Mobility EXTensions for IPv6 (mext) Internet Drafts
| Analysis of Multihoming in Mobile IPv6 | |||||||||||||||||
|
Mobile IPv6 as specified in RFC 3775 allows a mobile node to maintain its IPv6 communications while moving between subnets. This document investigates configurations where a mobile node running Mobile IPv6 is multihomed. The use of multiple addresses is foreseen to provide ubiquitous, permanent and fault-tolerant access to the Internet, particularly on mobile nodes which are more prone to failure or sudden lack of connectivity. However, Mobile IPv6 currently lacks support for such multihomed nodes. The purpose of this document is to detail all the issues arising through the operation of Mobile IPv6 on multihomed mobile nodes. | ||||||||||||||||
| Motivations and Scenarios for Using Multiple Interfaces and Global Addresses | |||||||||||||||||
|
In this document, multihoming is investigated from an end-node point of view, and not from a site point of view as the term "multihoming" is commonly understood so far. The purpose of this document is to explain the motivations for fixed and mobile nodes (hosts and routers) using multiple interfaces and the scenarios where this may end up using multiple global addresses on their interfaces. Such multihoming configurations can bring a number of benefits once appropriate support mechanisms are put in place. Interestingly, this analysis is generic, i.e. motivations and benefits of node multihoming apply to both fixed end nodes and mobile end nodes. | ||||||||||||||||
| Multiple Care-of Addresses Registration | |||||||||||||||||
|
According to the current Mobile IPv6 specification, a mobile node may have several care-of addresses, but only one, called the primary care-of address, that can be registered with its home agent and the correspondent nodes. However, for matters of cost, bandwidth, delay, etc, it is useful for the mobile node to get Internet access through multiple accesses simultaneously, in which case the mobile node would be configured with multiple active IPv6 care-of addresses. This document proposes extensions to the Mobile IPv6 protocol to register and use multiple care-of addresses. The extensions proposed in this document can be used by Mobile Routers using the NEMO (Network Mobility) Basic Support protocol as well. | ||||||||||||||||
| Home Agent Reliability Protocol | |||||||||||||||||
|
The home agent can be a single point of failure when Mobile IPv6 is operated in a system. It is critical to provide home agent reliability in the event of a home agent crashing or becoming unavailable. This would allow another home agent to take over and continue providing service to the mobile nodes. This document describes the problem scope briefly and provides a mechanism of home agent failure detection, home agent state transfer, and home agent switching for home agent redundancy and reliability. | ||||||||||||||||
| RADIUS Mobile IPv6 Support | |||||||||||||||||
|
This document defines new attributes to facilitate Mobile IPv6 operations using RADIUS infrastructure. The operations include bootstrapping of information required by the Mobile Node and the interface between the Network Access Server, Home Agent and the RADIUS server used to assist MIP6 operations. | ||||||||||||||||
| NEMO Route Optimization Requirements for Operational Use in Aeronautics and Space Exploration Mobile Networks | |||||||||||||||||
|
This document describes the requirements and desired properties of NEMO Route Optimization techniques for use in global networked communications systems for aeronautics and space exploration. This version has been reviewed by members of the International Civil Aviation Orgnanization (ICAO) and other aeronautical communications standards bodies, and contributed to by a number of aeronautical communications experts outside the normal IETF process. | ||||||||||||||||
| AAA Goals for Mobile IPv6 | |||||||||||||||||
|
In commercial and enterprise deployments Mobile IPv6 can be a service offered by a Mobility Services Provider (MSP). In this case all protocol operations may need to be explicitly authorized and traced, requiring the interaction between Mobile IPv6 and the AAA infrastructure. Integrating the AAA infrastructure (e.g. NAS and AAA server) offers also a solution component for Mobile IPv6 bootstrapping. This document describes various scenarios where a AAA interface for Mobile IPv6 is required. Additionally, it lists design goals and requirements for such an interface. | ||||||||||||||||
| Mobile IPv6 Support for Dual Stack Hosts and Routers | |||||||||||||||||
|
The current Mobile IPv6 and NEMO specifications support IPv6 only. This specification extends those standards to allow the registration of IPv4 addresses and prefixes, respectively, and the transport of both IPv4 and IPv6 packets over the tunnel to the home agent. This specification also allows the Mobile Node to roam over both IPv6 and IPv4, including the case where Network Address Translation is present on the path between the mobile node and its home agent. | ||||||||||||||||
| NEMO Management Information Base | |||||||||||||||||
|
This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB), the network mobility support (NEMO) MIB, for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, the NEMO MIB will be used to monitor and control a mobile ipv6 node with NEMO functionality. | ||||||||||||||||
