Subject: Re: [Mipshop] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-mipshop-pfmipv6

From: David Cypher <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 11:18:50 -0400

Vijay,
    Some comments on the draft -04.txt

Comments
Editorial
1) Insert "to" and insert "a"
4.1.  Protocol Operation

    There are two modes of operation in FMIPv6 [RFC5268bis].  In the
    predictive mode of fast handover, a bi-directional tunnel between the
    PAR and NAR is established prior to the MN's attachment to the NAR.
    In the reactive mode, this tunnel establishment takes place after the
    MN attaches to the NAR.  In order to eliminate the packet loss during a
                                      ^^                                  ^
Editorial
2) Change it's to its; (possessive case needed, not contraction of it is)
     Change accept to expect; (it is an expectation that the MN will 
continue to use the HNP)
     Insert the
5.  PMIPv6-related Fast Handover Issues

    The protocol specified in this document enables the NMAG to obtain
    parameters which would otherwise be available only by communicating
    with the LMA.  For instance, the HNP and/or IPv4-MN-HoA of a MN are
    made available to the NMAG through context transfer.  This allows the
    NMAG to perform some procedures that may be beneficial.  For
    instance, the NMAG could send a Router Advertisement (RA) with the
    HNP option to the MN as soon as its link attachment is detected
                                    ^^^
    (e.g., via receipt of a Router Solicitation message).  Such an RA is
    recommended, for example, in scenarios where the MN uses a new radio
    interface while attaching to the NMAG; since the MN does not have
    information regarding the new interface, it will not be able to
    immediately send packets without first receiving an RA with HNP.
    Especially, in the reactive fast handover, the NMAG gets to know the
    HNP assigned to the MN on the previous link at step (d) in Figure 3.
    In order to reduce the communication disruption time, the NMAG SHOULD
    expect the MN to keep using the same HNP and to send uplink packets
    ^^^^^^
    before that step upon the MN's request.  However, if the HAck from the
                          ^^^
    PMAG returns a different HNP or the subsequent PMIPv6 binding
    registration for the HNP fails for some reason, then the NMAG MUST
    withdraw the advertised HNP by sending another RA with zero prefix
    lifetime for the HNP in question.  This operation is the same as
    described in Section 6.12 of [RFC5213].

Editorial
3) Change two to three (There are three mobility options listed)
8.  IANA Considerations

    This document defines three new mobility options, which are described
                          ^^^^^
    in Section 6.2.  The Type value for these options are assigned from
    the same numbering space as allocated for the other mobility options,
    as defined in [RFC3775].

     Mobility Options
     Value  Description                            Reference
     -----  -------------------------------------  -------------
     TBD1   Context Request Option                 Section 6.2.1
     TBD2   Local Nobility Anchor Address Option   Section 6.2.2
     TBD3   IPv4 Address Option                    Section 6.2.3

Editorial
4) A.1, last paragraph; Change Hack to HAck
    Indicator value can be set to 2.  If there is no HI/HAck exchange
                                                         ^

Editorial
5) B, Changes from -03 to -04, third item; use lowercase letter i's 
(two occurrences)
          *  More clearly indicated the FMIPv6 messages that are not
                          ^
          applicable in the PMIPv6 context.
                     ^
                                                         ^

============================================================================
Technical comment
1)
Figure 2, page 9, (i) currently shows the LMA sending directly to the 
NMAG immediately after the MN's attachment with the NMAG.  This is 
wrong.  At this point there is no way for the LMA to send packets to 
NMAG because the NMAG has not sent a PBU to the LMA announcing that 
it is now hosting the MN.
To correct the figure either a) delete the arrow from LMA to NMAR or 
b) include the path to PMAG and then to NMAG.   Choice a) more 
closely follows what is described in the test for step i)
Currently
                                             PMAG        NMAG
           MN         P-AN       N-AN        (PAR)       (NAR)     LMA
           |           |          |            |           |        |
           |           |          |            |           |        |
      (i)  |<==================DL data=====================|<=======|
           |           |          |            |           |        |
suggestion a)
                                             PMAG        NMAG
           MN         P-AN       N-AN        (PAR)       (NAR)     LMA
           |           |          |            |           |        |
           |           |          |            |           |        |
      (i)  |<==================DL data=====================|        |
           |           |          |            |           |        |
suggestion b)
                                             PMAG        NMAG
           MN         P-AN       N-AN        (PAR)       (NAR)     LMA
           |           |          |            |           |        |
           |           |          |            |           |        |
           |           |          |          #=|<===================|
           |           |          |          #====DL data=>|=#      |
      (i)  |<==================DL data=====================|=#      |
           |           |          |            |           |        |

Technical comment
2)
Step k (page 10) states that the LMA's address was provided in c), 
but in c) the address of the LMA is not required to be there.  It is 
only a should in step c).  This leads to an inconsistency.  Is the 
address of the LMA present or not, so that the NMAG can use it?
Suggest making it mandatory by changing step c) on page 10.

Technical comment
3)
The following text on page 11
    According to Section 4 of [RFC5268bis], the PAR establishes a binding
    between the PCoA and NCoA to forward packets for the MN to the NAR,
    and the NAR creates a proxy NCE to receive those packets for the NCoA
    before the MN arrives.  In the case of PMIPv6, however, the only
    address that is used by the MN is MN-HoA.  Hence the PAR forwards
    MN's packets to the NAR instead of the NCoA.  FMIPv4 [RFC4988]
    specifies forwarding when the MN uses HoA as its on-link address
    rather than the care-of address.  The usage in PMIPv6 is similar to
    that in FMIPv4, where the address is used by the MN is based on Home
    Network Prefix.  Hence the PAR forwards MN's packets to the NAR
    instead of the NCoA.  The NAR then simply decapsulates those packets
    and delivers them to the MN.  Since the NAR obtains the LLA (MN IID)
                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    and MN-HNP by the HI, it can create the NCE for the MN and deliver
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    packets to it even before the MN can perform Neighbor Discovery.  For
    the uplink packets from the MN after handover in (j), the NAR
    forwards the packets to the PAR through the tunnel established in
    step (f).  The PAR then decapsulates and sends them to the LMA.

This is inconsistent with the text in step c) on page 10, because 
there the MN-IID should be included.
Is the MN-IID mandatory to be included as on page 11, or optional as 
in step c) on page 10?
Suggest making it mandatory by changing step c).

Technical comment
3)
What does the statement at the end of the first paragraph of 4.2 mean?
    Depending on the implementation, the NMAG MAY send them
    directly to the LMA.

What does directly to the LMA mean.  Does it mean the MAG 
encapsulates the uplink packet from the MN?
If so, how can it since the MAG has not sent a PBU message to change 
the entry for the MN in the LMA.
If is does not encapsulate it, then how can the MAG forward it to the 
LMA?  Why does the MAG not route the packet based on the destination 
address in the original packet from the MN?  In this case there is no 
guarantee that the packet will go through the LMA.  Unless this is 
what is meant by implementation.
Please add text clarifying what is meant by this sentence.

Technical comment
4) This does not exist in RFC5213.  Perhaps you mean Mobile Node 
Link-Layer Identifier RFC 5213, 8.6.
6.2.5.  Mobile Node Interface Identifier (MN IID) Option

    This option is used to transfer the interface identifier of the MN
    that is used in the P-AN.  The Mobile Node Interface Identifier
    Option defined in [RFC5213] is used for this.
NOTE: resolution of this comment may have a ripple effect through out 
the document and some figures (i.e., need to replace MN IID with 
something else).

Technical comment
5) The MN Interface Identifier is not defined in this document. It 
used to be defined in the old drafts for PMIP, however the RFC 5213 
no longer contains this mobility option.
Do you want to define it within this draft, see 6.2.5?
Should it be replaced with Mobile node link-layer identifier option 
from RFC 5213, 8.6?
NOTE: resolution of this comment may have a ripple effect through out 
the document and some figures (i.e., need to replace MN IID with 
something else).

