Subject: Re: [DMM] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmm-requirements-07.txt

From: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 03:03:38 +0000

Please see inline for some comments.

Regards
Sri

Abstract

   This document defines the requirements for Distributed Mobility
   Management (DMM) in IPv6 deployments.  The hierarchical structure in
   traditional wireless networks has led to deployment models which are
   in practice centralized.  Mobility management with logically
   centralized mobility anchoring in current mobile networks is prone to
   suboptimal routing and raises scalability issues.  Such centralized
   functions can lead to single points of failure and inevitably
   introduce longer delays and higher signaling loads for network
   operations related to mobility management.  The objective is to
   enhance mobility management in order to meet the primary goals in
   network evolution, i.e., improve scalability, avoid single points of
   failure, enable transparent mobility support to upper layers only
   when needed, and so on.  Distributed mobility management must be
   secure and may co-exist with existing network deployments and end
   hosts.

[Sri] We don’t need to argue against centralized model to justify distributed model. In the absence of proper data to compare on both the approaches, we cannot have such text.  The pros and cons extend to both the models. Please simply state distributed model can be useful in certain deployments and hence there is interest for this work.

1.  Introduction

   In the past decade a fair number of mobility protocols have been
   standardized [RFC6275] [RFC5944] [RFC5380] [RFC6301] [RFC5213].
   Although the protocols differ in terms of functions and associated
   message formats, we can identify a few key common features:

   o  a centralized mobility anchor providing global reachability and an
      always-on experience to the user;

   o  extensions to the base protocols to optimize handover performance
      while users roam across wireless cells; and

   o  extensions to enable the use of heterogeneous wireless interfaces
      for multi-mode terminals (e.g. smartphones).

[Sri] Currently defined mobility protocols support handovers and multiple access technologies  ? Not sure, how these two "common features" make the case for DMM  If the point is about centralized anchor's, you don't need the other two points.

   The presence of the centralized mobility anchor allows a mobile node
   to remain reachable after it has moved to a different network.  The
   anchor point, among other tasks, ensures connectivity by forwarding
   packets destined to, or sent from, the mobile node.  In practice,
   most of the deployed architectures today have a small number of
   centralized anchors managing the traffic of millions of mobile nodes.
   Compared with a distributed approach, a centralized approach is
   likely to have several issues or limitations affecting performance
   and scalability, which require costly network engineering to resolve.

[Sri] All 3G/4G systems are based on this model and they are running fine. Again, we don’t need to argue against centralized model to justify distributed model. Please simply state distributed model can be useful in certain deployments and hence the motivation for this work.

   To optimize handovers from the perspective of mobile nodes, the base
   protocols have been extended to efficiently handle packet forwarding
   between the previous and new points of attachment.  These extensions
   are necessary when applications have stringent requirements in terms
   of delay.  Notions of localization and distribution of local agents
   have been introduced to reduce signaling overhead at the centralized
   routing anchor point [Paper-Distributed.Centralized.Mobility].
   Unfortunately, today we witness difficulties in getting such
   protocols deployed, resulting in sub-optimal choices for the network
   Operators.

[Sri] I assume this is about hierarchical models / Chaining ? What are these "difficulties in getting such protocols deployed" ?

   Moreover, the availability of multiple-interface host and the
   possibility of using several network interfaces simultaneously have
   motivated the development of even more protocol extensions to add
   more capabilities to the mobility management protocol.  In the end,
   deployment is further complicated with the multitude of extensions.

[Sri] Not sure I follow. Mobile IP protocols are in general access agnostic. Not sure, what are the extensions that we have added on access-basis.

   As an effective transport method for multimedia data delivery, IP
   multicast support, including optimizations, have been introduced but
   by "patching-up" procedure after completing the design of reference
   mobility protocol, leading to network inefficiency and non-optimal
   routing.

[Sri] Multicast related extensions have nothing to do with multi-access support/host's capability to support multiple interfaces. Can you clarify ? This text is not clear.

Chan (Ed.), et al.      Expires February 3, 2014                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                  DMM-Reqs                     August 2013

   Mobile users are, more than ever, consuming Internet content; such
   traffic imposes new requirements on mobile core networks for data
   traffic delivery.  The presence of content providers closer to
   Internet Service Providers (ISP) network requires taking into account
   local Content Delivery Networks (CDNs) while providing mobility
   services.  Moreover, when the traffic demand exceeds available
   capacity, service providers need to implement new strategies such as
   selective traffic offload (e.g. 3GPP work items LIPA/SIPTO
   [TS.23.401]) through alternative access networks (e.g.  WLAN) [Paper-
   Mobile.Data.Offloading].