| Automotive Industry Requirements for NEMO Route Optimization | |||||||||||||||||
|
This document specifies requirements for NEMO Route Optimization techniques as identified by the automotive industry. Requirements are gathered from the Car2Car Communication Consortium and ISO Technical Committee 204 Working Group 16 (CALM). | ||||||||||||||||
| Flow Bindings in Mobile IPv6 and Nemo Basic Support | |||||||||||||||||
|
This document introduces extensions to Mobile IPv6 [1] and Nemo Basic Support [2] that allow nodes to bind one or more flows to a care-of address. These extensions allow multihomed nodes to take full advantage of the different properties associated with each of their interfaces. | ||||||||||||||||
| Mobility Support in IPv6 | |||||||||||||||||
|
This document specifies a protocol which allows nodes to remain reachable while moving around in the IPv6 Internet. Each mobile node is always identified by its home address, regardless of its current point of attachment to the Internet. While situated away from its home, a mobile node is also associated with a care-of address, which provides information about the mobile node's current location. IPv6 packets addressed to a mobile node's home address are transparently routed to its care-of address. The protocol enables IPv6 nodes to cache the binding of a mobile node's home address with its care-of address, and to then send any packets destined for the mobile node directly to it at this care-of address. To support this operation, Mobile IPv6 defines a new IPv6 protocol and a new destination option. All IPv6 nodes, whether mobile or stationary, can communicate with mobile nodes. | ||||||||||||||||
| DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation for NEMO | |||||||||||||||||
|
One aspect of network mobility support is the assignment of a prefix or prefixes to a Mobile Router (MR) for use on the links in the Mobile Network. DHCPv6 prefix delegation can be used for this configuration task. | ||||||||||||||||
| Binding Revocation for IPv6 Mobility | |||||||||||||||||
|
This document defines the revocation semantics for terminating a mobile node's mobility session and associated resources. These semantics are generic enough and can be used by mobility entities in the case of Client Mobile IPv6 and its extensions. This mechanism allows the mobility entity which initiates the revocation procedure to request its corresponding one to terminate either one, multiple or all specified binding cache entries. | ||||||||||||||||
| Mobile IPv6 Generic Signaling Message | |||||||||||||||||
|
This document specifies two new Mobility Header message types that allow Mobile IPv6 entities to send and receive generic signaling messages. Haley Expires - January 2008 [page 1] Mobile IPv6 Generic Signaling Message August 2008 | ||||||||||||||||
| Guidelines for firewall administrators regarding MIPv6 traffic | |||||||||||||||||
|
This document presents some recommendations for firewall administrators to help them configure their existing firewalls in a way that allows in certain deployment scenarios the Mobile IPv6 signaling and data messages to pass through. For other scenarios, the support of additional mechanisms to create pinholes required for MIPv6 will be necessary. This document assumes that the firewalls in question include some kind of stateful packet filtering capability. | ||||||||||||||||
| Guidelines for firewall vendors regarding MIPv6 traffic | |||||||||||||||||
|
This document presents some recommendations for firewall vendors to help them implement their firewalls in a way that allows Mobile IPv6 signaling and data messages to pass through. This document describes how to implement stateful packet filtering capability for MIPv6. | ||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Mobility EXTensions for IPv6 (mext)
Last Modified: 2008-08-21
Additional information is available at tools.ietf.org/wg/mext
Chair(s):
Internet Area Director(s):
Internet Area Advisor:
Mailing Lists:
General Discussion: mext@ietf.orgTo Subscribe: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
Archive: http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current
Description of Working Group:
Mobile IPv6 specifies routing support which permits an IPv6 host tocontinue using its home address as it moves around the Internet,
enabling continuity of sessions. Mobile IPv6 supports transparency
above the IP layer, including maintenance of active transport level
sessions. In addition, network mobility (NEMO) mechanisms built on top
of Mobile IPv6 allow managing the mobility of an entire network, as it
changes its point of attachment to the Internet. The base
specifications consist of:
o RFC 3775 (Mobile IPv6)
o RFC 3963 (NEMO)
o RFC 4877 (Mobile IPv6 Operation with IKEv2)
The MEXT Working Group continues the work of the former MIP6, NEMO,
and MONAMI6 Working Groups.
The primary goal of MEXT will be to (A) enhance base IPv6 mobility by
continuing work on developments that are required for wide-scale
deployments and specific deployment scenarios. Additionally, (B) the
working group will ensure that any issues identified by implementation
and interoperability experience are addressed, and that the base
specifications are maintained. (C) The group will also produce
informational documentation, such as design rationale documents or
description of specific issues within the protocol.