Technical comment
6) A.3; This makes little sense to me.  If the MN moves out of a PMIP 
domain into a network where only MIPv6 is supported and the MN has 
MIPv6 capabilities, there is no relation to PBU/PBA or figure 2. It 
is just a normal BU and BAck exchange.
Suggest deleting the "instead of PBU/PBA (e.g., at steps (k) and (l) 
in Figure 2)
Continuing if the network does not support PMIP, it will not have an 
LMA. Assuming that the HA of the MIPv6 network not supporting PMIPv6 
will also have support to the PMIP domain and thus the LMA is a stretch.
However it is this last sentence that is completely wrong.
The LMA address cannot be transferred to the NAR in the HI/HAck 
exchange because the NAR is in a network where only MIPv6 
exists.  The NAR will not recognize the HI message since it is 
defined in FMIPv6, not in RFC3775; nor will the NAR send an HAck for 
the same reason.  Therefore the NAR does not have the LMA address, so 
the MN cannot retrieve it.  Even if the MIPv6 network implemented 
FMIPv6 RFC 5268 also, the NAR still would not be able to receive the 
LMA address.  The NAR would be able to receive the HI message, but 
the LMA mobility option is defined in PFMIP only.  The NAR would not 
know how to interpret it.  If the MN does not have the LMA's address 
before entering the MIPv6 domain, it has no way of sending a BU to 
the LMA. Instead it will have to send the BU to the HA of the MIPv6 
network.  How the MN finds the address of the HA in the MIPv6 network 
is out of scope of my knowledge.

A.3.  Handling of PMIPv6/MIPv6 switching

    If the network that the MN has moved to does not support PMIPv6 but
    only MIPv6 (i.e. there exists a MIPv6 HA) and the MN supports MIPv6
    at the same time, the MN and HA can exchange BU/BA instead of PBU/PBA
    (e.g., at steps (k) and (l) in Figure 2).          ------------------
    -----------------------------------------  If this is the case, the
    LMA and HA will most likely be collocated and the LMA (HA) address
    should be maintained in the new network for communication continuity.

    Since the LMA (HA) address is transferred to the NAR in the HI/HAck
    exchange, the MN can retrieve it at or after the handover by way of,
    e.g., the authentication or DHCP procedure.

If my comments are valid, then I would suggest removing my name from 
the Acknowledgements, since I do not want my name on a document with 
this many issues.
If my comments are not valid, then I would suggest removing my name, 
since I do not know the subject matter.

Thank you for your consideration
David Cypher
===================================================================
At 08:50 PM 5/20/2009, Vijay Devarapalli wrote:
>Hello,
>
>This is a two week working group last call for
>draft-ietf-mipshop-pfmipv6-04.txt. You can find the document at the
>following URL.
>
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mipshop-pfmipv6-04.txt
>
>The last call expires on June 4 2009.
>
>This document extends FMIPv6 to provide fast handovers when PMIPv6 is
>used as the mobility management protocol.
>
>Please post any issues or comments on this document to the MIPSHOP WG
>mailing list. In case you have reviewed the document and found no
>issues, please send an email saying you support advancing this document.
>
>The intended status for this document is Proposed Standard.
>
>Vijay
>_______________________________________________
>Mipshop mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop

---

From: "Vijay Devarapalli" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 19:44:36 -0400

Hello all,

The WG last call expires in two days. We need more people responding to
the last call before the document can be sent to the IESG.

Vijay

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Vijay Devarapalli
> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 5:50 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Mipshop] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-mipshop-pfmipv6
> 
> Hello,
>

---

From: Hidetoshi Yokota <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 14:10:28 +0900

Hi David,

Thanks a lot for your detailed review. Please see in line:

>    MN attaches to the NAR.  In order to eliminate the packet loss during a

Revised.

>    described in Section 6.12 of [RFC5213].

Revised.

>     Value  Description                            Reference

Revised and now it's become four new options.

>    Indicator value can be set to 2.  If there is no HI/HAck exchange

Revised.

> Editorial
> 5) B, Changes from -03 to -04, third item; use lowercase letter i's (two 
> occurrences)
Revised.

> NMAG because the NMAG has not sent a PBU to the LMA announcing that it 
> is now hosting the MN.
> To correct the figure either a) delete the arrow from LMA to NMAR or b) 
> include the path to PMAG and then to NMAG.   Choice a) more closely 
> follows what is described in the test for step i)
> Currently
>                                             PMAG        NMAG

Thanks for your good catch. Suggestion a) was taken. It was correct
until version 2...

> Technical comment
> 2)
> Step k (page 10) states that the LMA's address was provided in c), but 
> in c) the address of the LMA is not required to be there.  It is only a 
> should in step c).  This leads to an inconsistency.  Is the address of 
> the LMA present or not, so that the NMAG can use it?

The new version mandates all four options, namely, MN ID, MN-HNP, MN-IID
and LMA Address.

> This is inconsistent with the text in step c) on page 10, because there 
> the MN-IID should be included.
> Is the MN-IID mandatory to be included as on page 11, or optional as in 
> step c) on page 10?  

Revised (see above).

> What does directly to the LMA mean.  Does it mean the MAG encapsulates 
> the uplink packet from the MN?
> If so, how can it since the MAG has not sent a PBU message to change the 
> entry for the MN in the LMA.
> guarantee that the packet will go through the LMA.  Unless this is what 
> is meant by implementation.

This means that if the LMA is made to accept packets encapsulated by the
NMAG before the PBU/PBA exchange, it would be a shorter path to send
uplink packets from the NMAG directly to the LMA rather than through the
PMAG. This is a bit tricky, but some people like it this way. However,
now I think this looks outside the scope of this document, so this
sentence is removed in the new version. If anyone has a comment on that,
please let us know.

> the document and some figures (i.e., need to replace MN IID with 

Thanks. When the draft changed from the ND-based options to the MH-based
options, this option referred to a non-existent one... The new version
defines the MN-IID mobility option.

> Technical comment
> 5) The MN Interface Identifier is not defined in this document. It used 
> to be defined in the old drafts for PMIP, however the RFC 5213 no longer 
> contains this mobility option. 
> Should it be replaced with Mobile node link-layer identifier option from 
> RFC 5213, 8.6?

See above.

> domain into a network where only MIPv6 is supported and the MN has MIPv6 
> capabilities, there is no relation to PBU/PBA or figure 2. It is just a 
> normal BU and BAck exchange. 
> Suggest deleting the "instead of PBU/PBA (e.g., at steps (k) and (l) in 
> Figure 2)
> The LMA address cannot be transferred to the NAR in the HI/HAck exchange 
> because the NAR is in a network where only MIPv6 exists.  The NAR will 
> not recognize the HI message since it is defined in FMIPv6, not in 
> RFC3775; nor will the NAR send an HAck for the same reason.  Therefore 
> the NAR does not have the LMA address, so the MN cannot retrieve it.  
> Even if the MIPv6 network implemented FMIPv6 RFC 5268 also, the NAR 
> still would not be able to receive the LMA address.  The NAR would be 
> able to receive the HI message, but the LMA mobility option is defined 
> in PFMIP only.  The NAR would not know how to interpret it.  If the MN 
> does not have the LMA's address before entering the MIPv6 domain, it has 
> no way of sending a BU to the LMA. Instead it will have to send the BU 
> to the HA of the MIPv6 network.  How the MN finds the address of the HA 
> in the MIPv6 network is out of scope of my knowledge.

