Subject: [Mipshop] WG Review: MIPv6 Signaling and Handoff Optimization (mipshop)

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 15:35:41 -0400

A new IETF working group has been proposed in the Internet Area 
of the IETF. The IESG has not made any determination as yet. 
The following description was submitted, and is provided for 
informational purposes only. Please send your comments to the
IESG mailing list ([email-masked]) by October 13.

 MIPv6 Signaling and Handoff Optimization (mipshop)
 --------------------------------------------------

 Current Status: Proposed Working Group

 Description of Working Group:

 Mobile IPv6 specifies routing support to permit IP hosts using IPv6 to
 move between IP subnetworks while maintaining session
 continuity. Mobile IPv6 supports transparency above the IP layer,
 including maintenance of active TCP connections and UDP port bindings.

 To accomplish this, the mobile node notifies its home agent (and
 potentially also its correspondent nodes) of the current binding between its
 home address and its care of address. This binding allows a mobile node
 to maintain connectivity with the Internet as it moves between
 subnets.

 Depending on what steps a mobile node must perform on a new subnet, the
 lag between when the mobile node has layer 2 connectivity and when it
 begins sending and receiving packets on the new link may be
 substantial. A mobile node must first detect at layer 3 that its point
 of attachment has changed, then it must perform configuration on the
 new link, including router discovery and configuring a new care of
 address. After that, the mobile node must perform binding updates with
 the home address and any correspondent nodes. Since many layer 2
 mobility technologies require that the mobile node drop its link
 connectivity to the old subnet when moving, any packets between the
 correspondent node and the mobile node sent or in-flight during this
 time arrive at the old care of address, where they are dropped. Such
 packet loss may have significant adverse effects.

 The Mobile IP Working group had previously been developing two
 technologies to address the issues of signaling overhead and handoff
 latency/packet loss:

   - Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 mobility management (HMIPv6)

       HMIPv6 deals with reducing the amount and latency of signaling
       between a MN, its Home Agent and one or more correspondents by
       introducing the Mobility Anchor Point (MAP) (a special node located
       in the network visited by the mobile node). The MAP acts somewhat
       like a local home agent for the visiting mobile node by limiting
       the amount of signaling required outside the MAP's domain.

   - Fast Handovers for Mobile IPv6 (FMIPv6)

       FMIPv6 reduces packet loss by providing fast IP connectivity as
       soon as a new link is established. It does so by fixing up the
       routing during link configuration and binding update, so that
       packets delivered to the old care of address are forwarded to the
       new. In addition, FMIPv6 provides support for preconfiguration of
       link information (such as the subnet prefix) in the new subnet
       while the mobile node is still attached to the old subnet. This
       reduces the amount of preconfiguration time in the new subnet.

 These two technologies can be used separately or together to reduce or
 eliminate signaling overhead and packet loss due to handoff delays in
 Mobile IPv6.

 Scope of MIPSHOP:

 The MIPSHOP Working Group will complete the FMIPv6 and HMIPv6 work
 begun in the Mobile IP Working Group. Specifically, the WG will:

 1) Complete the specification of HMIPv6 protocol.

 2) Complete the specification of FMIPv6 protocol.

       Because work (ongoing or originating) in other working groups may
       suggest changes or alternative designs for HMIPv6 and FMIPv6, these
       specifications will be advanced as Experimental RFCs until more
       experience is obtained with IP mobility in IPv6.

 3) Complete work on a set of requirements for "Localized Mobility
       Management (LMM)", whereby a Mobile Node is able to continue
       receiving packets in a new subnet before the corresponding changes
       in either the Home Agent or Correspondent Node binding. It is the
       intention that the requirements be consistent with the FMIPv6 and
       HMIPv6 protocols; in the event that there are inconsistencies, they
       will be documented.

 4) Complete work on the applicability of FMIPv6 in the specific case
       of 802.11 networks for advancement as Informational RFC.

 There are security issues that arise because of the highly dynamic
 nature of the security relationships between, say, a mobile node and
 its mobility anchor points, or between a mobile node and its access
 routers in a fast handover scenario. The working group is not required
 to provide solutions to all these issues before publishing its
 experimental and informational protocols. The working group will
 document the security requirements and the shortcomings of the
 solutions in the corresponding protocol specifications. This will
 provide valuable feedback to other groups or subsequent efforts.

_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop