MIPv6 bootstrapping in split scenario

1
Paris, August 2005
IETF 63rd netlmm BOF
Requirements and Gap Analysis for IP Local
Mobility (draft-kempf-netlmm-nohost-req-00)
Gerardo Giaretta James Kempf Phil Roberts Kent
Leung Katsutoshi Nishida Marco Liebsch
2
Purpose of the document

• The I-D has two main objectives
• list the requirements for a NETLMM solution
• highlight the gaps between state-of the art
  solutions and requirements
• Solutions identified so far
• Mobile IPv6 with local HA assignment
• Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 (HMIPv6)
• Combinations of Mobile IPv6 with optimizations
• MIPv6 with local HA assignment FMIPv6
• HMIPv6 FMIPv6
• Micromobility Protocols (e.g. Cellular IP, HAWAII)

3
NETLMM Requirements

• Req 1 Handover performance improvement
• handover packet loss and handover latency must be
  minimized
• this is to fulfill requirements of real-time
  applications on jitter, delay and
  packet loss
• Req 2 Reduction in handover-related signaling
  volume
• signaling volume to handle handover should be
  minimized
• e.g. movement detection signaling, location
  update signaling, security-related signaling

4
NETLMM Requirements (contd)

• Req 3 Location privacy
• location information should not be revealed to
  nor deduced by the correspondent node without the
  authorization of the MN
• draft-koodli-mip6-location-privacy-01
• Req 4 Efficient use of wireless resources
• minimization of per packet overhead over the air
  interface
• state of the art so LMM solutions increase packet
  size over the air by adding tunneling or other
  per packet overhead
• header compression can remove header overhead but
  it increases the cost and complexity of the
  access points (i.e. higher per packet processing
  across the wireless link)

5
NETLMM Requirements (contd)

• Req 5 Reduction of signaling overhead in the
  network
• signaling within the wired network should be
  minimized
• this is mainly for reducing cost of laying fiber
  or wiring to the wireless access points in a
  widely dispersed geographic area

6
NETLMM Requirements (contd)

• Req 6 No extra security between mobile node
  and network
• LMM protocols involving signaling between host
  and network require additional SAs between the
  host and one or more network entities
• establishing a SA specifically for LMM may
  require extra signaling
• establishing a SA specifically for LMM may be
  difficult in a roaming scenario (i.e. potential
  barrier ro deployment)
• removing host involvement also limits the
  possibility of DoS attacks on network
  infrastructure elements

7
NETLMM Requirements (contd)

• Req 7 Support for heterogeneous wireless link
  technologies
• handover between different wireless link
  technologies
• Req 8 Support for unmodified hosts
• no host software installation on the user
  terminal
• extremely successful in the WLAN switching
  market
• enables a service provider to offer service to
  all customers
• multiple global mobility management protocols can
  be supported
• Req 9 Support for IPv4 and IPv6

8
Main gaps for current solutions

• Mobile IPv6 with local HA ( FMIPv6)
• FMIPv6 is needed (req 1)
• high signaling volume if route optimization is
  used (req 2)
• FMIPv6 requires additional signaling
• location privacy only with bi-directional
  tunneling (req 3)
• if no RO, over-the-air tunnel to the HA (req 4)
• further temporary level of tunneling between MN
  and PAR in FMIPv6
• bootstrapping a SA with a local HA is needed (req
  6)
• FMIPv6 requires an additional SA with the ARs
• host support for MIPv6 and FMIPv6 (req 8)
• IPv4 support needed for both MIPv6 and FMIPv6
  (req 9)
• miptrans DT in mip6/nemo WGs

9
Main gaps for current solutions (contd)

• HMIPv6 FMIPv6
• FMIPv6 is needed since HMIPv6 only partially
  shortens handover latency (req 1)
• HMIPv6 reduces handover related signaling volume
  since no RO signaling is done for intra-MAP
  handovers (req 2)
• FMIPv6 still requires additional signaling
• tunneling between MN and MAP (req 4)
• further temporary level of tunneling between MN
  and PAR in FMIPv6
• SAs needed between MN and MAP (for HMIPv6) and MN
  and AR (for FMIPv6) (req 6)
• host support for HMIPv6 and FMIPv6 (req 8)
• IPv4 support needed for both HMIPv6 and FMIPv6
  (req 9)

10
Main gaps for current solutions (contd)

• Micromobility protocols
• host route propagation is required throughout the
  wired network (req 5)
• most of the requirements are fulfilled
• potential drawbacks from a deployment and
  scalability standpoint
• involve every routing element between the MN and
  the LMM domain boundary router in all packet
  forwarding decisions
• scalability is limited because each care of
  address corresponding to a MN generates a routing
  table entry

11
Summary