In the course of the discussion, it was claimed that the fast handover
feature should be maintained even if the MN moves out of the PMIP
domain, and this section captured it. This is the interworking between
PFMIPv6 and FMIPv6 and the NAR, which supports FMIPv6, is supposed to be
able to interpret the LMA address option as the HA address. However,
this is very much implementation specific and may not fit in this
document. So far, the part you pointed out ("instead of PBU/PBA...")
and the last sentence were removed in the new version, and if nobody
disagrees, the whole section (A.3) can be removed.

> If my comments are valid, then I would suggest removing my name from the 
> Acknowledgements, since I do not want my name on a document with this 
> many issues.

Your comments are very valid and very appreciated. Apologize we didn't
ask you if it is ok to put your name in the acknowledgment section. Your
name is respectfully removed in the new version. Anyway, no matter how
this document will turn out, you are not responsible for it whatsoever ;-).

Please check out the new version if all your comments are captured.

Best regards,
-- 
Hidetoshi

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 

Network Working Group                                          H. Yokota
Internet-Draft                                                  KDDI Lab
Intended status: Standards Track                            K. Chowdhury
Expires: December 5, 2009                                      R. Koodli
                                                        Starent Networks
                                                                B. Patil
                                                                   Nokia
                                                                  F. Xia
                                                              Huawei USA
                                                            June 3, 2009

            Fast Handovers for Proxy Mobile IPv6 (tentative)
                   draft-ietf-mipshop-pfmipv6-05.txt

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on December 5, 2009.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
   publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.

Yokota, et al.          Expires December 5, 2009                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft          Proxy-based Fast Handover              June 2009

Abstract

   Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6) [RFC3775] provides a mobile node with IP mobility
   when it performs a handover from one access router to another and
   fast handovers for Mobile IPv6 (FMIPv6) [RFC5268bis] are specified to
   enhance the handover performance in terms of latency and packet loss.
   While MIPv6 (and FMIPv6 as well) requires the participation of the
   mobile node in the mobility-related signaling, Proxy Mobile IPv6
   (PMIPv6) [RFC5213] provides IP mobility to mobile nodes that either
   have or do not have MIPv6 functionality without such involvement.
   Nevertheless, the basic performance of PMIPv6 in terms of handover
   latency and packet loss is considered not any different from that of
   MIPv6.  When the fast handover is considered in such an environment,
   several modifications are needed to FMIPv6 to adapt to the network-
   based mobility management.  This document specifies the usage of Fast
   Mobile IPv6 (FMIPv6) when Proxy Mobile IPv6 is used as the mobility
   management protocol.  Necessary extensions are specified for FMIPv6
   to support the scenario when the mobile node does not have IP
   mobility functionality and hence is not involved with either MIPv6 or
   FMIPv6 operations.

Yokota, et al.          Expires December 5, 2009                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft          Proxy-based Fast Handover              June 2009

Table of Contents

   1.  Requirements notation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   4.  Proxy-based FMIPv6 Protocol Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.1.  Protocol Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.2.  Inter-AR Tunneling Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     4.3.  IPv4 Support Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   5.  PMIPv6-related Fast Handover Issues  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   6.  Message Formats  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     6.1.  Mobility Header  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
       6.1.1.  Handover Initiate (HI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
       6.1.2.  Handover Acknowledge (HAck)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     6.2.  Mobility Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
       6.2.1.  Context Request Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
       6.2.2.  Local Mobility Anchor Address (LMAA) Option  . . . . . 22
       6.2.3.  IPv4 Address Option  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
       6.2.4.  Mobile Node Interface Identifier (MN IID) Option . . . 23
       6.2.5.  Home Network Prefix Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
       6.2.6.  Link-local Address Option  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
       6.2.7.  GRE Key Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
       6.2.8.  Vendor-Specific Mobility Option  . . . . . . . . . . . 24
   7.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
   8.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
   9.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
   10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
     10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
     10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
   Appendix A.  Applicable Use Cases  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
     A.1.  PMIPv6 Handoff Indication  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
     A.2.  Local Routing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
     A.3.  Handling of PMIPv6/MIPv6 switching . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
   Appendix B.  Change Log  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Yokota, et al.          Expires December 5, 2009                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft          Proxy-based Fast Handover              June 2009

1.  Requirements notation

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

Yokota, et al.          Expires December 5, 2009                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft          Proxy-based Fast Handover              June 2009

2.  Introduction

   Proxy Mobile IPv6 [RFC5213] provides IP mobility to a mobile node
   that does not possess Mobile IPv6 [RFC3775] mobile node
   functionality.  A proxy agent in the network performs the mobility
   management signaling on behalf of the mobile node.  This model
   transparently provides mobility for mobile nodes within a PMIPv6
   domain.  Nevertheless, the basic performance of PMIPv6 in terms of
   handover latency and packet loss is considered not any different from
   that of Mobile IPv6.

   Fast Handovers for Mobile IPv6 (FMIPv6) [RFC5268bis] describes the
   protocol to reduce the handover latency for Mobile IPv6 by allowing a
   mobile node to send packets as soon as it detects a new subnet link
   and by delivering packets to the mobile node as soon as its
   attachment is detected by the new access router.  This document
   describes necessary extensions to FMIPv6 for operations in the PMIPv6
   domain in order to minimize handover delay and packet loss as well as
   to transfer network-resident contexts.

Yokota, et al.          Expires December 5, 2009                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft          Proxy-based Fast Handover              June 2009

3.  Terminology

   This document reuses terminology from [RFC5213], [RFC5268bis] and
   [RFC3775].  The following terms and abbreviations are additionally
   used in this document.

   Access Network (AN):
        A network composed of link-layer access devices such as access
        points or base stations providing access to the Access Router
        (AR) connected to it.

   Previous Access Network (P-AN):
        The access network to which the MN is attached before handover.

   New Access Network (N-AN):
        The access network to which the MN is attached after handover.

   Previous Mobile Access Gateway (PMAG):
        The MAG that manages mobility related signaling for the MN
        before handover.  In this document, the MAG and the Access
        Router are collocated.

   New Mobile Access Gateway (NMAG):
        The MAG that manages mobility related signaling for the MN after
        handover.  In this document, the MAG and the Access Router (AR)
        are collocated.

   HO-Initiate:
        A generic signaling message that indicates the handover of the
        MN sent from the P-AN to the PMAG.  While this signaling is
        dependent on the access technology, it is assumed that HO-
        Initiate can carry the information to identify the MN and to
        assist the PAR resolve the NAR (e.g., the new access point or
        base station to which the MN is moving).  Definition of details
        in the specification of this message is outside the scope of
        this document.

Yokota, et al.          Expires December 5, 2009                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft          Proxy-based Fast Handover              June 2009

4.  Proxy-based FMIPv6 Protocol Overview

   In order to improve the performance during handover (when operations
   such as attachment to a new network and signaling between mobility
   agents are involved), the PFMIPv6 protocol in this document specifies
   a bi-directional tunnel between the Previous MAG (PMAG) and the New
   MAG (NMAG).  In order to enable the NMAG to send the Proxy Binding
   Update (PBU), the Handover Initiate (HI) and Handover Acknowledge
   (HAck) messages in [RFC5268bis] are used for context transfer, in
   which parameters such as MN's NAI, Home Network Prefix (HNP), IPv4
   Home Address, are transferred from the PMAG.

   In this document, the Previous Access Router (PAR) and New Access
   Router (NAR) are interchangeable with the PMAG and NMAG,
   respectively.  The reference network is illustrated in Figure 1.