[Sri] Please add reference to IETF SIPTO doc, RFC6909, before 23.401 :)

A gateway selection mechanism also takes
   the user proximity into account within EPC [TS.29303].  These
   mechanisms were not pursued in the past owing to charging and billing
   reasons.   Assigning a gateway anchor node from a visited network in

   roaming scenario has until recently been done and are limited to
   voice services only.  Charging and billing require solutions beyond
   the mobility protocol.

   Both traffic offloading and CDN mechanisms could benefit from the
   development of mobile architectures with fewer levels of routing
   hierarchy introduced into the data path by the mobility management
   system.  This trend towards so-called "flat networks" works best for
   direct communications among peers in the same geographical area.
   Distributed mobility management in a truly flat mobile architecture
   would anchor the traffic closer to the point of attachment of the
   user.

   Today's mobile networks present service providers with new
   challenges.  Mobility patterns indicate that mobile nodes often
   remain attached to the same point of attachment for considerable
   periods of time [Paper-Locating.User].  Specific IP mobility
   management support is not required for applications that launch and
   complete their sessions while the mobile node is connected to the
   same point of attachment.

 However, currently, IP mobility support is
   designed for always-on operation, maintaining all parameters of the
   context for each mobile subscriber for as long as they are connected
   to the network.  This can result in a waste of resources and unnecessary costs for the service provider.

[Sri]  Is the intent of this is text is about routing based approaches ?

If a mobile is attached to the network, it does have some state at the anchor. Also, if we consider the home link in mobility models, there is no state for the mobile node when it is at home. In case of DMM, or with the current models, if the gateway selection is based on the MN's location and when there is no node mobility, there should not be any state at the anchor. CDMA

 Infrequent node mobility
   coupled with application intelligence suggest that mobility support
   could be provided selectively, thus reducing the amount of context
   maintained in the network.

   The distributed mobility management (DMM) charter addresses two
   complementary aspects of mobility management procedures: the
   distribution of mobility anchors towards a more flat network and the
   dynamic activation/deactivation of mobility protocol support as an
   enabler to distributed mobility management.

[Sri] Not sure, I follow this point on Dynamic activation/de-activation. Can you clarify.

The former aims at
   positioning mobility anchors (e.g., HA, LMA) closer to the user;
   ideally, mobility agents could be collocated with the first-hop

Chan (Ed.), et al.      Expires February 3, 2014                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                  DMM-Reqs                     August 2013

   router.  The latter, facilitated by the distribution of mobility
   anchors, aims at identifying when mobility support must be activated
   and identifying sessions that do not require mobility management
   support -- thus reducing the amount of state information that must be
   maintained in various mobility agents of the mobile network.  The key
   idea is that dynamic mobility management relaxes some of the
   constraints of previously-standardized mobility management solutions
   and, by doing so, it can avoid the unnecessary establishment of
   mechanisms to forward traffic from an old to a new mobility anchor.

[Sri] The DMM model should not exclude the case of centralized anchor and distributed data plane. This is sub-case of DMM.

   This document compares distributed mobility management with
   centralized mobility management in Section 3.  The problems that can
   be addressed with DMM are summarized in Section 4.  The mandatory
   requirements as well as the optional requirements are given in
   Section 5.  Finally, security considerations are discussed in Section
   6.

   The problem statement and the use cases [I-D.yokota-dmm-scenario] can
   be found in [Paper-Distributed.Mobility.Review].

2.  Conventions used in this document

2.1.  Terminology

   All the general mobility-related terms and their acronyms used in
   this document are to be interpreted as defined in the Mobile IPv6
   base specification [RFC6275], in the Proxy mobile IPv6 specification
   [RFC5213], and in Mobility Related Terminology [RFC3753].  These
   terms include the following: mobile node (MN), correspondent node
   (CN), and home agent (HA) as per [RFC6275]; local mobility anchor
   (LMA) and mobile access gateway (MAG) as per [RFC5213], and context
   as per [RFC3753].

   In addition, this draft introduces the following term.

   Mobility context

      is the collection of information required to provide mobility
      management support for a given mobile node.

[Sri] There needs to be some definition of "centrally deployed mobility anchor". This term is used through-out the document. What is central, what is local ? Even in the so called, "centralized anchor models", a gateway can be enabled locally. Ex: LMA/MAG, PGW/SGW functions can exist on the same node.

