Maybe the document should be entitled "Existing IP Mobility Practices and DMM Gap Analysis." I am not sure there are any "DMM Practices" currently.
-Pete Zuniga, Juan Carlos wrote: > Hi Pierrick, all, > > The document title is "DMM Practices and Gap Analysis", and the > intention is to address both. When we presented at the meeting it I > made it clear that we wanted to show our approach to the problem, > which was first to agree on what are the "current practices" that we > want to consider, and then provide a "gap analysis" wrt the DMM > requirements document. > > We are currently working on a new version of the document taking into > account the feedback we got at the meeting and on the ML. We will > provide more details about the current practices and will take a stab > at the gap analysis for discussion. > > Cheers, > > Juan Carlos > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 9:03 AM >> To: '[email protected]'; [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected]; Zuniga, Juan Carlos >> Cc: [email protected] >> Subject: RE: [DMM] Comments on DMM Gap Analysis. >> >> Hi Jouni and Julien, >> >> >> Sorry for jumping into the discussion but I'm a little bit confused >> with recent discussions in DMM. So, let me ask for clarifications >> about the scope of the gap analysis... >> >> The WG is now tackling with the work item 'Practices and Gap Analysis' >> and, in my understanding, we are expected to provide a gap analysis >> regarding the use of mobility protocols in a distributed mobility >> management environment. However, it seems that the scope of discussions >> on gap analysis is different.... and I'm confused :-) >> >> Actually, in the charter, we agreed to firstly "document practices for >> the deployment of existing mobility protocols in a distributed mobility >> management environment" and, then, to make the gap analysis. However, >> considering current discussions on "gap analysis": the document on >> practices has been omitted and discussions are about vanilla mobility >> protocols and architectures with respect to DMM requirements. So, >> maybe, such considerations are interesting in the scope of the problem >> statement, but it seems to me that it is not the goal of the gap >> analysis, as initially intended in the charter. Am I missing something? >> >> If I refer to previous DMM charter (because current DMM charter is >> empty... BTW, is there a reason for an empty charter?), one Work >> item >> was: "Document practices for the deployment of existing mobility >> protocols in a distributed mobility management environment". Is >> this document still in DMM stuff? If yes, shouldn't we document >> practices before going into the gap analysis? >> >> BR, >> Pierrick >> >>> -----Message d'origine----- De : [email protected] >>> [mailto:[email protected]] De la part de [email protected] >>> Envoyé : mercredi 19 septembre 2012 13:11 À : [email protected]; >>> [email protected]; [email protected]; >>> [email protected] Cc : [email protected] >>> Objet : Re: [DMM] Comments on DMM Gap Analysis. >>> >>> Hi Jouni, Hi all, >>> >>> After discussing this issue with Carlos Jesús Bernardos and Juan >>> Carlos Zuniga, we concluded that the following set of possible >>> technologies could be included in the Gap analysis draft: >>> >>> => Shim6: Level 3 Multihoming Shim Protocol for IPv6 http://www.rfc- >>> editor.org/rfc/rfc5533.txt >>> >>> >>> => LISP Mobile Node >>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-meyer-lisp-mn-07.txt >>> Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) >>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-lisp-23.txt >>> >>> => Mobile IPv6 Fast Handovers >>> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-mipshop-rfc5268bis-01.txt This is >>> the draft that became then RFC5568, so no need to mention it. >>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5568.txt >>> >>> >>> => Fast Handovers for Proxy Mobile IPv6 >>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5949.txt >>> >>> => Host Identity Protocol >>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4423.txt >>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5201.txt >>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6253.txt >>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5206.txt >>> >>> >>> >>> => IKEv2 Mobility and Multihoming Protocol (MOBIKE) >>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4555.txt >>> >>> >>> => GTPv2-C: 3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical >>> Specification Group Core Network and Terminals; 3GPP Evolved Packet >>> System (EPS); Evolved General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) Tunnelling >>> Protocol for Control plane (GTPv2-C); Stage 3 (Release 11) >>> http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/archive/29_series/29.274/29274- b30.zip >>> >>> Please inform us if this list makes sense to you? >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Georgios >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf >> Of >>>> jouni korhonen >>>> Sent: woensdag 19 september 2012 9:58 >>>> To: [email protected]; h chan; Juan Carlos Zuniga >>>> Cc: [email protected] >>>> Subject: Re: [DMM] Comments on DMM Gap Analysis. >>>> >>>> >>>> Folks, >>>> >>>> It has been rather silent on the list recently. Regarding the >>>> "explosion" of possible technologies in the GAP analysis, we >>>> discussed (chairs) >> that >>> it is >>>> better to scope the area "a bit". The charter today has the >>>> assumption that we build on top of existing _IP_ _Mobility_ protocols >>>> (and bunch of IETF defined examples follow). So, to tighten the >>>> scope, the Gap >> Analysis >>> should >>>> leave all routing, session (SIP, ..), transport (MPTCP, SCTP, >> DCCP, >>> ..), >>>> locator/identifier split (HIP, Lisp, ..), naming (DNS tricks, >>>> ..) >> etc >>> based >>>> solutions out. Coarse but should help us to make progress. We could >>>> discuss whether transport layer solution like SCTP fit in but I do not > see >>> them as end- >>>> 2-end solutions being deployable in Internet at the moment. >>>> >>>> Let us stick with technologies out there that have/had a place > in >>> sun: few >>>> MIP variants, MOBIKE, stuff in 3GPP(2) (oops.. but I think this >>>> deserves to be evaluated since they are somewhat popular), and what >>>> applications do (reconnecting..). This analysis should be down to >>>> earth practical >> and >>> realistic >>>> on what is already out there to play with. >>>> >>>> - Jouni & Julien >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jul 27, 2012, at 3:53 PM, Jong-Hyouk Lee wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear Anthony and Juan. >>>>> >>>>> I enjoyed the both gap analysis documents (draft-chan-dmm- >>> framework- >>>> gap-analysis-02 and draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis-01). Here I > give >>> some >>>> comments that should be used directly in the gap analysis documents >>>> if you guys like. >>>>> >>>>> Kindly consider the followings during the gap analysis >>>>> discussion >>> (since I will >>>> not be attending the IETF meeting this time). >>>>> >>>>> 1. Comment on address (resource) management in a DMM environment. 2. >>>>> Comment on a deployment of a client-based mobility solution >>> (i.e., >>>> MIPv6) in a DMM environment. >>>>> 3. Commnet on neighbor mobility anchors' information in a DMM >>>>> environment. 4. Commnet on an establishment of security associations >>>>> in a > DMM >>>> environment. >>>>> >>>>> === 1. Comment on address (resource) management in a DMM >>>>> environment. === When existing IP mobility support protocols (e.g., >>>>> MIPv6 > and >>> PMIPv6) >>>> are considered to be deployed in a DMM environment, a mobile node >>>> (MN) is allowed to configure a new address while keeping its previous >>>> address(es). It introduces the following differences with the address >>>> (resource) management of the existing ones: >>>>> >>>>> MN's address configured at the interface with a DMM > environment: >> n >>> = >>>>> (IP address at the current access network + previously configured IP >>>>> address(es) with ongoing sessions) MN's address configured at the >>>>> interface without a DMM environment: 1 = (care-of address > in >> MIPv6 >>> or >>>>> MN's home address in PMIPv6) >>>>> >>>>> This leads a couple of considerations we didn't have with the >>>>> existing IP mobility support protocols. For instance, >>>>> >>>>> 1) MN's address management: use of a newly configured address > at >>> the >>>> current access network for new communication sessions while a proper >>>> address selection for previously established ongoing communication >>>> sessions. >>>>> >>>>> 2) Additional treatment for ingress filtering: Ingress > filtering >> is >>> widely used >>>> against source address spoofing. The source addresses > (especially, >>> the >>>> network prefix part) of incoming packets are strictly checked to >> make >>> sure >>>> that those packets are actually from the network that they claim to >>>> be from. As the MN are allowed to send data packets with the >>>> previously configured address(es) at the new access network, those >>>> data packets