   Since a MN is not directly involved with IP mobility protocol
   operations, it follows that the MN is not directly involved with fast
   handover procedures either.  Hence, the messages involving the MN in
   [RFC5268bis] are not used when PMIPv6 is in use.  The Router
   Solicitation for Proxy Advertisement (RtSolPr) and Proxy Router
   Advertisement (PrRtAdv) are exchanged between the MN and PAR for the
   MN to formulate the New Care-of Address (NCoA) in advance.  Fast
   Binding Update (FBU) and Fast Binding Acknowledgment (FBack) are also
   exchanged between these nodes to request the PAR to forward packets
   to the NAR.  The Unsolicited Neighbor Advertisement (UNA) is sent
   from the MN to NAR to forward the packets to the MN.  These messages
   are not applicable in the PMIPv6 context.

Yokota, et al.          Expires December 5, 2009                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft          Proxy-based Fast Handover              June 2009

                                  +----------+
                                  |   LMA    |
                                  |          |
                                  +----------+
                                    /      \
                                   /        \
                                  /          \
                      +........../..+      +..\..........+
                      . +-------+-+ .______. +-+-------+ .
                      . |   PAR   |()_______)|   NAR   | .
                      . |  (PMAG) | .      . |  (NMAG) | .
                      . +----+----+ .      . +----+----+ .
                      .      |      .      .      |      .
                      .   ___|___   .      .   ___|___   .
                      .  /       \  .      .  /       \  .
                      . (  P-AN   ) .      . (  N-AN   ) .
                      .  \_______/  .      .  \_______/  .
                      .      |      .      .      |      .
                      .   +----+    .      .   +----+    .
                      .   | MN |  ---------->  | MN |    .
                      .   +----+    .      .   +----+    .
                      +.............+      +.............+

               Figure 1: Reference network for fast handover

4.1.  Protocol Operation

   There are two modes of operation in FMIPv6 [RFC5268bis].  In the
   predictive mode of fast handover, a bi-directional tunnel between the
   PAR and NAR is established prior to the MN's attachment to the NAR.
   In the reactive mode, this tunnel establishment takes place after the
   MN attaches to the NAR.  In order to eliminate the packet loss during
   a MN's handover (especially when the MN is detached from both links),
   the downlink packets for the MN need to be buffered either at the PAR
   (PMAG) or NAR (NMAG), depending on when the packet forwarding is
   performed.  It is hence required that all MAGs have the capability
   and enough resources to buffer packets for the MNs accommodated by
   them.  Note that the protocol operation specified in the document is
   transparent to the LMA, hence there is no new functional requirement
   or change on the LMA.

   Since the MN is not involved in IP mobility signaling in PMIPv6, the
   sequence of events illustrating the predictive fast handover are
   shown in Figure 2.

Yokota, et al.          Expires December 5, 2009                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft          Proxy-based Fast Handover              June 2009

                                            PMAG        NMAG
          MN         P-AN       N-AN        (PAR)       (NAR)     LMA
          |           |          |            |           |        |
          |  Report   |          |            |           |        |
     (a)  |-(MN ID,-->|          |            |           |        |
          | New AP ID)|          |            |           |        |
          |           |     HO Initiate       |           |        |
     (b)  |           |--(MN ID, New AP ID)-->|           |        |
          |           |          |            |           |        |
          |           |          |            |    HI     |        |
     (c)  |           |          |            |-(MN ID, ->|        |
          |           |          |            | MN IID, LMAA)      |
          |           |          |            |           |        |
     (d)  |           |          |            |<---HAck---|        |
          |           |          |            |  (MN ID)  |        |
          |           |          |            |           |        |
          |           |          |            |HI/HAck(optional)   |
     (e)  |           |          |            |<- - - - ->|        |
          |           |          |          #=|<===================|
     (f)  |           |          |          #====DL data=>|        |
          |           |          |            |           |        |
     (g) ~~~          |          |            |           |        |
         ~~~          |          |            |           |        |
          |   MN-AN connection   |    AN-MAG connection   |        |
     (h)  |<---establishment---->|<----establishment----->|        |
          |           |          |  (substitute for UNA)  |        |
          |           |          |            |           |        |
     (i)  |<==================DL data=====================|        |
          |           |          |            |           |        |
     (j)  |===================UL data====================>|=#      |
          |           |          |          #=|<============#      |
          |           |          |          #=====================>|
     /    |           |          |            |           |        | \
     |(k) |           |          |            |           |--PBU-->| |
     |    |           |          |            |           |        | |
     |(l) |           |          |            |           |<--PBA--| |
     \    |           |          |            |           |        | /

       Figure 2: Predictive fast handover for PMIPv6 (PAR initiated)

   The detailed descriptions are as follows:

   (a)  The MN detects that a handover is imminent and reports the
        identifications of itself (MN ID) and the access point (New AP
        ID) to which the MN is most likely to move.  The MN ID could be
        the NAI or a Link Layer Address (LLA), or any other suitable
        identifier.  This step is access technology specific.  In some
        cases, the P-AN will determine which AP ID the MN is moving to.

Yokota, et al.          Expires December 5, 2009                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft          Proxy-based Fast Handover              June 2009

   (b)  The previous access network (P-AN), to which the MN is currently
        attached, indicates the handover of the MN to the PAR (PMAG).
        Detailed definition and specification of this message are
        outside the scope of this document.

   (c)  The PAR sends the HI to the NAR.  The HI message MUST include
        the MN ID, the MN-HNP, the MN-IID and the address of the LMA
        that is currently serving the MN.

   (d)  The NAR sends the HAck back to the PAR.

   (e)  If it is preferred that the timing of buffering or forwarding
        should be later than step (c), the NAR may optionally request
        the PAR at a later and appropriate time to buffer or forward
        packets by setting U flag [RFC5268bis] or F flag in the HI
        message, respectively.

   (f)  If the F flag is set in the previous step, a bi-directional
        tunnel is established between the PAR and NAR and packets
        destined for the MN are forwarded from the PAR to the NAR over
        this tunnel.  After decapsulation, those packets may be buffered
        at the NAR.  If the connection between the N-AN and NAR has
        already been established, those packet may be forwarded towards
        the N-AN; this is access technology specific.

   (g)  The MN undergoes handover to the New Access Network (N-AN).

   (h)  The MN establishes a physical link connection with the N-AN
        (e.g., radio channel assignment), which in turn triggers the
        establishment of a link-layer connection between the N-AN and
        NAR if not yet established.  An IP layer connection setup may be
        performed at this time (e.g., PPP IPv6CP) or at a later time
        (e.g., stateful or stateless auto address configuration).  This
        step can be a substitute for the UNA in [RFC5268bis], but since
        they are all access technology specific, details are outside the
        scope of this document.

   (i)  The NAR starts to forward packets destined for the MN via the
        N-AN.

   (j)  The uplink packets from the MN are sent to the NAR via the N-AN
        and the NAR forwards them to the PAR.  The PAR then sends the
        packets to the LMA that is currently serving the MN.

   (k)  The NAR (NMAG) sends the Proxy Binding Update (PBU) to the LMA,
        whose address is provided in (c).  Steps (k) and (l) are not
        part of the fast handover procedure, but shown for reference.

Yokota, et al.          Expires December 5, 2009               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft          Proxy-based Fast Handover              June 2009

   (l)  The LMA sends back the Proxy Binding Acknowledgment (PBA) to the
        NAR (NMAG).  From this time on, the packets to/from the MN go
        through the NAR instead of the PAR.

   The timing of the context transfer and that of packet forwarding may
   be different.  Thus, a new flag 'F' and the Option Code values for it
   in the HI message are defined to request forwarding.  To request
   buffering, 'U' flag has already been defined in [RFC5268bis].  If the
   PAR receives the HI message with F flag set and the Option Code value
   being 2, it starts forwarding packets for the MN.  The HI message
   with U flag set may be sent earlier if the timing of buffering is
   different from that of forwarding.  If packet forwarding is
   completed, the PAR MAY send the HI message with F flag set and the
   Option Code value being 3.  By this message, the ARs on both ends can
   tear down the forwarding tunnel synchronously.