3.  Centralized versus distributed mobility management

   Mobility management functions may be implemented at different layers
   of the protocol stack.  At the IP (network) layer, they may reside in
   the network or in the mobile node.  In particular, a network-based
   solution resides in the network only.  It therefore enables mobility

Chan (Ed.), et al.      Expires February 3, 2014                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                  DMM-Reqs                     August 2013

   for existing hosts and network applications which are already in
   deployment but lack mobility support.

[Sri] Above text is bit confusing to me, specially the last sentence. Mobility management can be based on client-based, or network-based.

   At the IP layer, a mobility management protocol supporting session
   continuity is typically based on the principle of distinguishing
   between identifier and routing address and maintaining a mapping
   between the two.

[Sri] Replace, "Session continuity" with "IP mobility" or "IP address continuity".

In Mobile IP, the home address serves as an
   identifier of the device whereas the care-of-address (CoA) takes the
   role of the routing address.  The binding between these two is
   maintained at the home agent (mobility anchor).  If packets can be
   continuously delivered to a mobile node at its home address, then all
   sessions using that home address are unaffected even though the
   routing address (CoA) changes.

[Sri] We should leave it at, "IP address mobility".

   The next two subsections explain centralized and distributed mobility
   management functions in the network.

3.1.  Centralized mobility management

   In centralized mobility management, the mapping information between
   the persistent node identifier and the locator IP address of a mobile
   node (MN) is kept at a single mobility anchor.  At the same time,
   packets destined to the MN are routed via this anchor.

[Sri] Can we use the MIP terminology, home address/Care-of address terminology, as supposed to LISP terminology ?

  In other
   words, such mobility management systems are centralized in both the
   control plane and the data plane (mobile node IP traffic).

   Many existing mobility management deployments make use of centralized
   mobility anchoring in a hierarchical network architecture, as shown
   in Figure 1.  Examples of such centralized mobility anchors are the
   home agent (HA) and local mobility anchor (LMA) in Mobile IPv6
   [RFC6275] and Proxy Mobile IPv6 [RFC5213], respectively.  Current
   cellular networks such as the Third Generation Partnership Project
   (3GPP) GPRS networks, CDMA networks, and 3GPP Evolved Packet System
   (EPS) networks employ centralized mobility management too.  In
   particular, the Gateway GPRS Support Node (GGSN), Serving GPRS
   Support Node (SGSN) and Radio Network Controller (RNC) in the 3GPP
   GPRS hierarchical network, and the Packet Data Network Gateway (P-GW)
   and Serving Gateway (S-GW) in the 3GPP EPS network all act as anchors
   in a hierarchy.

Chan (Ed.), et al.      Expires February 3, 2014                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                  DMM-Reqs                     August 2013

         3G GPRS                 3GPP EPS                MIP/PMIP
         +------+                +------+                +------+
         | GGSN |                | P-GW |                |HA/LMA|
         +------+                +------+                +------+
            /\                      /\                      /\
           /  \                    /  \                    /  \
          /    \                  /    \                  /    \
         /      \                /      \                /      \
        /        \              /        \              /        \
       /          \            /          \            /          \
      /            \          /            \          /            \
  +------+      +------+  +------+      +------+  +------+      +------+
  | SGSN |      | SGSN |  | S-GW |      | S-GW |  |MN/MAG|      |MN/MAG|
  +------+      +------+  +------+      +------+  +------+      +------+
     /\            /\
    /  \          /  \
   /    \        /    \
+---+  +---+  +---+  +---+
|RNC|  |RNC|  |RNC|  |RNC|
+---+  +---+  +---+  +---+

   Figure 1.  Centralized mobility management.

3.2.  Distributed mobility management

   Mobility management functions may also be distributed to multiple
   networks as shown in Figure 2, so that a mobile node in any of these
   networks may be served by a nearby mobility function (MF).

                    +------+  +------+  +------+  +------+
                    |  MF  |  |  MF  |  |  MF  |  |  MF  |
                    +------+  +------+  +------+  +------+
                                           |
                                         +----+
                                         | MN |
                                         +----+

   Figure 2.  Distributed mobility management.

   Mobility management may be partially or fully distributed.  In the
   former case only the data plane is distributed.  Fully distributed
   mobility management implies that both the data plane and the control
   plane are distributed.  Such concepts of data and control plane
   separation are not yet described in the IETF developed mobility
   protocols so far but are described in detail in [I-D.yokota-dmm-
   scenario].  While mobility management can be distributed, it is not
   necessary for other functions such as subscription management,

Chan (Ed.), et al.      Expires February 3, 2014                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                  DMM-Reqs                     August 2013

   subscription database, and network access authentication to be
   similarly distributed.

