idnits 2.17.1 draft-yhkim-dmm-enhanced-anchoring-05.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 doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords, yet has text resembling RFC 2119 boilerplate text. -- The document date (July 07, 2016) is 2821 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: 'I-D.sijeon-dmm-deployment-models' is defined on line 238, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: A later version (-03) exists of draft-sijeon-dmm-deployment-models-02 Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 DMM Y. Kim 3 Internet-Draft Soongsil University 4 Intended status: Standards Track S. Jeon 5 Expires: January 8, 2017 Sungkyunkwan University 6 July 07, 2016 8 Enhanced Mobility Anchoring in Distributed Mobility Management 9 draft-yhkim-dmm-enhanced-anchoring-05.txt 11 Abstract 13 This document presents a new perspective for the solution design of 14 enhanced mobility anchoring over DMM deployment models described in 15 [draft-sijeon-dmm-deployment-models]. 17 Status of This Memo 19 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 20 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 22 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 23 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 24 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 25 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 27 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 28 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 29 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 30 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 32 This Internet-Draft will expire on January 8, 2017. 34 Copyright Notice 36 Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 37 document authors. All rights reserved. 39 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 40 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 41 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 42 publication of this document. Please review these documents 43 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 44 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 45 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 46 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 47 described in the Simplified BSD License. 49 Table of Contents 51 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 52 2. Conventions and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 53 3. Enhanced Mobility Anchoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 54 3.1. Distributed AM, LM, and FM (with centralized LM) - All- 55 in-One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 56 3.2. Distributed AF-DP, LM and FM with centralized AF-CP (+ 57 LM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 58 3.3. Distributed AF-DP and FM-DP with centralized AF-CP, LM, 59 and FM-CP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 60 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 61 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 62 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 63 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 64 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 65 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 66 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 68 1. Introduction 70 This document aims to identify what should be enhanced for mobility 71 anchoring and to provide possible approaches for enhanced mobility 72 anchoring over deployment models presented in [draft-sijeon-dmm- 73 deployment-models]. 75 2. Conventions and Terminology 77 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL","SHALL NOT", 78 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 79 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 81 This document focuses on enhanced mobility anchoring based on the 82 functional deployment models presented in [draft-sijeon-dmm- 83 deployment-models], which describes deployment models with mobility 84 management functions in [RFC7429]. 86 Anchoring Function (AF) is defined as a combined control-plane and 87 data-plane functions. For the control-plane function, it allocates 88 an IP address, i.e., Home Address (HoA), or prefix, i.e., Home 89 Network Prefix (HNP) a mobile node, topologically anchored by the 90 advertising node. That is, the anchor node is able to advertise a 91 connected route into the routing infrastructure for the allocated IP 92 prefixes. It also takes a data-plane anchor point where packets 93 destined to the IP address or IP prefix allocated by the anchor 94 should pass through. 96 It can be deployed in a decoupled way, i.e. separated control plane 97 and data plane. In that case, following two terms - AF Control Plane 98 (AF-CP) and AF Data Plane (AF-DP) - are used. AF-CP is responsible 99 of allocating the IP address and advertising a connected route for an 100 associated terminal while AF-DP is responsible of anchoring received 101 data packets destined to the IP address allocated by the anchor. 103 Internetwork Location Management (LM) is a control-plane function, 104 which manages and keeps track of the internetwork location of an MN. 105 The location information may be a binding of the advertised IP 106 address/prefix, e.g., HoA or HNP, to the IP routing address of the 107 MN, or it may be a binding of a node that can forward packets 108 destined to the MN. 110 Note that the LM could belong to the AF-CP, as it is done in several 111 solutions, i.e. Mobile IP (MIP) and Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6). 112 However, in this draft, each function is indicated distinctively, as 113 those functions could be deployed in different locations to allow 114 advanced control and smooth evolution for DMM. 116 Forwarding Management (FM) function performs packet interception and 117 forwarding to/from the IP address/prefix assigned to the MN, based on 118 the internetwork location information, either to the destination or 119 to some other network element that knows how to forward the packets 120 to their destination. 122 Following the FM definition in [RFC7429], it may be split into the 123 control plane (FM-CP) and data plane (FM-DP). 125 3. Enhanced Mobility Anchoring 127 We present enhanced mobility anchoring operations based on the three 128 deployment models presented in [draft-sijeon-dmm-deployment-models]. 129 For the details of the deployment models, check following draft 130 [draft-sijeon-dmm-deployment-models]. 132 3.1. Distributed AM, LM, and FM (with centralized LM) - All-in-One 133 +--------------------------+ 134 | (LM) | 135 +--------------------------+ 136 ^ ^ 137 | | 138 | | 139 v v 140 +-------------+ +-------------+ 141 |AF + LM + FM | (<---->) |AF + LM + FM | 142 +-------------+ +-------------+ 144 +------+ 145 | MN | 146 +------+ 148 Figure 1. Distributed AM, LM, and FM functions (with centralized LM) 150 Fig. 1 shows AF is distributed with LM and FM at edge mobility 151 routers. The AF allocates an IP address or IP prefix and advertises 152 a connected route of the mobile terminal configured with the 153 allocated IP address or IP prefix, when the terminal is attached at a 154 mobility router. It takes a role of intercepting packets destined to 155 the allocated IP address/prefix of the mobile terminal. 157 3.2. Distributed AF-DP, LM and FM with centralized AF-CP (+ LM) 159 +--------------------------+ 160 | AF-CP (+ LM) | 161 +--------------------------+ 162 ^ ^ 163 | | 164 | | 165 v v 166 +-----------+ +-----------+ 167 | AF-DP + | | AF-DP + | 168 | LM + FM | (<----->) | LM + FM | 169 +-----------+ +-----------+ 171 +------+ 172 | MN | 173 +------+ 175 Figure 2. Distributed AF-DP, LM and FM functions with centralized 176 AF-CP (+ LM) 177 The deployment model in Fig. 2 shows that AF-DP is distributed with 178 LM and FM into deployed mobility routers while AF-CP is centralized 179 in a single entity. Allocating an IP address/prefix is provided by 180 AF-CP, while packet interception is supported by AF-DP. As the 181 control plane and data plane of AF is separated, flexible AF-DP 182 selection can be enabled for load balancing or network management, as 183 an enhanced mobility anchoring aspect. Based on the separated AF-CP 184 and AF-DP architecture, switching of AF-DP can be supported under the 185 control of AF-CP. 187 3.3. Distributed AF-DP and FM-DP with centralized AF-CP, LM, and FM-CP 189 +--------------------------+ 190 | AF-CP + LM + FM-CP | 191 +--------------------------+ 192 ^ ^ 193 | | 194 | | 195 v v 196 +---------------+ +---------------+ 197 | AF-DP + FM-DP | (<--->) | AF-DP + FM-DP | 198 +---------------+ +---------------+ 200 +------+ 201 | MN | 202 +------+ 204 Figure 3. Distributed AF-DP and FM-DP with centralized AF-CP, LM, 205 and FM-CP 207 In the function deployment model shown in Fig. 3, separation of FM-CP 208 and FM-DP is implemented with the separation of AF-CP and AF-DP. The 209 LM is located at the central entity. Comparing deployment models 210 described in Fig. 3 and Fig. 2, this deployment model facilitates 211 management and optimization of forwarding path, even in the mid- 212 session, between the AF-DP of an allocated IP address and a current 213 serving router where the terminal is attached. Moreover, it enables 214 supporting a flexible selection of forwarding data path well as 215 supporting a flexible AF-DP selection by AF-CP. 217 4. IANA Considerations 219 This document makes no request of IANA. 221 5. Security Considerations 223 T.B.D. 225 6. Acknowledgements 227 7. References 229 7.1. Normative References 231 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 232 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 233 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 234 . 236 7.2. Informative References 238 [I-D.sijeon-dmm-deployment-models] 239 Jeon, S. and Y. Kim, "Deployment Models for Distributed 240 Mobility Management", draft-sijeon-dmm-deployment- 241 models-02 (work in progress), March 2016. 243 [RFC7429] Liu, D., Ed., Zuniga, JC., Ed., Seite, P., Chan, H., and 244 CJ. Bernardos, "Distributed Mobility Management: Current 245 Practices and Gap Analysis", RFC 7429, 246 DOI 10.17487/RFC7429, January 2015, 247 . 249 Authors' Addresses 251 Younghan Kim 252 Soongsil University 253 369, Sangdo-ro, Dongjak-gu 254 Seoul 156-743 255 Korea 257 Email: younghak@ssu.ac.kr 259 Seil Jeon 260 Sungkyunkwan University 261 2066 Seobu-ro, Jangan-gu 262 Suwon, Gyeonggi-do 263 Korea 265 Email: seiljeon@skku.edu