   The IP addresses in the headers of those user packets are summarized
   below:

   In (f),

        Inner source address: IP address of the CN

        Inner destination address: HNP or IPv4-MN-HoA

        Outer source address: IP address of the PAR (PMAG)

Yokota, et al.          Expires December 5, 2009               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft          Proxy-based Fast Handover              June 2009

        Outer destination address: IP address of the NAR (NMAG)

   In (i),

        Source address: IP address of the CN

        Destination address: HNP or IPv4-MN-HoA

   In (j),

   - from the MN to the NMAG,

        Source address: HNP or IPv4-MN-HoA

        Destination address: IP address of the CN

   - from the NMAG to the PMAG,

        Inner source address: HNP or IPv4-MN-HoA

        Inner destination address: IP address of the CN

        Outer source address: IP address of the NAR (NMAG)

        Outer destination address: IP address of the PAR (PMAG)

   - from the PMAG to the LMA,

        Inner source address: HNP or IPv4-MN-HoA

        Inner destination address: IP address of the CN

        Outer source address: IP address of the PAR (PMAG)

        Outer destination address: IP address of the LMA

   The encapsulation type for these user packets SHOULD follow that used
   in the tunnel between the LMA and MAG (e.g., IPv6-in-IPv6 [RFC5213]
   or GRE [GREKEY]).

   In the case of the reactive handover for PMIPv6, since the MN does
   not send either the FBU or UNA, it would be more natural that the NAR
   sends the HI to the PAR after the MN has moved to the new link.  The
   NAR then needs to obtain the information of the PAR beforehand.  Such
   information could be provided, for example, by the MN sending the
   AP-ID on the old link and/or by the lower-layer procedures between
   the P-AN and N-AN.  The exact method is not specified in this
   document.  Figure 3 illustrates the reactive fast handover procedures

Yokota, et al.          Expires December 5, 2009               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft          Proxy-based Fast Handover              June 2009

   for PMIPv6, where the bi-directional tunnel establishment is
   initiated by the NAR.

                                         PMAG            NMAG
          MN       P-AN      N-AN        (PAR)           (NAR)     LMA
          |         |         |            |               |        |
     (a) ~~~        |         |            |               |        |
         ~~~        |         |            |               |        |
          |  MN-AN connection |       AN-MAG connection    |        |
     (b)  |<--establishment-->|<-------establishment------>|        |
          |(MN ID, Old AP ID) |     (MN ID, Old AP ID)     |        |
          |         |         |(substitute for UNA and FBU)|        |
          |         |         |            |               |        |
          |         |         |            |      HI       |        |
     (c)  |         |         |            |<---(MN ID) ---|        |
          |         |         |            |               |        |
          |         |         |            |     HAck      |        |
     (d)  |         |         |            |---(MN ID, --->|        |
          |         |         |            | MN IID, LMAA) |        |
          |         |         |            |               |        |
     (e)  |         |         |          #=|<=======================|
          |         |         |          #================>|=#      |
          |<====================DL data======================#      |
          |         |         |            |               |        |
     (f)  |=====================UL data===================>|=#      |
          |         |         |          #=|<================#      |
          |         |         |          #=========================>|
          |         |         |            |               |        |
     /    |         |         |            |               |        | \
     |(g) |         |         |            |               |--PBU-->| |
     |    |         |         |            |               |        | |
     |(h) |         |         |            |               |<--PBA--| |
     \    |         |         |            |               |        | /

        Figure 3: Reactive fast handover for PMIPv6 (NAR initiated)

   The detailed descriptions are as follows:

   (a)  The MN undergoes handover from the P-AN to the N-AN.  The AP-ID
        on the old link may be provided by the MN to help identify the
        PMAG on the new link.

   (b)  The MN establishes a connection (e.g., radio channel) with the
        N-AN, which triggers the establishment of the connection between
        the N-AN and NAR.  The MN ID is transferred to the NAR for the
        subsequent procedures.  The AP-ID on the old link may also be
        provided by the MN to help identify the PMAG on the new link.
        This can be regarded as a substitute for the UNA and FBU.

Yokota, et al.          Expires December 5, 2009               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft          Proxy-based Fast Handover              June 2009

   (c)  The NAR sends the HI to the PAR.  The HI message MUST include
        the MN ID.  The Context Request Option MAY be included to
        request additional context information on the MN to the PAR.

   (d)  The PAR sends the HAck back to the NAR.  The HAck message MUST
        include the HNP and/or IPv4-MN-HoA that is corresponding to the
        MN ID in the HI message and SHOULD include the MN-IID and the
        LMA address that is currently serving the MN.  The context
        information requested by the NAR MUST be included.

   (e)  If F flag in the HI is set, a bi-directional tunnel is
        established between the PAR and NAR and packets destined for the
        MN are forwarded from the PAR to the NAR over this tunnel.
        After decapsulation, those packets are delivered to the MN via
        the N-AN.

   (f)  The uplink packets from the MN are sent to the NAR via the N-AN
        and the NAR forwards them to the PAR.  The PAR then sends the
        packets to the LMA that is currently serving the MN.

   Steps (g)-(h) are the same as (k)-(l) in the predictive fast handover
   procedures.

   In step (c), The IP address of the PAR needs to be resolved by the
   NAR to send the HI to the PAR.  This information may come from the
   N-AN or some database that the NAR can access.

4.2.  Inter-AR Tunneling Operation

   When the PMAG (PAR) or NMAG (NAR), depending on the fast handover
   mode, receives the HI message with the F flag set, it prepares to
   send/receive the MN's packets to/from the other MAG and returns the
   HAck message with the same sequence number.  The necessary
   information MUST be transferred in the HI message to distinguish MN's
   packets for forwarding in advance or at this time.  Such information
   includes the HoA of the MN and/or GRE key(s).  For the downlink
   packets, the PMAG redirects MN's packets from the LMA towards the
   NMAG and if the MN is ready to receive those packets or the N-AN can
   handle them regardless of the state of the MN, the NAR should
   immediately send them towards the N-AN; otherwise it should buffer
   them until the MN is ready.  For the uplink packets, the NMAG SHOULD
   redirect them from the MN towards the PMAG and the PMAG sends them to
   the LMA.

   When the PMAG or NMAG receives the HI message with the U flag set, it
   prepares to buffer the MN's packets and returns the HAck message with
   the same sequence number.  It MUST be followed by another HI message
   with the F flag set at an appropriate time to forward the buffered

Yokota, et al.          Expires December 5, 2009               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft          Proxy-based Fast Handover              June 2009

   packets.

   If the MAG that received the HI message encounters an erroneous
   situation (e.g., insufficient buffer space), it SHOULD immediately
   send the HAck message with the cause of the error and cancel all
   tunneling operation.

4.3.  IPv4 Support Considerations

   The motivation and usage scenarios of IPv4 protocol support by PMIPv6
   are described in [IPv4PMIPv6].  The scope of IPv4 support covers the
   following two features:

   o  IPv4 Home Address Mobility Support, and

   o  IPv4 Transport Support.

   As for IPv4 Home Address Mobility Support, the MN acquires IPv4 Home
   Address (IPv4-MN-HoA) and in the case of handover, the PMAG needs to
   transfer IPv4-MN-HoA to the NMAG, which is the inner destination
   address of the packets forwarded on the downlink.  For this purpose,
   a new option called IPv4 Address Option is defined in this document.
   In order to provide IPv4 Transport Support, the NMAG needs to know
   the IPv4 address of the LMA (IPv4-LMAA) to send PMIPv6 signaling
   messages to the LMA in the IPv4 transport network.  In this case, a
   new option called LMA Address (LMAA) option is used so as to convey
   IPv4-LMAA from the PMAG to NMAG.  The supported encapsulation type
   follows Section 6.10.2 in [RFC5213], that is, IPv4, IPv4-UDP and
   IPv4-UDP-TLV.