[Sri] The case of centralized CP and distributed DP is covered in IETF docs,

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wakikawa-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation/

This is a variant of the DMM models.

   A distributed mobility management scheme for flat IP-based mobile
   network architecture consisting of access nodes is proposed in
   [Paper-Distributed.Dynamic.Mobility].  Its benefits over centralized
   mobility management are shown through simulations in [Paper-
   Distributed.Centralized.Mobility].  Moreover, the (re)use and
   extension of existing protocols in the design of both fully
   distributed mobility management [Paper-Migrating.Home.Agents] [Paper-
   Distributed.Mobility.SAE] and partially distributed mobility
   management [Paper-Distributed.Mobility.PMIP] [Paper-
   Distributed.Mobility.MIP] have been reported in the literature.
   Therefore, before designing new mobility management protocols for a
   future flat IP architecture, it is recommended to first consider
   whether existing mobility management protocols can be extended to
   serve a flat IP architecture.

[Sri] Lot of unnecessary text in this document. Not sure, we need all of this text.

4.  Problem Statement

   The problems that can be addressed with DMM are summarized in the
   following:

   PS1:  Non-optimal routes

         Routing via a centralized anchor often results in a longer
         route.

[Sri] "longer route" ?  I assume this is about routing/tx delay. Please re-word.

The problem is manifested, for example, when accessing
         a local server or servers of a Content Delivery Network (CDN),
         or when receiving locally available IP multicast or sending IP
         multicast packets.

[Sri] Does RFC 6705, or RFC 6909 does not address this issue ? May be the CDN example is incorrect.

   PS2:  Divergence from other evolutionary trends in network
         architectures such as distribution of content delivery.

         Centralized mobility management can become non-optimal with a
         flat network architecture.

[Sri] How is this making the case of DMM ? We want the MN to access content locally in the access network and we want localized routing. We have that in the form of 6705 and 6909. The other approach is give localized IP addresses and have the content locally accessed. There are simply two many considerations and points may be valid, but when we bring all those assumptions. We are bringing these points in a less logical manner without stating the assumptions.

   PS3:  Low scalability of centralized tunnel management and mobility
         context maintenance

         Setting up tunnels through a central anchor and maintaining
         mobility context for each MN usually requires more concentrated
         resources in a centralized design, thus reducing scalability.
         Distributing the tunnel maintenance function and the mobility
         context maintenance function among different network entities
         with proper signaling protocol design can increase scalability.

Chan (Ed.), et al.      Expires February 3, 2014                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft                  DMM-Reqs                     August 2013

   PS4:  Single point of failure and attack

         Centralized anchoring designs may be more vulnerable to single
         points of failures and attacks than a distributed system.  The
         impact of a successful attack on a system with centralized
         mobility management can be far greater as well.

   PS5:  Unnecessarily reserving resources to provide mobility support
         to nodes that do not need such support

         IP mobility support is not always required, and not every
         parameter of mobility context is always used.  For example,
         some applications do not need a stable IP address during a
         handover to maintain session continuity.  Sometimes, the entire
         application session runs while the terminal does not change the
         point of attachment.  Besides, some sessions, e.g.  SIP-based
         sessions, can handle mobility at the application layer and
         hence do not need IP mobility support; it is then more
         efficient to deactivate IP mobility support for such sessions.

[Sri]  Mobility systems today do support the aspect of service for the subscriber, as "Simple IP", or "Mobile IP". A PDSN can assign a local IP address and it does not have to be the home address. Network does have this intelligence, but what is missing is the client's ability to pick the correct type of IP address, among different IP addresses. The network is also the missing the aspect of marking those addresses with proper properties. The currently active drafts in IETF are to address this issue. We should talk about these missing semantics.

draft-bhandari-dhc-class-based-prefix-05<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bhandari-dhc-class-based-prefix/>

draft-korhonen-6man-prefix-properties-02<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-korhonen-6man-prefix-properties/>

   PS6:  (Related problem) Mobility signaling overhead with peer-to-peer
         communication

         Wasting resources when mobility signaling (e.g., maintenance of
         the tunnel, keep alive signaling, etc.) is not turned off for
         peer-to-peer communication.  Peer-to-peer communications have
         particular traffic patterns that often do not benefit from
         mobility support from the network.  Thus, the associated
         mobility support signaling (e.g., maintenance of the tunnel,
         keep alive signaling, etc.) wastes network resources for no
         application gain.  In such a case, it is better to enable
         mobility support selectively.

