Mobility for IP: Performance, Signaling and Handoff Optimization (mipshop) Internet Drafts
| Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 Mobility Management | |||||||||||||||||
|
This document introduces extensions to Mobile IPv6 and IPv6 Neighbour Discovery to allow for local mobility handling. Hierarchical mobility management for Mobile IPv6 is designed to reduce the amount of signalling between the Mobile Node, its Correspondent Nodes, and its Home Agent. The Mobility Anchor Point (MAP) described in this document can also be used to improve the performance of Mobile IPv6 in terms of handover speed. | ||||||||||||||||
| Mobility Services Framework Design | |||||||||||||||||
|
This document describes a design solution for the IEEE 802.21 Media Independent Handover (MIH) protocol that addresses identified issues associated with the transport of MIH messages. The document describes mechanisms for mobility service (MoS) discovery and transport layer mechanisms for the reliable delivery of MIH messages. | ||||||||||||||||
| Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCPv4 and DHCPv6) Options for Mobility Server (MoS) discovery | |||||||||||||||||
|
This document defines a number of Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP-for-IPv4 and DHCP-for-IPv6) options that contain a list of domain names or IP addresses that can be mapped to servers providing IEEE 802.21 type of Mobility Services. These Mobility Services are used to assist an MN in handover preparation (network discovery) and handover decision (network selection). The services addressed by this document are the Media Independent Handover Services defined in [IEEE802.21]. | ||||||||||||||||
| Locating Mobility Servers using DNS | |||||||||||||||||
|
This document defines application service tags that allow service location without relying on rigid domain naming conventions, and DNS procedures for discovering servers which provide Mobility Services. Mobility Services are used to assist an MN in handover preparation (network discovery) and handover decision (network selection). The services addressed by this document are the Media Independent Handover Services defined in [1]. | ||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Mobility for IP: Performance, Signaling and Handoff Optimization (mipshop)
Last Modified: 2008-04-18
Additional information is available at tools.ietf.org/wg/mipshop
Chair(s):
Internet Area Director(s):
Internet Area Advisor:
Mailing Lists:
General Discussion: mipshop@ietf.orgTo Subscribe: mipshop-request@ietf.org
In Body: subscribe
Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mipshop/index.html
Description of Working Group:
Mobile IPv6 specifies routing support to permit IP hosts using IPv6 tomove between IP subnetworks while maintaining session continuity.
Mobile IPv6 supports transparency above the IP layer, including
maintenance of active TCP connections and UDP port bindings.
To accomplish this, the mobile node notifies its home agent (and
potentially also its correspondent nodes) of the current binding
between its home address and its care of address. This binding allows
a
mobile node to maintain connectivity with the Internet as it moves
between subnets.
Depending on what steps a mobile node must perform on a new subnet, the
lag between when the mobile node has layer 2 connectivity and when it
begins sending and receiving packets on the new link may be
substantial. A mobile node must first detect at layer 3 that its point
of attachment has changed, then it must perform configuration on the
new link, including router discovery and configuring a new care of
address. After that, the mobile node must perform binding updates with
the home address and any correspondent nodes. Since many layer 2
mobility technologies require that the mobile node drop its link
connectivity to the old subnet when moving, any packets between the
correspondent node and the mobile node sent or in-flight during this
time arrive at the old care of address, where they are dropped. Such
packet loss may have significant adverse effects.
The Mobile IP Working group had previously been developing two
technologies to address the issues of signaling overhead and handoff
latency/packet loss:
- Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 mobility management (HMIPv6)
HMIPv6 deals with reducing the amount and latency of signaling
between a MN, its Home Agent and one or more correspondents by
introducing the Mobility Anchor Point (MAP) (a special node
located in the network visited by the mobile node). The MAP acts
somewhat like a local home agent for the visiting mobile node by
limiting the amount of signaling required outside the MAP's
domain.
- Fast Handovers for Mobile IPv6 (FMIPv6)
FMIPv6 reduces packet loss by providing fast IP connectivity as
soon as a new link is established. It does so by fixing up the
routing during link configuration and binding update, so that
packets delivered to the old care of address are forwarded to the
new. In addition, FMIPv6 provides support for preconfiguration of
link information (such as the subnet prefix) in the new subnet
while the mobile node is still attached to the old subnet. This
reduces the amount of preconfiguration time in the new subnet.
These two technologies can be used separately or together to reduce or
eliminate signaling overhead and packet loss due to handoff delays in
Mobile IPv6.
Scope of MIPSHOP:
The MIPSHOP Working Group will complete the FMIPv6 and HMIPv6 work
begun in the Mobile IP Working Group. Specifically, the WG will:
1) Complete the specification of HMIPv6 protocol.
2) Complete the specification of FMIPv6 protocol.
Because work (ongoing or originating) in other working groups may
suggest changes or alternative designs for HMIPv6 and FMIPv6, these
specifications will be advanced as Experimental RFCs until more
experience is obtained with IP mobility in IPv6.
3) Complete work on a set of requirements for "Localized Mobility
Management (LMM)", whereby a Mobile Node is able to continue
receiving packets in a new subnet before the corresponding changes
in either the Home Agent or Correspondent Node binding. It is the
intention that the requirements be consistent with the FMIPv6 and
HMIPv6 protocols; in the event that there are inconsistencies, they
will be documented.
4) Complete work on the applicability of FMIPv6 in the specific case
of 802.11 networks for advancement as Informational RFC.
There are security issues that arise because of the highly dynamic
nature of the security relationships between, say, a mobile node and
its mobility anchor points, or between a mobile node and its access
routers in a fast handover scenario. The working group is not required
to provide solutions to all these issues before publishing its
experimental and informational protocols. The working group will
document the security requirements and the shortcomings of the
solutions in the corresponding protocol specifications. This will
provide valuable feedback to other groups or subsequent efforts.
Goals and Milestones:
| Done | Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mipshop-hmip-xx.txt | |
| Done | Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mipshop-lmm-requirements-XX.txt | |
| Done | Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mipshop-fmipv6-xx.txt | |
| Done | Discuss Last Call comments and security analyses at IETF 58 | |
| Done | Submit draft draft-ietf-mipshop-lmm-requirements-XX.txt to IESG for consideration of publication as Informational | |
| Done | Submit draft-ietf-mipshop-fmipv6-xx.txt to IESG for consideration of publication as Experimental | |
| Done | Submit draft-ietf-mipshop-hmip-xx.txt to IESG for consideration of publication as Experimental | |
| Done | Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mipshop-80211fh-xx.txt for Informational | |
| Done | Submit draft-ietf-mipshop-80211fh-xx.txt to IESG for consideration of publication as Informational | |
| Done | Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mipshop-cga-cba-XX.txt | |
| Done | Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mipshop-mis-ps | |
| Done | Submit draft-ietf-mipshop-cga-cba to IESG for publication as Proposed Standard | |
| Done | Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mipshop-fmipv6-rfc4068bis | |
| Done | Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mipshop-handover-key-send | |
| Done | Submit draft-ietf-mipshop-mis-ps to IESG for publication as Informational RFC | |
| Done | Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mipshop-rfc4041bis | |
| Done | Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mipshop-3gfh | |
| Done | Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mipshop-fh80216e | |
| Done | Submit draft-ietf-mipshop-fmipv6-rfc4068bis to IESG for publication as Proposed Standard | |
| Done | Submit draft-ietf-mipshop-handover-key-send to IESG for publication as Proposed Standard | |
| Done | Submit draft-ietf-mipshop-3gfh to IESG for publication as Informational RFC | |
| Dec 2007 | Submit draft-ietf-mipshop-4140bis to IESG for publication as Proposed Standard | |
| Done | Submit draft-ietf-mipshop-fh80216e to IESG for publication as Informational RFC | |
| Jan 2008 | Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mipshop-mih-support | |
| Feb 2008 | Submit draft-ietf-mipshop-mih-support to IESG for publication as Proposed Standard |
Internet-Drafts:
Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 Mobility Management (73082 bytes)Mobility Services Framework Design (62456 bytes)
Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCPv4 and DHCPv6) Options for Mobility Server (MoS) discovery (43632 bytes)
Locating Mobility Servers using DNS (19116 bytes)
Request For Comments:
Fast Handovers for Mobile IPv6 (RFC 4068) (93591 bytes) obsoleted by RFC 5268Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 mobility management (HMIPv6) (RFC 4140) (71503 bytes)
Mobile IPv6 Fast Handovers for 802.11 Networks (RFC 4260) (35277 bytes)
Enhanced Route Optimization for Mobile IPv6 (RFC 4866) (145757 bytes)
Mobility Services Transport: Problem Statement (RFC 5164) (33726 bytes)
Mobile IPv6 Fast Handovers (RFC 5268) (113090 bytes) obsoletes RFC 4068
Distributing a Symmetric Fast Mobile IPv6 (FMIPv6) Handover Key Using SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) (RFC 5269) (32742 bytes)
Mobile IPv6 Fast Handovers for 3G CDMA Networks (RFC 5271) (49316 bytes)
Mobile IPv6 Fast Handovers over IEEE 802.16e Networks (RFC 5270) (42358 bytes)
IETF Secretariat - Please send questions, comments, and/or suggestions to ietf-web@ietf.org.
Return to working group directory. 