Deployment considerations call for (A.1) solutions to enable
dual-stack operation, (A.2) mechanisms to support high-availability
home agents, (A.3) allowing the use of multiple interfaces in mobile
nodes, (A.4) ways to employ Mobile IPv6 in the presence of firewalls,
(A.5) address the specific needs of automotive and aviation
communities for route optimisation in network mobility, (A.6)
support for AAA is needed as a continuation of earlier work on
bootstrapping, (A.7) revocation of binding, (A.8) generic
notification message format and (A.9) extended DMSIP home
network support .
Work items related to large scale deployment include:
(A.1) A Solution for Mobile IPv6 and NEMO session continuity for dual
stack hosts which attach to IPv4 access networks. Additionally
provide a mechanism for carrying IPv4 packets via the Home agent
for Mobile IPv6 or NEMO capable dual-stack hosts.
(A.2) A protocol based solution for enhancing the reliability of home
agents and a method to force a host/router to switch home agents.
A mechanism to force an MN to switch the HA that is currently
serving it. This is required in deployments where the HA needs to
be taken offline for maintenance.
(A.3) Use of multiple interfaces.
Today, the protocols do not provide suppport for simultaneous
differentiated use of multiple access technologies. Several
proposals exist for such support, and some of them have been
implemented and tested.
When a mobile host/router uses multiple network interfaces
simultaneously, or when multiple prefixes are available on a
single network interface, the mobile host/router would end up
with multiple Care-of Addresses (CoAs). In addition, the Home
Agent might be attached to multiple network interfaces, or to a
single network interface with multiple prefixes, hence resulting
in the option to use multiple IP addresses for the Home
Agent. This could result in the possibility of using a multitude
of bi-directional tunnels between pairs of {Home Agent address,
CoA} and a number of associated issues: establishment, selection
and modification of multiple simultaneous tunnels.
The objective of the WG is to produce a clear problem statement
and to produce standard track specifications to the problems
associated with the simultaneous use of multiple addresses for
either mobile hosts using Mobile IPv6 or mobile routers using
NEMO Basic Support and their variants (FMIPv6, HMIPv6,
etc). Where the effects of having multiple prefixes on a single
interface is identical to the effects of having multiple
interfaces each with a single prefix, the WG will consider a
generalized approach to cater for multiple prefixes available to
a mobile host/router.
The WG uses existing tunneling mechanisms defined for Mobile
IPv6. The involved nodes need to select which tunnel instance
to use when multiple ones are available due to multiple
addresses on either end. But the WG does not plan to define a
new mechanism for this, but rather document how to use existing
mechanisms based upon preferences or policies. In particular,
the WG will consider that a tunnel is alive as long as packets
can be exchanged with the corresponding peer. In addition, local
information, such as interface up/down events, or other failure
detection mechanisms can be used to quickly detect failure of
tunnel(s).
Deliverables related to this include
- A document explaining the motivations for a node using multiple
interfaces and the scenarios where it may end up with multiple
global addresses on its interfaces [Informational]
- An analysis document explaining what are the limitations for
mobile hosts using multiple simultaneous Care-of Addresses and Home
Agent addresses using Mobile IPv6, whether issues are specific to
Mobile IPv6 or not [Informational].
- A protocol extension to support the registration of multiple
Care-of Addresses at a given Home Agent address [Standard
Track].
- A "Flow/binding policies exchange" solution for an exchange of
policies from the mobile host/router to the Home Agent and from the
Home Agent to the mobile host/router influencing the choice of the
Care-of Address and Home Agent address. The solution involves two
specifications, one for the policy format and another for its
transport [both Standard Track].
(A.4) Work on solutions to deal with firewalls and the problems that
firewalls cause as identified in RFC 4487.
(A.5) Route optimization of network mobility.
Three use cases have been identified for this. These are called
the Aviation case, the Automotive case, and the Personal Mobile
Router (consumer electronics) case, though the actual technical
problems are characterized by the type of movements and
environments more than by the specific industry using the
technology. The group will explore these cases to gather
requirements and proceed with solving the open issues.
(1) Airline and spacecraft community, who are deploying NEMO for
control systems, as well as Internet connectivity and
entertainment systems. This use case is characterized by fast (~
1000 km/h) moving objects over large distances (across
continents). The main technical problem is that tunneling-based
solutions imply a roundtrip to another continent and that BGP
based solutions imply significant churn in the global Internet
routing table.
(2) Automotive industry who are deploying NEMO for in-car
communication, entertainment, and data gathering, possible
control systems use, and communication to roadside devices. This
use case is characterized by moderately fast (~ 100-300 km/h)
moving objects that employ local or cellular networks for
connectivity.