[Sri] How is PS6 different from PS5 ? We talk about application's ability to pick the address with or without mobility properties in PS5. So, the traffic patterns can be localized based on the application requirements. But, even if we take the argument that mobility is not required, operator needs visibility into these flows and so they can charge.  Again, we have 6705 and 6909 for adjusting to those traffic patterns. So, this P without those considerations is incomplete.

   PS7:  (Related problem) Deployment with multiple mobility solutions

         There are already many variants and extensions of MIP.
         Deployment of new mobility management solutions can be
         challenging, and debugging difficult, when they must co-exist
         with solutions already in the field.

   PS8:  Duplicate multicast traffic

         IP multicast distribution over architectures using IP mobility
         solutions (e.g.  RFC6224) may lead to convergence of duplicated
         multicast subscriptions towards the downstream tunnel entity
         (e.g.  MAG in PMIPv6).  Concretely, when multicast subscription
         for individual mobile nodes is coupled with mobility tunnels
         (e.g.  PMIPv6 tunnel), duplicate multicast subscription(s) is

Chan (Ed.), et al.      Expires February 3, 2014               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft                  DMM-Reqs                     August 2013

         prone to be received through different upstream paths.  This
         problem may also exist or be more severe in a distributed
         mobility environment.

[Sri] Is this for MN's from different LMA's attached to the same MAG ?

5.  Requirements

   After comparing distributed mobility management against centralized
   deployment in Section 3, this section identifies the following
   requirements:

5.1.  Distributed processing

   REQ1:  Distributed processing

          IP mobility, network access and routing solutions provided by
          DMM MUST enable distributed processing for mobility management
          so that traffic does not need to traverse centrally deployed
          mobility anchors and thereby avoid non-optimal routes.

          Motivation: This requirement is motivated by current trends in
          network evolution: (a) it is cost- and resource-effective to
          cache and distribute content by combining distributed mobility
          anchors with caching systems (e.g., CDN); (b) the
          significantly larger number of mobile nodes and flows call for
          improved scalability; (c) single points of failure are avoided
          in a distributed system; (d) threats against centrally
          deployed anchors, e.g., home agent and local mobility anchor,
          are mitigated in a distributed system.

   This requirement addresses the problems PS1, PS2, PS3, and PS4
   described in Section 4.  (Existing route optimization is only a host-
   based solution.  On the other hand, localized routing with PMIPv6
   addresses only a part of the problem where both the MN and the CN are
   located in the PMIP domain and attached to a MAG, and is not
   applicable when the CN is outside the PMIP domain.)

[Sri] I'm still stuck on the CDN example driving this requirement.

5.2.  Transparency to Upper Layers when needed

   REQ2:  Transparency to Upper Layers when needed

          DMM solutions MUST provide transparent mobility support above
          the IP layer when needed.  Such transparency is needed, for
          example, when, upon change of point of attachment to the
          network, an application flow cannot cope with a change in the
          IP address.  However, it is not always necessary to maintain a
          stable home IP address or prefix for every application or at
          all times for a mobile node.

[Sri] Please reflect the two key aspects of this requirement:

  *

Network can assign IP addresses with different properties; It carries those properties

  *

Applications have different requirements and will pick the address with the correct property.

Chan (Ed.), et al.      Expires February 3, 2014               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft                  DMM-Reqs                     August 2013

          Motivation: The motivation of this requirement is to enable
          more efficient use of network resources and more efficient
          routing by not maintaining context at the mobility anchor when
          there is no such need.

   This requirement addresses the problem PS5 as well as the related
   problem PS6 stated in Section 4.

5.3.  IPv6 deployment

   REQ3:  IPv6 deployment

          DMM solutions SHOULD target IPv6 as the primary deployment
          environment and SHOULD NOT be tailored specifically to support
          IPv4, in particular in situations where private IPv4 addresses
          and/or NATs are used.

          Motivation: This requirement conforms to the general
          orientation of IETF work.  DMM deployment is foreseen in mid-
          to long-term horizon, when IPv6 is expected to be far more
          common than today.

   This requirement avoids the unnecessarily complexity in solving the
   problems in Section 4 for IPv4, which will not be able to use some of
   the IPv6-specific features.

5.4.  Existing mobility protocols

   REQ4:  Existing mobility protocols

          A DMM solution SHOULD first consider reusing and extending
          IETF-standardized protocols before specifying new protocols.

          Motivation: Reuse of existing IETF work is more efficient and
          less error-prone.

   This requirement attempts to avoid the need of new protocols
   development and therefore their potential problems of being time-
   consuming and error-prone.

