Network-based, Localized Mobility Management

1
Network-based, Localized Mobility Management
the Problem

• James Kempf
• DoCoMo Labs USA
• kempf_at_docomolabs-usa.com

2
Why Not Use Global Mobility Management on Every
Subnet Move?

• If correspondent and/or global routing anchor is
  topologically far away, high update latency
  results in dropped packets
• Amount of signaling to come up on a new subnet,
  including subnet configuration and global
  mobility management, is prohibitive
• Changes in the care-of address on host can reveal
  a mobile nodes topological and geographical
  location to an undesirable granularity

3
Whats Changed?

• IETF has been working on this problem for about 5
  years
• MIP related protocols HMIP, FMIP, LLMIPv4
• Experimental, FMIP about to go PS track
• Micromobility routing protocols no real
  progress
• Last year has seen two important trends
• In IETF, new, non-MIP related global mobility
  management protocols have arisen
• HIP, Mobike
• In market, WLAN Switches have taken over
• Proprietary IP Mobility allows MN to move between
  switches of same vendor in different subnets
  without changing its IP address
• No change in MN protocol stack required!!
• Customers really like this approach (otherwise
  they wouldnt be buying it)

Note Mobike is not really a global mobility
management protocol even though it behaves
like one
4
Problems with Experimental IETF Protocols

• Changes required in host stack
• Localized mobility management cant be used by
  any host
• Designed to support Mobile IPv6
• Other mobility management protocols are not
  supported
• Security issues
• Because localized mobility management is a
  service provided to a host, auth/authz required
  between host and localized mobility server
• Security association required between every
  roaming partners network and every roamed MN
• Virus/mal-ware on host can expose hosts local
  care-of address or address of localized mobility
  server in network
• Opens MNs location privacy and servers security
  to Internet-wide attack

5
Problems with WLAN Switch Solutions

• Some are very 802.3/802.11 specific
• Need a protocol that works on any link technology
• Protocols are proprietary
• No interoperablity between different vendors
  solutions
• Note This is NOT a CAPWAP issue!
• Scaling up to wide area questionable

6
New Solution Sought

• Localized mobility management is provided by the
  network as a routing-style service
• Auth/Authz for network access is sufficient to
  authorize MN for localized mobility management
• I.e. localized mobility management is provided as
  part of the basic IP routing service with no
  additional authorization required
• Minimize special IP level software required on
  the host
• Drivers or IP movement detection OK
• Hosts IP addresses do not change as it moves
  across the localized mobility management domain
• Works across wide area on any combination of
  link/wireless technologies