would > be >>> filtered >>>> at the ingress filtering place because the source address of > those >>> data >>>> packets is not belonging to the new access network. Accordingly, >>>> an additional treatment for ingress filtering is required. >>>>> >>>>> 3) MN's address increase at the MN's interface: Recall the >>>>> number >>> of MN's >>>> address configured at an interface is n. Then, n is increased, >>>> as >> the >>> MN >>>> changes its point of attachment while keeping its ongoing >>>> communication sessions. It brings the question: "How many addresses >>>> are currently possible to be configured at an interface?" >>>>> >>>>> 4) Routing entry increase at the serving mobility anchor: Let >>>>> the >>> serving >>>> mobility anchor is the mobility anchor serves the MN. Traffic >>>> associated to the MN travels via the serving mobility anchor. The >>>> increase of the addresses associated to the MN, n, is not only >>>> concerning to the MN, but also concerning the serving mobility anchor >>>> as it contributes the >> increase >>> of >>>> routing entries for the MN. >>>>> >>>>> === 2. Comment on a deployment of a client-based mobility solution >>>>> (i.e., MIPv6) in a DMM environment. === When a client-based >>> mobility >>>> solution (i.e., MIPv6) is consiered to be deployed in a DMM >>>> environment, an MN is involved in mobility signaling such as Binding >>>> Update and Acknowledgement messages. This is the big difference with >>>> the network- based mobility solution (i.e., PMIPv6). As the MN send >>>> signaling to inform its movement to its mobility anchor, the >>>> client-based mobility solution allows the MN to supply client-centric >>>> decision for mobility management. >>>>> >>>>> Suppose that the origin mobility anchor is the mobility anchor >>> where the >>>> MN has configured its IP address and established ongoing >>>> communication sessions with the IP address. The number of origin >>>> mobility anchors are n - 1. Recall that the serving mobility anchor >>>> is the mobility anchor >> where >>> the MN is >>>> being served by. Then, the MN's involvement in mobility signaling >>>> brings us the questions: "Should we let the MN send mobilty signaling >>>> to > its >>> all mobility >>>> anchors?" or "Would it make sense that the MN only sends mobility >>>> signaling to its serving mobility anchor?" Depending on the choice, >>>> we will have different results: >>>>> >>>>> 1) "MN sends mobility signaling to its all mobility anchors" causes: >>>>> 1.1 increased mobility signaling load, e.g., signaling * (n - 1). >>>>> 1.2 bidirectional tunnels are established between the MN and > its >>> mobility >>>> anchors. >>>>> 1.3 tunneling overhead over the air is present. >>>>> 1.4 but the tunnels are terminated at the MN so that the MN >>>>> has >>> control >>>> over the tunnels. >>>>> >>>>> 2) "MN sends mobility signaling only to its serving mobility anchor" >>>>> causes: 2.1 reduced mobility signaling load, e.g., signaling * 1. >>>>> 2.2 bidirectional tunnels are established between the serving >>> mobility >>>> anchors and origin mobility anchors. >>>>> 2.3 tunneling overhead over the air can be avoided. >>>>> 2.4 but the MN does not have control over the tunnels so it >>>>> might >>> affect to >>>> NEtwork MObility (NEMO) as the MN (i.e., MR in NEMO) loses the >>>> tunneling control. >>>>> >>>>> === 3. Neighbor mobility anchors' information in a DMM environment. >>>>> === In the client-based mobility solution such as MIPv6, the >>> network >>>> topology information does not required to be known to the > mobility >>> anchor, >>>> i.e., home agent (HA), since the HA is informed the current >> location >>> of the >>>> MN. As the HA knows the current location of the MN, it is able to >>>> tunnel packets associated to the MN. In the network-based mobility >> solution >>> such >>>> as PMIPv6, the similar things happen, i.e., the tunnel between > the >>> local >>>> mobility anchor (LMA) and the mobile access gateway (MAG) is >>>> established for a given MN. >>>>> >>>>> However, as mobility anchors are distributed and bidirectional >>> tunnels (for >>>> a given MN) between the distributed mobility anchors are > required, >>> the >>>> neighbor mobility anchors' information should be provided to the MN >>>> or the mobility anchor for the establishment of the directional >>>> tunnels or the update of the MN's current location. >>>>> >>>>> Decoupling the data plane and control plane while keeping a >>> centralized >>>> node maintaining the mobility context including neighbor mobility >>>> anchors' information (e.g., identification, IP