5.5.  Co-existence

   REQ5:  Co-existence with deployed networks and hosts

          The DMM solution MUST be able to co-exist with existing
          network deployments and end hosts.  For example, depending on
          the environment in which DMM is deployed, DMM solutions may
          need to be compatible with other deployed mobility protocols

Chan (Ed.), et al.      Expires February 3, 2014               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft                  DMM-Reqs                     August 2013

          or may need to co-exist with a network or mobile hosts/routers
          that do not support DMM protocols.  The mobile node may also
          move between different access networks, where some of them may
          support neither DMM nor another mobility protocol.
          Furthermore, a DMM solution SHOULD work across different
          networks, possibly operated as separate administrative
          domains, when allowed by the trust relationship between them.

          Motivation: (a) to preserve backwards compatibility so that
          existing networks and hosts are not affected and continue to
          function as usual, and (b) enable inter-domain operation if
          desired.

   This requirement addresses the related problem PS7 described in
   Section 4.

5.6.  Security considerations

   REQ6:  Security considerations

          A DMM solution MUST not introduce new security risks or
          amplify existing security risks against which the existing
          security mechanisms/protocols cannot offer sufficient
          protection.

          Motivation: Various attacks such as impersonation, denial of
          service, man-in-the-middle attacks, and so on, may be launched
          in a DMM deployment.  For instance, an illegitimate node may
          attempt to access a network providing DMM.  Another example is
          that a malicious node can forge a number of signaling messages
          thus redirecting traffic from its legitimate path.
          Consequently, the specific node is under a denial of service
          attack, whereas other nodes do not receive their traffic.
          Accordingly, security mechanisms/protocols providing access
          control, integrity, authentication, authorization,
          confidentiality, etc. can be used to protect the DMM entities
          as they are already used to protect against existing networks
          and existing mobility protocols defined in IETF.  In addition,
          end-to-end security measures between communicating nodes may
          already be used when deploying existing mobility protocols
          where the signaling messages travel over the Internet.  For
          instance, EAP-based authentication can be used for network
          access security, while IPsec can be used for end-to-end
          security.  When the existing security mechanisms/protocols are
          applied to protect the DMM entities, the security risks that
          may be introduced by DMM MUST be considered to be eliminated.
          Else the security protection would be degraded in the DMM
          solution versus in existing mobility protocols.

Chan (Ed.), et al.      Expires February 3, 2014               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft                  DMM-Reqs                     August 2013

   This requirement prevents a DMM solution from introducing
   uncontrollable problems of potentially insecure mobility management
   protocols which make deployment infeasible because platforms
   conforming to the protocols are at risk for data loss and numerous
   other dangers, including financial harm to the users.

5.7.  Multicast

   REQ7:  Multicast considerations

          DMM SHOULD consider multicast early so that solutions can be
          developed not only to provide IP mobility support when it is
          needed, but also to avoid network inefficiency issues in
          multicast traffic delivery (such as duplicate multicast
          subscriptions towards the downstream tunnel entities).  The
          multicast solutions should therefore avoid restricting the
          management of all IP multicast traffic to a single host
          through a dedicated (tunnel) interface on multicast-capable
          access routers.

          Motivation: Existing multicast deployment have been introduced
          after completing the design of the reference mobility
          protocol, then optimization and extensions have been followed
          by "patching-up" procedure, thus leading to network
          inefficiency and non-optimal routing.  The multicast solutions
          should therefore be required to consider efficiency nature in
          multicast traffic delivery.

   This requirement addresses the problems PS1 and PS8 described in
   Section 4.

6.  Security Considerations

   Please refer to the discussion under Security requirement in Section
   5.6.

7.  IANA Considerations

   None

8.  Co-authors and Contributors

   This problem statement document is a joint effort among the numerous
   participants.  Each individual has made significant contributions to
   this work and have been listed as co-authors.

Chan (Ed.), et al.      Expires February 3, 2014               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft                  DMM-Reqs                     August 2013

9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

9.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.yokota-dmm-scenario]
              Yokota, H., Seite, P., Demaria, E., and Z. Cao, "Use case
              scenarios  for Distributed Mobility Management",
              draft-yokota-dmm-scenario-00 (work in progress),
              October 2010.

   [Paper-Distributed.Centralized.Mobility]
              Bertin, P., Bonjour, S., and J-M. Bonnin, "A Distributed
              or Centralized Mobility",  Proceedings of Global
              Communications Conference  (GlobeCom), December 2009.