Yokota, et al.          Expires December 5, 2009               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft          Proxy-based Fast Handover              June 2009

   before that step upon the MN's request.  However, if the HAck from
   the PMAG returns a different HNP or the subsequent PMIPv6 binding

   The protocol specified in this document is applicable regardless of
   whether link-layer addresses are used between a MN and its access
   router.  A MN should be able to continue sending packets on the
   uplink even when it changes link.  When link-layer addresses are
   used, the MN performs Neighbor Unreachability Detection (NUD)
   [RFC4861], after attaching to a new link, probing the reachability of
   its default router.  If the new router's interface is configured to
   respond to queries sent to link-layer addresses than its own (e.g.,
   set to promiscuous mode), then it can respond to the NUD probe,
   providing its link-layer address in the solicited Neighbor
   Advertisement.  Implementations should allow the MN to continue to
   send uplink packets while it is performing NUD.

Yokota, et al.          Expires December 5, 2009               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft          Proxy-based Fast Handover              June 2009

6.  Message Formats

   This document defines new Mobility Header messages for the extended
   HI and Hack and new mobility options for conveying context
   information.

6.1.  Mobility Header

6.1.1.  Handover Initiate (HI)

   This section defines extensions to the HI message in [RFC5268bis].
   The format of the Message Data field in the Mobility Header is as
   follows:

      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
                                     +-------------------------------+
                                     |           Sequence #          |
     +-+-+-+---------+---------------+-------------------------------+
     |S|U|F|Reserved |      Code     |                               |
     +-+-+-+---------+---------------+                               |
     |                                                               |
     .                                                               .
     .                       Mobility options                        .
     .                                                               .
     |                                                               |
     +---------------------------------------------------------------+

   IP Fields:

   Source Address

                       The IP address of PMAG or NMAG

   Destination Address

                       The IP address of the peer MAG

   Message Data:

   Sequence #  Same as [RFC5268bis].

   S flag      Defined in [RFC5268bis] and MUST be set to zero in this
               specification.

Yokota, et al.          Expires December 5, 2009               [Page 17]

Internet-Draft          Proxy-based Fast Handover              June 2009

   U flag      Buffer flag.  Same as [RFC5268bis].

   F flag      Forwarding flag.  Used to request to forward the packets
               for the MN.

   Reserved    Same as [RFC5268bis].

   Code        [RFC5268bis] defines this field and its values 0 and 1.
               In this specification, if F flag is not set, this field
               MUST be set to zero.  Otherwise, it has the following
               meaning:

                         2: Forwarding is not requested

                         3: Request forwarding

                         4: Indicate the completion of forwarding

   Mobility options:

   This field contains one or more mobility options, whose encoding and
   formats are defined in [RFC3775].  At least one mobility option MUST
   uniquely identify the target MN (e.g., the Mobile Node Identifier
   Option defined in RFC4283) and the transferred context MUST be for
   one MN per message.  In addition, the NAR can request necessary
   mobility options by the Context Request Option defined in this
   document.

   Context Request Option

            This option MAY be present to request context information
            typically by the NAR to the PAR in the NAR-initiated fast
            handover.

6.1.2.  Handover Acknowledge (HAck)

   This section defines extensions to the HAck message in[RFC5268bis].
   The format of the Message Data field in the Mobility Header is as
   follows:

Yokota, et al.          Expires December 5, 2009               [Page 18]

Internet-Draft          Proxy-based Fast Handover              June 2009

      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
                                     +-------------------------------+
                                     |           Sequence #          |
     +-+-+-----------+---------------+-------------------------------+
     |U|F| Reserved  |      Code     |                               |
     +-+-+-----------+---------------+                               |
     |                                                               |
     .                                                               .
     .                       Mobility options                        .
     .                                                               .
     |                                                               |
     +---------------------------------------------------------------+

   IP Fields:

   Source Address

                       Copied from the destination address of the
                       Handover Initiate message to which this message
                       is a response.

   Destination Address

                       Copied from the source address of the Handover
                       Initiate message to which this message is a
                       response.

   Message Data:

   The usages of Sequence # and Reserved fields are exactly the same as
   those in [RFC5268bis].

   U, F flags  Same as defined in Section 6.1.1.

   Code
               Code values 0 through 4 and 128 through 130 are defined
               in [RFC5268bis].  In this specification, the meaning of
               Code value 0 is modified, 128 through 130 are reused, and
               5, 6, 131 and 132 are newly defined.

                       0: Handover Accepted

                       5: Context Transfer Successful or Accepted

Yokota, et al.          Expires December 5, 2009               [Page 19]

Internet-Draft          Proxy-based Fast Handover              June 2009

                       6: All available Context Transferred

                       128: Handover Not Accepted, reason unspecified

                       129: Administratively prohibited

                       130: Insufficient resources

                       131: Requested Context Not Available

                       132: Forwarding Not Available

   Mobility options:

   This field contains one or more mobility options, whose encoding and
   formats are defined in [RFC3775].  The mobility option that uniquely
   identifies the target MN MUST be copied from the corresponding HI
   message and the transferred context MUST be for one MN per message.

   Requested option(s)  All the context information requested by the
             Context Request Option in the HI message SHOULD be present
             in the HAck message.  The other cases are described below.

   In the case of the PAR-initiated fast handover, when the PAR sends
   the HI message to the NAR with the context information and the NAR
   successfully receives it, the NAR returns the HAck message with Code
   value 5.  In the case of the NAR-initiated fast handover, when the
   NAR sends the HI message to the PAR with or without Context Request
   Option, the PAR returns the HAck message with the requested or
   default context information (if any).  If all available context
   information is transferred, the PAR sets the Code value in the HAck
   message to 6.  If more context information is available, the PAR sets
   the Code value in the HAck to 5 and the NAR MAY send new HI
   message(s) to retrieve the rest of the available context information.
   If none of the requested context information is available, the PAR
   returns the HAck message with Code value 131 without any context
   information.

6.2.  Mobility Options

6.2.1.  Context Request Option

   This option is sent in the HI message to request context information
   on the MN.  If a default set of context information is defined and
   always sufficient, this option is not mandatory.  This option is more
   useful to retrieve additional or dynamically selected context
   information.

Yokota, et al.          Expires December 5, 2009               [Page 20]

Internet-Draft          Proxy-based Fast Handover              June 2009

   Context Request Option is typically used for the reactive (NAR-
   initiated) fast handover mode to retrieve the context information
   from the PAR.  When this option is included in the HI message, all
   the requested context information SHOULD be included in the HAck
   message in the corresponding mobility option(s) (e.g., HNP, LMAA or
   MN-IID mobility options).

      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
     |  Option-Type  | Option-Length |           Reserved            |
     +---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+
     |  Req-type-1   | Req-length-1  |  Req-type-2   | Req-length-2  |
     +---------------------------------------------------------------+
     |                              ...                              |

   Option-Type    TBD1

   Option-Length  The length in octets of this option, not including the
                  Option Type and Option Length fields.

   Reserved       This field is unused.  It MUST be initialized to zero
                  by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.

   Req-type-n     The type value for the n'th requested option.

   Req-length-n   The length of the n'th requested option excluding the
                  Req-type-n and Req-length-n fields.

   In the case where there are only Req-type-n and Req-length-n fields,
   the value of the Req-length-n is set to zero.  If additional
   information besides the Req-type-n is necessary to uniquely specify
   the requested context, such information follows after the
   Req-length-n.  For example, when the requested context is the Vendor-
   Specific Option described in Section 6.2.8, the requested option
   format looks as follows:

     |                              ...                              |
     +---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+
     | Req-type-N=19 | Req-length-N=5|           Vendor-ID           |
     +-------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
     |           Vendor-ID           |   Sub-Type    |               |
     +-----------------------------------------------+               |
     |                              ...                              |

   The exact values in the Vendor-ID and Sub-Type are outside the scope
   of this document.

Yokota, et al.          Expires December 5, 2009               [Page 21]

Internet-Draft          Proxy-based Fast Handover              June 2009

6.2.2.  Local Mobility Anchor Address (LMAA) Option

   This option is used to transfer the Local Mobility Anchor IPv6
   Address (LMAA) or its IPv4 Address (IPv4-LMAA), with which the MN is
   currently registered.  The detailed definition of the LMAA is
   described in [RFC5213].

      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |  Option-Type  | Option-Length |  Option-Code  |   Reserved    |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |              Local Mobility Anchor Address ...                |

   Option-Type    TBD2

   Option-Length  18 or 6

   Option-Code

                  0  Reserved

                  1  IPv6 address of the LMA (LMAA)

                  2  IPv4 address of the LMA (IPv4-LMAA)

   Reserved       This field is unused.  It MUST be initialized to zero
                  by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.

   Local Mobility Anchor Address
                  If Option-Code is 1, the LMA IPv6 address (LMAA) is
                  inserted.  If Option-Code is 2, the LMA IPv4 address
                  (IPv4-LMA) is inserted.

6.2.3.  IPv4 Address Option

   As described in Section 4.3, if the MN is IPv4-only mode or dual-
   stack mode, the MN requires IPv4 home address (IPv4-MN-HoA).  This
   option has alignment requirement of 4n.

      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     | Option-Type   | Option-Length |  Option-Code  |    Reserved   |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                      IPv4 Address                             |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Yokota, et al.          Expires December 5, 2009               [Page 22]

Internet-Draft          Proxy-based Fast Handover              June 2009

   Option-Type    TBD3

   Option-Length  6

   Option-Code

                  0  Reserved

                  1  IPv4-MN-HoA

   Reserved       This field is unused.  It MUST be initialized to zero
                  by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.

   IPv4 Address   IPv4 address specified in Option-Code

6.2.4.  Mobile Node Interface Identifier (MN IID) Option

   This option is used to transfer the interface identifier of the MN
   that is used in the P-AN.

      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     | Option-Type   | Option-Length |  Option-Code  |    Reserved   |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                                                               |
     +                      Interface Identifier                     +
     |                                                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Option-Type    TBD4

   Option-Length  10

   Option-Code    0

   Reserved       This field is unused.  It MUST be initialized to zero
                  by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.

   Interface Identifier
                  The Interface Identifier value of the MN that is used
                  in the P-AN.

6.2.5.  Home Network Prefix Option

   This option is used to transfer the home network prefix that is
   assigned to the MN in the P-AN.  The Home Network Prefix Option
   defined in [RFC5213] is used for this.

Yokota, et al.          Expires December 5, 2009               [Page 23]

Internet-Draft          Proxy-based Fast Handover              June 2009

6.2.6.  Link-local Address Option

   This option is used to transfer the link-local address of the PAR
   (PMAG).  The Link-local Address Option defined in [RFC5213] is used
   for this.

6.2.7.  GRE Key Option

   This option is used to transfer the GRE Key for the MN's data flow
   over the bi-directional tunnel between the PAR and NAR.  The message
   format of this option follows the GRE Key Option defined in [GREKEY].
   The GRE Key value uniquely identifies each flow and the sender of
   this option expects to receive packets of the flow from the peer AR
   with this value.

6.2.8.  Vendor-Specific Mobility Option

   This option is used to transfer any other information defined in this
   document.  The format of this option follows the Vendor-Specific
   Mobility Option defined in [RFC5094].  The exact values in the Vendor
   ID, Sub-Type and Data fields are outside the scope of this document.

Yokota, et al.          Expires December 5, 2009               [Page 24]

Internet-Draft          Proxy-based Fast Handover              June 2009

7.  Security Considerations

   Security issues for this document follow those for PMIPv6 [RFC5213]
   and FMIPv6 [RFC5268bis].  In PMIPv6, the MAG and LMA are assumed to
   share security associations.  In FMIPv6, the access routers (i.e.,
   the PMAG and NMAG in this document) are assumed to share security
   associations.

   The Handover Initiate (HI) and Handover Acknowledgement (HAck)
   messages exchanged between the PMAG and NMAG MUST be protected using
   end-to-end security association(s) offering integrity and data origin
   authentication.  The PMAG and the NMAG MUST implement IPsec [RFC4301]
   for protecting the HI and HAck messages.  IPsec Encapsulating
   Security Payload (ESP) [RFC4303] in transport mode with mandatory
   integrity protection SHOULD be used for protecting the signaling
   messages.  Confidentiality protection SHOULD be used if sensitive
   context related to the mobile node is transferred.

   IPsec ESP [RFC4303] in tunnel mode MAY be used to protect the MN's
   packets at the time of forwarding if protection of data traffic is
   required.

Yokota, et al.          Expires December 5, 2009               [Page 25]

Internet-Draft          Proxy-based Fast Handover              June 2009

8.  IANA Considerations

   This document defines four new mobility options, which are described
   in Section 6.2.  The Type value for these options are assigned from
   the same numbering space as allocated for the other mobility options,
   as defined in [RFC3775].

    Mobility Options
    TBD4   Mobile Node Interface Identifier Option  Section 6.2.4

Yokota, et al.          Expires December 5, 2009               [Page 26]

Internet-Draft          Proxy-based Fast Handover              June 2009

9.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to specially thank Vijay Devarapalli and Sri
   Gundavelli for their thorough reviews of this document.

   The authors would also like to thank Charlie Perkins, Desire Oulai,
   Ahmad Muhanna, Giaretta Gerardo, Domagoj Premec, Marco Liebsch, Fan
   Zhao, Julien Laganier and Pierrick Seite for their passionate
   discussions in the working group mailing list.

Yokota, et al.          Expires December 5, 2009               [Page 27]

Internet-Draft          Proxy-based Fast Handover              June 2009

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

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

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

   [RFC5268bis]
              Koodli, R., Ed., "Mobile IPv6 Fast Handovers",
               draft-ietf-mipshop-rfc5268bis-01.txt, March 2009.

   [RFC3775]  Johnson, D., "Mobility Support in IPv6", RFC 3775,
              June 2004.

   [RFC4988]  Koodli, R. and C. Perkins, "Mobile IPv4 Fast Handovers",
              RFC 4988, October 2007.

   [RFC4301]  Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
              Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005.

   [RFC4303]  Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)",
              RFC 4303, December 2005.

   [RFC5094]  Devarapalli, V., Patel, A., and K. Leung, "Mobile IPv6
              Vendor Specific Option", RFC 5094, December 2007.

10.2.  Informative References

   [RFC4861]  Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
              "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
              September 2007.

   [IPv4PMIPv6]
              Wakikawa, R., Ed. and S. Gundavelli, "IPv4 Support for
              Proxy Mobile IPv6",
               draft-ietf-netlmm-pmip6-ipv4-support-12.txt, April 2009.

   [GREKEY]   Muhanna, A., Ed., "GRE Key Option for Proxy Mobile IPv6",
               draft-ietf-netlmm-grekey-option-08.txt, April 2009.

Yokota, et al.          Expires December 5, 2009               [Page 28]

Internet-Draft          Proxy-based Fast Handover              June 2009

Appendix A.  Applicable Use Cases

A.1.  PMIPv6 Handoff Indication

   PMIPv6 [RFC5213] defines the Handoff Indicator Option and describes
   the type of the handoff and the values to set to the option.  This
   document proposes one approach to determining the handoff type by the
   NMAG when the handoff of the MN is executed.

