Transcript netlmm-1
Network-based, Localized Mobility Management – the Problem James Kempf DoCoMo Labs USA [email protected] Why Not Use Global Mobility Management on Every Subnet Move? • If correspondent and/or global routing anchor is topologically far away, high update latency results in dropped packets • Amount of signaling to come up on a new subnet, including subnet configuration and global mobility management, is prohibitive • Changes in the care-of address on host can reveal a mobile node’s topological and geographical location to an undesirable granularity What’s Changed? • IETF has been working on this problem for about 5 years – MIP related protocols – HMIP, FMIP, LLMIPv4 • Experimental, FMIP about to go PS track – Micromobility routing protocols – no real progress • Last year has seen two important trends – In IETF, new, non-MIP related global mobility management protocols have arisen • HIP, Mobike* – In market, WLAN Switches have taken over • Proprietary IP Mobility allows MN to move between switches of same vendor in different subnets without changing its IP address • No change in MN protocol stack required!! • Customers really like this approach (otherwise they wouldn’t be buying it) *Note: Mobike is not really a global mobility management protocol even though it behaves like one Problems with Experimental IETF Protocols • Changes required in host stack – Localized mobility management can’t be used by any host • Designed to support Mobile IPv6 – Other mobility management protocols are not supported • Security issues – Because localized mobility management is a service provided to a host, auth/authz required between host and localized mobility server • Security association required between every roaming partner’s network and every roamed MN – Virus/mal-ware on host can expose host’s local care-of address or address of localized mobility server in network • Opens MN’s location privacy and server’s security to Internet-wide attack Problems with WLAN Switch Solutions • Some are very 802.3/802.11 specific – Need a protocol that works on any link technology • Protocols are proprietary – No interoperablity between different vendors’ solutions – Note: This is NOT a CAPWAP issue! • Scaling up to wide area questionable New Solution Sought • Localized mobility management is provided by the network as a routing-style service • Auth/Authz for network access is sufficient to authorize MN for localized mobility management – I.e. localized mobility management is provided as part of the basic IP routing service with no additional authorization required • Minimize special IP level software required on the host – Drivers or IP movement detection OK • Host’s IP addresses do not change as it moves across the localized mobility management domain • Works across wide area on any combination of link/wireless technologies