   [Paper-Distributed.Dynamic.Mobility]
              Bertin, P., Bonjour, S., and J-M. Bonnin, "A Distributed
              Dynamic Mobility Management Scheme  Designed for Flat IP
              Architectures",  Proceedings of 3rd International
              Conference  on New Technologies, Mobility and Security
              (NTMS), 2008.

   [Paper-Distributed.Mobility.MIP]
              Chan, H., "Distributed Mobility Management with Mobile
              IP",  Proceedings of  IEEE International Communication
              Conference (ICC)  Workshop on Telecommunications:  from
              Research to Standards, June 2012.

   [Paper-Distributed.Mobility.PMIP]
              Chan, H., "Proxy Mobile IP  with Distributed Mobility
              Anchors",  Proceedings of GlobeCom Workshop  on Seamless
              Wireless Mobility, December 2010.

   [Paper-Distributed.Mobility.Review]
              Chan, H., Yokota, H., Xie, J., Seite, P., and D. Liu,
              "Distributed and Dynamic Mobility Management  in Mobile
              Internet: Current Approaches and Issues, Journal of
              Communications, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 4-15, Feb 2011.",
               Proceedings of GlobeCom Workshop  on Seamless Wireless
              Mobility, February 2011.

   [Paper-Distributed.Mobility.SAE]
              Fisher, M., Anderson, F., Kopsel, A., Schafer, G., and M.

Chan (Ed.), et al.      Expires February 3, 2014               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft                  DMM-Reqs                     August 2013

              Schlager, "A Distributed IP Mobility Approach for 3G SAE",
               Proceedings of the 19th International Symposium  on
              Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC),
              2008.

   [Paper-Locating.User]
              Kirby, G., "Locating the User",  Communication
              International, 1995.

   [Paper-Migrating.Home.Agents]
              Wakikawa, R., Valadon, G., and J. Murai, "Migrating Home
              Agents  Towards Internet-scale Mobility Deployments",
               Proceedings of the ACM 2nd CoNEXT Conference  on Future
              Networking Technologies, December 2006.

   [Paper-Mobile.Data.Offloading]
              Lee, K., Lee, J., Yi, Y., Rhee, I., and S. Chong, "Mobile
              Data Offloading: How Much Can WiFi Deliver?",  SIGCOMM
              2010, 2010.

   [RFC3753]  Manner, J. and M. Kojo, "Mobility Related Terminology",
              RFC 3753, June 2004.

   [RFC5213]  Gundavelli, S., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V., Chowdhury, K.,
              and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 5213, August 2008.

   [RFC5380]  Soliman, H., Castelluccia, C., ElMalki, K., and L.
              Bellier, "Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 (HMIPv6) Mobility
              Management", RFC 5380, October 2008.

   [RFC5944]  Perkins, C., "IP Mobility Support for IPv4, Revised",
              RFC 5944, November 2010.

   [RFC6275]  Perkins, C., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support
              in IPv6", RFC 6275, July 2011.

   [RFC6301]  Zhu, Z., Wakikawa, R., and L. Zhang, "A Survey of Mobility
              Support in the Internet", RFC 6301, July 2011.

   [TS.23.401]
              3GPP, "General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) enhancements
              for Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network
              (E-UTRAN) access", 3GPP TR 23.401 10.10.0, March 2013.

   [TS.29303]
              3GPP, "Domain Name System Procedures; Stage 3", 3GPP
              TR 23.303 11.2.0, September 2012.

Chan (Ed.), et al.      Expires February 3, 2014               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft                  DMM-Reqs                     August 2013

Authors' Addresses

   H Anthony Chan (editor)
   Huawei Technologies (more co-authors on P. 17)
   5340 Legacy Dr. Building 3, Plano, TX 75024, USA
   Email: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>

   Dapeng Liu
   China Mobile
   Unit2, 28 Xuanwumenxi Ave, Xuanwu District,  Beijing 100053, China
   Email: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>

   Pierrick Seite
   Orange
   4, rue du Clos Courtel, BP 91226,  Cesson-Sevigne 35512, France
   Email: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>

   Hidetoshi Yokota
   KDDI Lab
   2-1-15 Ohara, Fujimino, Saitama, 356-8502 Japan
   Email: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>

   Jouni Korhonen
   Nokia Siemens Networks
   Email: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
   -
   Charles E. Perkins
   Huawei Technologies
   Email: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
   -
   Melia Telemaco
   Alcatel-Lucent Bell Labs
   Email: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
   -
   Elena Demaria
   Telecom Italia
   via G. Reiss Romoli, 274, TORINO, 10148, Italy
   Email: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
   -
   Jong-Hyouk Lee
   RSM Department, Telecom Bretagne
   Cesson-Sevigne, 35512, France
   Email: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
   -

