple Care-of Addresses Registration", 650 RFC 5648, October 2009. 652 [RFC5844] Wakikawa, R. and S. Gundavelli, "IPv4 Support for Proxy 653 Mobile IPv6", RFC 5844, May 2010. 655 [RFC5845] Muhanna, A., Khalil, M., Gundavelli, S., and K. Leung, 656 "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) Key Option for Proxy 657 Mobile IPv6", RFC 5845, June 2010. 659 [RFC6088] Tsirtsis, G., Giarreta, G., Soliman, H., and N. Montavont, 660 "Traffic Selectors for Flow Bindings", RFC 6088, 661 January 2011. 663 [RFC6089] Tsirtsis, G., Soliman, H., Montavont, N., Giaretta, G., 664 and K. Kuladinithi, "Flow Bindings in Mobile IPv6 and 665 Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support", RFC 6089, 666 January 2011. 668 [RFC6275] Perkins, C., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support 669 in IPv6", RFC 6275, July 2011. 671 [RFC7148] Zhou, X., Korhonen, J., Williams, C., Gundavelli, S., and 672 CJ. Bernardos, "Prefix Delegation Support for Proxy Mobile 673 IPv6", RFC 7148, March 2014. 675 9.2. Informative References 677 [RFC2473] Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Generic Packet Tunneling in 678 IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, December 1998. 680 [RFC3753] Manner, J. and M. Kojo, "Mobility Related Terminology", 681 RFC 3753, June 2004. 683 [RFC4213] Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms 684 for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213, October 2005. 686 [RFC4908] Nagami, K., Uda, S., Ogashiwa, N., Esaki, H., Wakikawa, 687 R., and H. Ohnishi, "Multi-homing for small scale fixed 688 network Using Mobile IP and NEMO", RFC 4908, June 2007. 690 [WT-348] "Liaison Statement: Broadband Forum Work on "Hybrid Access 691 for Broadband Networks" (WT-348)", BBF Broadband Forum, 692 October 2014, . 694 Authors' Addresses 696 Pierrick Seite 697 Orange 698 4, rue du Clos Courtel, BP 91226 699 Cesson-Sevigne 35512 700 France 702 Email: pierrick.seite@orange.com 704 Alper Yegin 705 Samsung 706 Istanbul 707 Turkey 709 Email: alper.yegin@partner.samsung.com 711 Sri Gundavelli 712 Cisco 713 170 West Tasman Drive 714 San Jose, CA 95134 715 USA 717 Email: sgundave@cisco.com