idnits 2.17.1 draft-sijeon-netext-pmip-msr-01.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 (July 01, 2014) is 3587 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) == Unused Reference: 'RFC2119' is defined on line 189, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC5213' is defined on line 192, but no explicit reference was found in the text Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 NETEXT WG Seil Jeon 2 Internet Draft Institute de Telecomunicacoes 3 Intended status: Standard Track Younghan Kim 4 Expires: January 01, 2015 Soongsil University 5 July 01, 2014 7 Proxy Mobile IPv6 with Mobility Session Redirection 8 draft-sijeon-netext-pmip-msr-01.txt 10 Status of this Memo 12 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 13 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 15 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 16 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 17 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 18 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 20 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six 21 months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents 22 at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as 23 reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 25 This Internet-Draft will expire on January 01, 2015. 27 Copyright Notice 29 Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 30 document authors. All rights reserved. 32 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 33 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 34 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 35 publication of this document. Please review these documents 36 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with 37 respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this 38 document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in 39 Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without 40 warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. 42 Abstract 44 This specification describes an enhanced mobility anchoring for mid- 45 session mobility over Proxy Mobile IPv6 networks. 47 Table of Contents 49 1. Introduction ................................................. 2 50 2. Overview ..................................................... 2 51 3. Selecting a Target Local Mobility Anchor ..................... 4 52 3.1. Based on the Ordered List ............................... 4 53 3.2. Based on Load Monitoring Entity ......................... 4 54 3.3. Based on Explicit Signaling ............................. 4 55 3.4. Periodic Load Information Broadcasting Among LMAs ....... 4 56 4. IP Session Continuity ........................................ 5 57 5. Security Considerations ...................................... 5 58 6. IANA Considerations .......................................... 5 59 7. References ................................................... 5 60 7.1. Normative References .................................... 5 62 1. Introduction 64 Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) specification allows no provision to 65 switch a Local Mobility Anchor (LMA) to another LMA during mid- 66 session when an LMA may need to handoff a mobile node (MN) to 67 another LMA for load balancing or maintenance purpose. 69 RFC 6463 describes the runtime LMA assignment functionality and the 70 protocol extension for PMIPv6. However, it is defined only for 71 initial registration process not in the case of mid-session. 73 This specification describes a procedure and assisted methods for 74 switching a current LMA to a target LMA, called mobility session 75 redirection, in short MSR. 77 2. Overview 79 The mobility session redirection (MSR) relies on the runtime LMA 80 assignment scheme defined in [RFC6463]. 82 MN MAG LMA1 LMA2 CN 83 | | | | | 84 |<----------|====== DATA =====|-------------|----------->| 85 | | | | | 86 | | | | | 87 | | Overload | | 88 | | detected | | 89 | | | | | 90 | | Select an MN to be | | 91 | | handed over to LMA2 | | 92 | | | | | 93 | | | | | 94 | |<--(LB Warning)--| | | 95 | | | | | 96 | |------(PBU)----->| | | 97 | |(binding refresh)| | | 98 | | | | | 99 | | |---- PBU --->| | 100 | | | | | 101 | | |<--- PBA ----| | 102 | | | | | 103 | |<----- PBA ------| | | 104 | | | | | 105 | | | | | 106 |<----------|========== DATA ===============| | 107 | | | | | 109 Figure 1 An LMA switching procedure 111 Figure 1 shows the message sequence procedure for the LMA switching 112 operation. Suppose that each LMA has a load threshold it can endure. 113 When load reaches the threshold of acceptable capacity of LMA1, LMA 114 switching is then activated for a selected mobile node (MN). When 115 the load reaches the absolute maximum capacity allowed in LMA1, LMA1 116 sends load balancing (LB) warning indication to the determined MAG 117 to have a specific LMA switching request such as a designated LMA. 118 For the warning indication, the update notification mechanism, 119 defined in [RFC7077], as to induce the binding refresh request can 120 be utilized. 122 However, LMA switching can be determined by the MAG in the allowed 123 LMA load condition. So, the MAG can reject the LMA switching not to 124 prevent an on-going session activity. When the MAG has a designated 125 LMA address to switch the current one in the ordered list, the 126 target LMA address is delivered by an added option message in the 127 PBU signaling message. For the option message, Redirect Mobility 128 Option, defined in [RFC6463], can be used. When the MAG is no 129 designated LMA address, null is given. Alternatively, when the load 130 reaches the absolute maximum capacity allowed in LMA1, LMA1 does not 131 wait for the next refresh binding request of Proxy Binding Update 132 (PBU) message, and can proceed sending the PBU message for LMA 133 switching towards LMA2. Once a chosen MN gets successfully 134 redirected at LMA2, LMA2 takes the anchoring role for the MN so that 135 data traffic between the MN and CNs is anchored at LMA2. 137 3. Selecting a Target Local Mobility Anchor 139 3.1. Based on the Ordered List 141 MAG may choose a target LMA in the ordered list it for switching the 142 current one. When the contacted LMA is failed to switch, the 143 subsequent LMA is tried to switch the current LMA again. 145 3.2. Based on Load Monitoring Entity 147 On the presence of load monitoring server of the deployed LMAs, the 148 LMA can rely on the load monitoring server to know load status of 149 target LMAs. 151 3.3. Based on Explicit Signaling 153 A distributed approach can be utilized between LMAs to check load 154 status of target LMA by internally defined signaling messages or the 155 external mechanisms such as IEEE 802.21 signaling primitives or 156 peer-to-peer (P2P) approach. 158 3.4. Periodic Load Information Broadcasting Among LMAs 160 Load information can be obtained from periodic load information 161 broadcasting of all the available LMAs. The LMA preparing the LMA 162 switching can base the obtain information to select a target LMA. 164 4. IP Session Continuity 166 The proposed LMA switching can be used, regardless of IP session 167 continuity. When the LMA switching occurs, the MN needs to configure 168 a new home network prefix (HNP) allocated from the prefix pool of 169 the redirected LMA. IP session continuity support might be difficult 170 in PMIPv6. But in case where all LMAs are connected behind a switch 171 and configured with a shared network prefix on egress interfaces of 172 the LMAs, Proxy Neighbor Discovery (ND) can be used to deliver the 173 packets destined to the MN. In the configured network, the use of 174 Anycast routing can be another option to let the MN exchange its 175 traffic with a new LMA. 177 5. Security Considerations 179 T.B.D. 181 6. IANA Considerations 183 T.B.D. 185 7. References 187 7.1. Normative References 189 [RFC2119] S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 190 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 192 [RFC5213] S. Gundavelli, K. Leung, V. Devarapalli, K. Chowdury, and 193 B.Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6," IETF RFC 5213, Aug. 2008. 195 [RFC6463] J. Korhonen, S. Gundavelli, H. Yokota, and X. Cui, 196 "Runtime Local Mobility Anchor (LMA) Assignment Support," 197 IETF RFC 6463, Feb.2012. 199 [RFC7077] S. Krishnan, S. Gundavelli, M. Liebsch, H. Yokota, and J. 200 Koronen, "Update Notifications for Proxy Mobile IPv6," 201 IETF RFC 7077, Nov. 2013. 203 Authors' Addresses 205 Seil Jeon 206 Instituto de Telecomunicacoes 207 Campus Universitario de Santiago 208 Aveiro 3810-193, Portugal 210 seiljeon@av.it.pt 212 Younghan Kim 213 Soongsil University 214 Sangdo-dong, Dongjak-gu 215 Seoul 511, Republic of Korea 217 younghak@ssu.ac.kr