   According to [RFC5213], the following handoff types are defined:

      0) Reserved

      1) Attachment over a new interface

      2) Handoff between two different interfaces of the mobile node

      3) Handoff between mobile access gateways for the same interface

      4) Handoff state unknown

      5) Handoff state not changed (Re-registration)

   By using the MN Interface Identifier (MN IID) option, which is
   defined in this document, the following solution can be considered.
   When the NMAG receives the MN IID used in the P-AN from the PMAG via
   the HI or HAck messages, the NMAG compares it with the new MN IID
   that is obtained from the MN in the N-AN.  If these two MN IIDs are
   the same, the handover type falls into 3) and the Handoff Indicator
   value is set to 3.  If these two MN IIDs are different, the handover
   is likely to be 2) since the HI/HAck message exchange implies that
   this is a handover not a multi-homing, therefore the Handoff
   Indicator value can be set to 2.  If there is no HI/HAck exchange
   performed prior to the network attachment of the MN in the new
   network, the NMAG may infer that this is a multi-homing case and set
   the Handoff Indicator value to 1.  In the case of re-registration,
   the MAG, to which the MN is attached, can determine if the handoff
   state is not changed, so the MAG can set the HI value to 5 without
   any additional information.  If none of them can be assumed, the NMAG
   may set the value to 4.

A.2.  Local Routing

   Section 6.10.3 in [RFC5213] describes that if EnableMAGLocalRouting
   flag is set, when two mobile nodes are attached to one MAG, the
   traffic between them may be locally routed.  If one mobile node moves
   from this MAG (PMAG) to another MAG (NMAG) and if the PMAG does not
   detect the MN's detachment, it will continue to forward packets

Yokota, et al.          Expires December 5, 2009               [Page 29]

Internet-Draft          Proxy-based Fast Handover              June 2009

   locally forever.  This situation is more likely to happen in the
   reactive fast handover with WLAN access, which does not have the
   capability to detect the detachment of the MN in a timely manner.
   PFMIPv6 can be applied to handle this case.  When the MN attaches to
   the NMAG, it sends the HI message to the PMAG, which makes it realize
   the detachment of the MN.  The PMAG immediately stops the local
   routing and sends the packets for the MN towards the LMA, which in
   turn forwards them to the NMAG over the PMIPv6 tunnel.

   If the network that the MN has moved to does not support PMIPv6 but
   only MIPv6 (i.e. there exists a MIPv6 HA) and the MN supports MIPv6
   at the same time, the MN and HA can exchange BU/BA.  If this is the
   case, the LMA and HA will most likely be collocated and the LMA (HA)
   address should be maintained in the new network for communication
   continuity.

Yokota, et al.          Expires December 5, 2009               [Page 30]

Internet-Draft          Proxy-based Fast Handover              June 2009

Appendix B.  Change Log

   Changes at -00

      *  Added separate sections for MH and ICMP.

      *  Clarified usage of HNP and IPv4-MN-HoA throughout the document.

      *  Added IANA Considerations.

      *  Added section on Other Considerations, including operation of
         uplink packets when using link-layer addresses, multiple
         interface usage and transmission of RA to withdraw HNP in the
         event of failure of PMIP6 registration.

      *  Revised Security Considerations.

   Changes from -00 to -01

      *  Removed ICMPv6-based message format.

      *  Clarified HI/HAck exchange in the predictive mode (step (e) in
         Figure 2).

      *  Clarified information retrieval about the PMAG in the reactive
         mode.

      *  Removed the extension to the GRE Key Option.

      *  Clarified the handoff type considerations in Appendix A.

      *  Home Network Prefix Option, Link-local Address Option and
         Vendor-Specific Mobility Option are added.

   Changes from -01 to -02

      *  Aligned HI/HAck message formats with [RFC5268bis]
         (draft-ietf-mipshop-rfc5268bis-00.txt).

      *  Revised Section 8 removing the request for the type assignment
         of HI/HAck Mobility Headers.

   Changes from -02 to -03

      *  Updated HI/HAck message formats according to
         draft-ietf-mipshop-rfc5268bis-01.txt.

Yokota, et al.          Expires December 5, 2009               [Page 31]

Internet-Draft          Proxy-based Fast Handover              June 2009

      *  Cleaned up Figure 2 and Figure 3.

      *  Moved PMIP domain boundary crossing situation in Section 4.1 to
         Appendix A.3.

      *  Removed the alternative protocol operation with an unsolicited
         HAck from Section 4.1.

      *  Modified Code values in the HAck message in order to avoid
         collision with those in [RFC5268bis].

      *  Clarified the usage scenarios of Context Request Option.

      *  Modified the description of Code values in the HAck message.

      *  Changed the container for the IPv4-LMAA from IPv4 Address
         option to the LMAA option.

      *  Made Confidentiality protection "SHOULD" for context transfer.

   Changes from -03 to -04

      *  Added more explanations about MIPv6, FMIPv6 and PMIPv6 in
         Abstract.

      *  Moved Figure 1 to Section 4.

      *  Mandated the support of IP Sec on the PMAG and NMAG in order to
         protect signaling and user packets and the context information.

      *  Added a new section for the inter-AR tunneling operation
         (Section 4.2).

      *  Added descriptions about the encapsulation type in Sections 4.1
         and 4.3.

      *  Added a description about buffering requirements on the MAG in
         Section 4.1.

      *  Added a description about the timing of L2 and L3 connection
         establishments in Section 4.1.

      *  Added a new section for PMIPv6-related fast handover issues
         (Section 5) and a description about preferable behaviors of the
         MN and MAG to reduce packet loss.

Yokota, et al.          Expires December 5, 2009               [Page 32]

Internet-Draft          Proxy-based Fast Handover              June 2009

      *  Added Acknowledgments section (Section 9).

      *  Added a new section for local routing in Appendix (A.2).

Yokota, et al.          Expires December 5, 2009               [Page 33]

Internet-Draft          Proxy-based Fast Handover              June 2009

Authors' Addresses

   Hidetoshi Yokota
   KDDI Lab
   2-1-15 Ohara, Fujimino
   Saitama,  356-8502
   JP

   Email: [email-masked]

   Kuntal Chowdhury
   Starent Networks
   30 International Place
   Tewksbury, MA  01876
   US

   Email: [email-masked]

   Rajeev Koodli
   Starent Networks
   30 International Place
   Tewksbury, MA  01876
   US

   Email: [email-masked]

   Basavaraj Patil
   Nokia
   6000 Connection Drive
   Irving, TX  75039
   US

   Email: [email-masked]

   Frank Xia
   Huawei USA
   1700 Alma Dr. Suite 500
   Plano, TX  75075
   US

   Email: [email-masked]

Yokota, et al.          Expires December 5, 2009               [Page 34]

---

From: Sri Gundavelli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 22:15:19 -0700 (PDT)

I've reviewed the draft, its in a good shape and can move forward.

Regards
Sri

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 08:48:46 +0200

Hi all,

I've reviewed the draft, I think it is ready to move forward.

Regards
Pierrick

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] De la part
> de Vijay Devarapalli
> Envoyé : mercredi 3 juin 2009 01:45
> À : [email-masked]
> Objet : Re: [Mipshop] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-mipshop-pfmipv6
> 
> Hello all,
>

---

From: Yungui Wang <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 08:17:59 +0800

Hello

This draft is okey to me and can go forward.

B.R.
Yungui

> Sent: 2009年6月3日 7:45
> Subject: Re: [Mipshop] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-mipshop-pfmipv6
> 
> Hello all,
> 
> The WG last call expires in two days. We need more people 
> responding to the last call before the document can be sent 
> to the IESG.
> 
> Vijay
>