address, etc) in a DMM >>>> environment is one of possible solutions. >>>>> >>>>> === 4. Comment on an establishment of security associations in > a >>> DMM >>>>> environment. === For each IP mobility support protocol, >>>>> different >>> security >>>> associations (SAs) are required for providing secure mobility >>>> services to MNs as follows: >>>>> >>>>> 1) MIPv6 >>>>> 1.1 SA between MN and HA. >>>>> 1.2 SA between MN and serving access router (AR) providing >> wireless >>> link >>>> to the MN. >>>>> >>>>> 2) Fast Handover MIPv6 (FMIPv6) >>>>> 2.1 SA between MN and HA. >>>>> 2.2 SA between MN and serving AR. >>>>> 2.3 SA between previous and new ARs. >>>>> >>>>> 3) PMIPv6 >>>>> 3.1 SA between MN and serving MAG. >>>>> 3.2 SA between serving MAG and LMA. >>>>> >>>>> 4) Fast Handover PMIPv6 (FPMIPv6) >>>>> 4.1 SA between MN and serving MAG. >>>>> 4.2 SA between serving MAG and LMA. >>>>> 4.3 SA between previous and new MAGs. >>>>> >>>>> Note that the above ones do not consider the cases of SA with >>>>> a >>> security- >>>> backend server (e.g., AAA server) and with a correspondent node >> (CN). >>>>> >>>>> However, depending on DMM solutions, SAs are configured that are >>>>> different from those of the existing IP mobility support protocols. >>>>> For instance, >>>>> >>>>> 1) the case of "MN sends mobility signaling to its all >>>>> mobility anchors" (client-based mobility solution) >>>>> 1.1 SA between MN and serving mobility anchor providing > wireless >>> link to >>>> the MN. >>>>> 1.2 SA between MN and origin mobility anchors, i.e., (n - 1) > SAs >>> required >>>> with MN and origin mobility anchors. >>>>> >>>>> 2) the case of "MN sends mobility signaling only to its >>>>> serving mobility anchor" (client-based mobility solution) >>>>> 2.1 SA between MN and serving mobility anchor. >>>>> 2.2 SA between serving mobility anchor and origin mobility >> anchors, >>> i.e., (n >>>> - 1) SAs required with serving mobility anchor and origin > mobility >>> anchors. >>>>> >>>>> 3) the case of "serving mobility anchor sends signaling on behalf of >>>>> the MN to origin mobility anchors" (network-based mobility solution) >>>>> 3.1 SA between MN and serving mobility anchor. 3.2 SA between >>>>> serving mobility anchor and origin mobility >> anchors, >>> i.e., (n >>>> - 1) SAs required with serving mobility anchor and origin > mobility >>> anchors. >>>>> >>>>> Note that as like before SAs with a security-backend server >> (e.g., >>> AAA >>>> server) and with a CN are not presented. >>>>> >>>>> As shown above, DMM solutions (that relies on bidirectional >>> tunnelings for >>>> packet forwarding between MN and mobility anchors or between >>>> just mobility anchors) might bring the key management issues to >> establish >>> such >>>> SAs. >>>>> >>>>> Since it's a holiday season, I cannot fully address all of >>>>> them >> in >>> my mind, but >>>> kindly consider these ones. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> RSM Department, TELECOM Bretagne, France Jong-Hyouk Lee, >>>>> living somewhere between /dev/null and /dev/random >>>>> >>>>> #email: jonghyouk (at) gmail (dot) com >>>>> #webpage: http://sites.google.com/site/hurryon/ >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> dmm mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> dmm mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >>> _______________________________________________ >>> dmm mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >> >> >> ______________________________________________________________________ >> _ __________________________________________________ >> >> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations >> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre >> diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu >> ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le >> detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques >> etant susceptibles d'alteration, France Telecom - Orange decline >> toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. >> >> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged >> information that may be protected by law; they should not be >> distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received >> this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message >> and its attachments. As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange >> is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or >> falsified. Thank you. > > _______________________________________________ > dmm mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