(3) Personal Mobile Routers, which are consumer devices that
allow the user to bring a NEMO network with the user while
mobile, and communicate with peer NEMO Basic Support nodes
and nodes served by them.
After gathering the requirements for these types of deployments,
the working group will evaluate what type of route optimization
needs to be performed (if any), and formulate a solution to
those problems.
If no requirements for those scenarios can be collected by the
deadline, it will be assumed that the work is premature, and
that type of deployment will be dropped from the WG.
The group will only consider airline and spacecraft solutions
that combine tunneling solutions for small movements with either
federated tunnel servers or slowly changing end host prefixes.
The group will only consider personal mobile router requirements
about optimized routes to another mobile router belonging to the
same operator. The group will only consider automotive industry
requirements to allow MR-attached hosts to directly access the
network where MR has attached to. Work on automotive and
personal mobile router solutions requires rechartering.
The WG will not consider extensions to routing protocols. The
group will not consider general multi-homing problems that are
not related to the deployment and maintenance of Mobile IPv6 or
NEMO Basic Support protocols. The group will also not consider
general route optimization, or other problems that are not
related to the deployment and maintenance of NEMO Basic Support
protocols. Similarly, the group will not consider or rely on the
results of general routing architecture, Internet architecture,
or identifier-locator split issues that are discussed in
separate, long term efforts elsewhere in the IETF. Finally, the
group will not consider solutions that require changes from
correspondent nodes in the general Internet
(A.6) Bootstrapping mechanisms developed earlier in the MIP6 WG
require AAA support for Mobile IPv6. Part of this work is
already being done in the DIME WG, but the MEXT WG is chartered
to complete a design for RADIUS.
(A.7) Binding Revocation for IP Mobility: Define a binding revocation
mechanism for Mobile IPv6 and its extensions. This mechanism can
be used by any entity involved in the base Mobile IPv6 protocol or
one of its extensions to request its corresponding entity to terminate
either one, multiple or all binding cache entries.
(A.8) Generic Notification Message for Mobile IPv6: A proposal for
defining generic notification framework that can be used by the mobility
entities for sending and receiving asynchronous notification messages
was proposed and the same was adopted by the WG.
(A.9) Extended DSMIPv6 Home Network Support: DSMIPv6 assumes
the home network to be dual stack providing simultaneous IPv6 and
IPv4 network access. It is proposed to extend DSMIPv6 to support
home networks which provides IPv4, or IPv6 respectively, direct
network access only, but where virtual IPv6 home network
connectivity, or virtual IPv4 home network connectivity
respectively, may be obtained by tunneling to the HA. The latter
shall be obtained by DSMIPv6 operation using the v4HoA address as
Care-of-address for the v6HoA address, and vice versa, the v6HoA
address as care-of-address for the v4HoA address.
Work items related to base specification maintenance include:
(B.1) Create and maintain issue lists that are generated on the basis
of implementation and interoperability experience. Address
specific issues with specific updates or revisions of the base
specification. One specific area of concern that should be
analyzed and addressed relates to multilink subnets.
This work item relates only to corrections and
clarifications. The working group shall not revisit design
decisions or change the protocol.
(B.2) Update the IANA considerations of RFC 3775 to allow extensions for
experimental purposes as well passing of optional vendor-specific
information.
(B.3) Finish working group documents that are currently in process, and
submit for RFC. This includes prefix delegation protocol mechanism
for network mobility, and a MIB for NEMO Basic Support.
Work items related to informational documentation include:
(C.1) Produce a design rationale that documents the historical
thinking behind the introduction of an alternative security
mechanism, the Authentication Protocol (RFC 4285).
(C.2) Virtual Home Link configuration for Mobile IPv6: A proposal
has been made on Mobile IPv6 home link configuration on
virtual links. The proposal does not describe any new protocol, but
provides the operational and configuration details and additionally
provides implementation guidance for achieving this
configuration.
The group employs IPsec and IKE as a security mechanism. The group
shall refrain, however, from making generic extensions to these
protocols. Any proposed extension must be reviewed by the INT and SEC
ADs before it can be accepted as a part of a work item.
Goals and Milestones:
| Done | Submit I-D 'Mobile IPv6 Vendor Specific Option' to IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard | |
| Dec 2007 | Submit I-D 'Mobile IPv6 Dual-Stack Operation' to IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard. | |
| Dec 2007 | Submit I-D 'Motivation for Authentication I-D' to IESG for publication as Informational. | |
| Dec 2007 | Submit Multiple CoA Registration to IESG | |
| Done | Submit I-D 'Mobile IPv6 Experimental Allocations' to IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard | |
| Feb 2008 | Submit I-D 'Goals for AAA HA Interface' to IESG for publication as Informational. | |
| Feb 2008 | Submit -00 draft on Route Optimization needs for Personal Mobile Router | |
| Feb 2008 | Submit -00 draft on Route Optimization Needs for Automobile and Highway Deployments | |
| Feb 2008 | Submit -00 draft on Route Optimization Needs for Aircraft and Spacecraft Deployments | |
| Mar 2008 | Submit the final doc on Prefix Delegation for NEMO to the IESG, for Proposed Standard | |
| Done | Submit I-D 'Mobility Header Home Agent Switch Message' to IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard | |
| May 2008 | Submit final doc on Route Optimization needs for Personal Mobile Router, for Informational | |
| May 2008 | Submit final doc on Route Optimization Needs for Automobile and Highway Deployments, for Informational | |
| May 2008 | Submit final doc on Route Optimization Needs for Aircraft and Spacecraft Deployments, for Informational | |
| May 2008 | Submit -00 draft for solution to aircraft/spacecraft problem | |
| Jun 2008 | Determine how to proceed with remaining automotive/Personal Mobile Router solutions | |
| Jun 2008 | Submit the I-D 'RADIUS Mobile IPv6 Support' to IESG for publication as a proposed standard. | |
| Jun 2008 | Submit 00 draft on Binding Revocation | |
| Jul 2008 | Submit Analysis of the use of Multiple Simultaneous Care-of Addresses and Home Agent addresses, for Informational | |
| Jul 2008 | Submit Multiple Interfaces Motivations and Scenario to IESG, for Informational | |
| Aug 2008 | Submit I-D 'Mobile IPv6 Operation with Firewalls' to IESG for publication as Informational. | |
| Aug 2008 | Submit the final doc on MIB for NEMO Basic Support to the IESG, for Proposed Standard | |
| Oct 2008 | Submit Flow/binding policy transport to IESG, for Proposed Standard | |
| Oct 2008 | Submit Flow/binding policy format to IESG, for Proposed Standard | |
| Oct 2008 | Submit draft on Binding Revocation to IESG | |
| Oct 2008 | Submit 00 draft on Generic Notification | |
| Nov 2008 | Submit final doc for solution to aircraft/spacecraft problem to the IESG, for Proposed Standard | |
| Nov 2008 | Recharter to work on the remaining automotive/Personal Mobile Router solutions | |
| Dec 2008 | Submit I-D(s) related to specific updates and corrections of RFC 3775 to IESG for publication as Proposed Standard. | |
| Dec 2008 | Submit I-D 'Home agent reliability' to IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard. | |
| Dec 2008 | Submit 00 draft on Extended DSMIPv6 Home Network support | |
| Dec 2008 | Submit 00 draft on Virtual Home link configuration | |
| Jan 2009 | Submit draft on Generic Notification to IESG | |
| Mar 2009 | Submit draft on Virtual Home link configuration to IESG | |
| May 2009 | Submit draft on Extended DSMIPv6 Home Network support to IESG |
Internet-Drafts:
Analysis of Multihoming in Mobile IPv6 (72199 bytes)Motivations and Scenarios for Using Multiple Interfaces and Global Addresses (46027 bytes)
Multiple Care-of Addresses Registration (89958 bytes)
Home Agent Reliability Protocol (96312 bytes)
RADIUS Mobile IPv6 Support (101784 bytes)
NEMO Route Optimization Requirements for Operational Use in Aeronautics and Space Exploration Mobile Networks (77925 bytes)
AAA Goals for Mobile IPv6 (24631 bytes)
Mobile IPv6 Support for Dual Stack Hosts and Routers (92684 bytes)
NEMO Management Information Base (74258 bytes)
Automotive Industry Requirements for NEMO Route Optimization (58100 bytes)
Flow Bindings in Mobile IPv6 and Nemo Basic Support (58991 bytes)
Mobility Support in IPv6 (401302 bytes)
DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation for NEMO (25798 bytes)
Binding Revocation for IPv6 Mobility (80279 bytes)
Mobile IPv6 Generic Signaling Message (28716 bytes)
Guidelines for firewall administrators regarding MIPv6 traffic (23059 bytes)
Guidelines for firewall vendors regarding MIPv6 traffic (16566 bytes)
No Request For Comments
IETF Secretariat - Please send questions, comments, and/or suggestions to ietf-web@ietf.org.
Return to working group directory. 