Chan (Ed.), et al.      Expires February 3, 2014               [Page 17]

Internet-Draft                  DMM-Reqs                     August 2013

   Kostas Pentikousis
   Huawei Technologies
   Carnotstr. 4 10587 Berlin, Germany
   Email: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
   -
   Tricci So
   ZTE
   Email: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
   -
   Carlos J. Bernardos
   Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
   Av. Universidad, 30, Leganes, Madrid 28911, Spain
   Email: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
   -
   Peter McCann
   Huawei Technologies
   Email: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
   -
   Seok Joo Koh
   Kyungpook National University, Korea
   Email: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
   -
   Wen Luo
   ZTE
   No.68, Zijinhua RD,Yuhuatai District, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012, China
   Email: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
   -
   Sri Gundavelli
   [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
   -
   Marco Liebsch
   NEC Laboratories Europe
   Email: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
   -
   Carl Williams
   MCSR Labs
   Email: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
   -
   Seil Jeon
   Instituto de Telecomunicacoes, Aveiro
   Email: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
   -
   Sergio Figueiredo
   Universidade de Aveiro
   Email: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
   -
   Stig Venaas
   Email: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>

Chan (Ed.), et al.      Expires February 3, 2014               [Page 18]

Internet-Draft                  DMM-Reqs                     August 2013

   -
   Luis Miguel Contreras Murillo
   Email: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
   -
   Juan Carlos Zuniga
   Email: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
   -
   Alexandru Petrescu
   Email: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
   -
   Georgios Karagiannis
   Email: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
   -
   Julien Laganier
   [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
   -
   Wassim Michel Haddad
   [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
   -
   Dirk von Hugo
   [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
   -
   Ahmad Muhanna
   [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
   -
   Byoung-Jo Kim
   ATT Labs
   [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
   -
   Hassan Aliahmad
   Orange
   [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
   -

Chan (Ed.), et al.      Expires February 3, 2014               [Page 19]

---

From: Jouni Korhonen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 22:31:26 +0300

Thanks Sri for detailed comments. We definitely need to hash these out
and address them.

- Jouni

On Aug 26, 2013, at 6:03 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) <[email-masked]> wrote:

>    continuity
>  is typically based on the principle of distinguishing
> draft-bhandari-dhc-class-based-prefix-05  
> draft-korhonen-6man-prefix-properties-02
> 
> 
> 	• Network can assign IP addresses with different properties; It carries those properties
> 	• Applications have different requirements and will pick the address with the correct property.
> 
> 
>    Email: 
> [email-masked]
>    Email: 
> [email-masked]
> 
> 
> 
>    Pierrick Seite
>    Orange
>    Email: 
> [email-masked]
> 
> 
> 
>    Hidetoshi Yokota
>    KDDI Lab
>    Email: 
> [email-masked]
>    Email: 
> [email-masked]
>    Email: 
> [email-masked]
>    Email: 
> [email-masked]
> 
>    -
>    Elena Demaria
>    Telecom Italia
>    Email: 
> [email-masked]
> 
>    -
>    Jong-Hyouk Lee
>    Email: 
> [email-masked]
> 
>    -
> 
> 
> 
>    Email: 
> [email-masked]
>    Email: 
> [email-masked]
>    Email: 
> [email-masked]
>    Email: 
> [email-masked]
>    Email: 
> [email-masked]
>    Email: 
> [email-masked]
> [email-masked]
>    Email: 
> [email-masked]
>    Email: 
> [email-masked]
>    Email: 
> [email-masked]
>    Email: 
> [email-masked]
>    Email: 
> [email-masked]
>    Email: 
> [email-masked]
>    Email: 
> [email-masked]
> 
>    -
>    Alexandru Petrescu
>    Email: 
> [email-masked]
> 
>    -
>    Georgios Karagiannis
>    Email: 
> [email-masked]
> 
>    -
>    Julien Laganier
>    
> [email-masked]
> 
>    -
>    Wassim Michel Haddad
>    
> [email-masked]
> 
>    -
>    Dirk von Hugo
>    
> [email-masked]
> 
>    -
>    Ahmad Muhanna
>    
> [email-masked]
> 
>    -
>    Byoung-Jo Kim
>    ATT Labs
>    
> [email-masked]
> 
>    -
>    Hassan Aliahmad
>    Orange
>    
> [email-masked]
> 
>    -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dmm mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm