Transcript PPT Version
Paris, August 2005 IETF 63rd – netlmm BOF Requirements and Gap Analysis for IP Local Mobility (draft-kempf-netlmm-nohost-req-00) Gerardo Giaretta James Kempf Phil Roberts Kent Leung Katsutoshi Nishida Marco Liebsch Purpose of the document • The I-D has two main objectives – list the requirements for a NETLMM solution – highlight the gaps between state-of the art solutions and requirements • Solutions identified so far – Mobile IPv6 with local HA assignment – Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 (HMIPv6) – Combinations of Mobile IPv6 with optimizations • MIPv6 with local HA assignment + FMIPv6 • HMIPv6 + FMIPv6 – Micromobility Protocols (e.g. Cellular IP, HAWAII) draft-kempf-netlmm-nohost-req-00 August, 2005 IETF 63rd – netlmm BOF 2 NETLMM Requirements • Req #1 – Handover performance improvement – handover packet loss and handover latency must be minimized – this is to fulfill requirements of real-time applications on jitter, delay and packet loss • Req #2 – Reduction in handover-related signaling volume – signaling volume to handle handover should be minimized – e.g. movement detection signaling, location update signaling, security-related signaling draft-kempf-netlmm-nohost-req-00 August, 2005 IETF 63rd – netlmm BOF 3 NETLMM Requirements (cont’d) • Req #3 – Location privacy – location information should not be revealed to nor deduced by the correspondent node without the authorization of the MN – draft-koodli-mip6-location-privacy-01 • Req #4 – Efficient use of wireless resources – minimization of per packet overhead over the air interface – state of the art so LMM solutions increase packet size over the air by adding tunneling or other per packet overhead – header compression can remove header overhead but it increases the cost and complexity of the access points (i.e. higher per packet processing across the wireless link) draft-kempf-netlmm-nohost-req-00 August, 2005 IETF 63rd – netlmm BOF 4 NETLMM Requirements (cont’d) • Req #5 – Reduction of signaling overhead in the network – signaling within the wired network should be minimized – this is mainly for reducing cost of laying fiber or wiring to the wireless access points in a widely dispersed geographic area draft-kempf-netlmm-nohost-req-00 August, 2005 IETF 63rd – netlmm BOF 5 NETLMM Requirements (cont’d) • Req #6 – No extra security between mobile node and network – LMM protocols involving signaling between host and network require additional SAs between the host and one or more network entities – establishing a SA specifically for LMM may require extra signaling – establishing a SA specifically for LMM may be difficult in a roaming scenario (i.e. potential barrier ro deployment) – removing host involvement also limits the possibility of DoS attacks on network infrastructure elements draft-kempf-netlmm-nohost-req-00 August, 2005 IETF 63rd – netlmm BOF 6 NETLMM Requirements (cont’d) • Req #7 – Support for heterogeneous wireless link technologies – handover between different wireless link technologies • Req #8 – Support for unmodified hosts – no host software installation on the user terminal – extremely successful in the WLAN switching market – enables a service provider to offer service to all customers – multiple global mobility management protocols can be supported • Req #9 – Support for IPv4 and IPv6 draft-kempf-netlmm-nohost-req-00 August, 2005 IETF 63rd – netlmm BOF 7 Main gaps for current solutions • Mobile IPv6 with local HA (+ FMIPv6) – FMIPv6 is needed (req #1) – high signaling volume if route optimization is used (req #2) • FMIPv6 requires additional signaling – location privacy only with bi-directional tunneling (req #3) – if no RO, over-the-air tunnel to the HA (req #4) • further temporary level of tunneling between MN and PAR in FMIPv6 – bootstrapping a SA with a local HA is needed (req #6) • FMIPv6 requires an additional SA with the ARs – host support for MIPv6 and FMIPv6 (req #8) – IPv4 support needed for both MIPv6 and FMIPv6 (req #9) • miptrans DT in mip6/nemo WGs draft-kempf-netlmm-nohost-req-00 August, 2005 IETF 63rd – netlmm BOF 8 Main gaps for current solutions (cont’d) • HMIPv6 + FMIPv6 – FMIPv6 is needed since HMIPv6 only partially shortens handover latency (req #1) – HMIPv6 reduces handover related signaling volume since no RO signaling is done for intra-MAP handovers (req #2) • FMIPv6 still requires additional signaling – tunneling between MN and MAP (req #4) • further temporary level of tunneling between MN and PAR in FMIPv6 – SAs needed between MN and MAP (for HMIPv6) and MN and AR (for FMIPv6) (req #6) – host support for HMIPv6 and FMIPv6 (req #8) – IPv4 support needed for both HMIPv6 and FMIPv6 (req #9) draft-kempf-netlmm-nohost-req-00 August, 2005 IETF 63rd – netlmm BOF 9 Main gaps for current solutions (cont’d) • Micromobility protocols – host route propagation is required throughout the wired network (req #5) – most of the requirements are fulfilled – potential drawbacks from a deployment and scalability standpoint • involve every routing element between the MN and the LMM domain boundary router in all packet forwarding decisions • scalability is limited because each care of address corresponding to a MN generates a routing table entry draft-kempf-netlmm-nohost-req-00 August, 2005 IETF 63rd – netlmm BOF 10 Summary Requirements MIPv6 with local HA + FMIPv6 HMIPv6 + FMIPv6 #1 Handover performance #2 Handover-related signaling volume #3 Location privacy #4 Efficient use of wireless resources #5 Reduction of signaling overhead #6 No extra security between mobile node and network #7 Support for heterogeneous wireless link technologies #8 Support for unmodified hosts #9 Support for IPv4 and IPv6 draft-kempf-netlmm-nohost-req-00 August, 2005 IETF 63rd – netlmm BOF 11