wdiff rfc4977.original rfc4977.txt

Network Working Group G. Tsirtsis
Internet-Draft
Request for Comments: 4977 Qualcomm
Intended status: Standards Track
Category: Informational H. Soliman
Expires: July 23, 2007
Elevate Technologies
January 19,
August 2007

Problem Statement: Dual Stack Mobility
draft-ietf-mip6-dsmip-problem-03.txt

Status of this This Memo

By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of

This memo provides information for the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. community. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

The list does
not specify an Internet standard of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

The list any kind. Distribution of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

This Internet-Draft will expire on July 23, 2007. this
memo is unlimited.

Abstract

This draft document discusses the issues associated with mobility
management for dual stack mobile nodes. Currently, two mobility
management protocols are defined for IPv4 and IPv6. Deploying both
in a dual stack mobile node introduces a number of problems.
Deployment and operational issues motivate the use of a single
mobility management protocol. This draft document discusses such
motivations. The draft document also discusses requirements for the Mobile
IPv4 (MIPv4) and Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6) protocol so that they can
support mobility management for a dual stack node.

Table of Contents

1. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. . 2
2. Introduction and Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. . 2
3. Problem Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. . 3
3.1. The impossibility Impossibility of Maintaining IP Connectivity . . . . . 6
4.2. 4
3.2. Implementation Burdens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3. 4
3.3. Operational Burdens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.4. . 4
3.4. Mobility Management Inefficiencies . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.5. 4
3.5. IPv4 to IPv6 Transition Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. 5
4. Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. IANA 5
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Changes from version .02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. 6
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.1. 6
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.2. 6
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 15 6

1. Requirements Notation

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

2. Terminology

In addition to [RFC2119], this draft

This document uses the following terms as defined in SIIT Stateless IP/
ICMP Translation (SIIT) [RFC2765]: IPv4-capable node, IPv4-enabled
node, IPv6-capable node, IPv6-enabled node.

The following terms are introduced in this document:

- MIPv4-capable node:

A node that supports MIPv4 [RFC3344] in its implementation. This
allows the mobile node to configure a home address (statically or
dynamically) and use such address in its Mobile IPv4 signaling. A
MIPv4-capable node may also be IPv6-capable or IPv6-enabled and
must be IPv4-capable.

- MIPv6-capable node:

A node that supports MIPv6 [RFC3775] by configuring a home address
and using such address in its Mobile IPv6 signaling. A MIPv6-
enabled node may also be IPv4-capable or IPv4-enabled and must be
IPv6-capable.

2. Introduction and Motivation

A MIPv4-capable node can use Mobile IPv4 [RFC3344] to maintain
connectivity while moving between IPv4 subnets. Similarly, a MIPv6-
capable node can use Mobile IPv6 [RFC3775] to maintain connectivity
while moving between IPv6 subnets.

One of the ways of migrating to IPv6 is to deploy nodes that are both
IPv4 and IPv6 capable. Such nodes will be able to get both IPv4 and
IPv6 addresses and thus can communicate with the current IPv4
Internet as well as any IPv6 nodes and networks as they become
available.

A node that is both IPv4 and IPv6 capable can use Mobile IPv4 for its
IPv4 stack and Mobile IPv6 for its IPv6 stack so that it can move
between IPv4 and IPv6 subnets. While this is possible, it does not
ensure connectivity since that also depends on the IP version support
of the network accessed. Supporting Mobile IPv4 and Mobile IPv6 is
also more inefficient since it requires:

- Mobile nodes to be both MIPv4 and MIPv6 capable.

- Mobile nodes to send two sets of signaling messages on every
handoff.

- Network Administrators to run and maintain two sets of mobility
management systems on the same network. Each network, with each of these systems
requiring their its own set of optimizations.

This draft document discusses the potential inefficiencies, IP connectivity
problems, and operational issues that are evident when running both
mobility management protocols simultaneously. It also proposes a
work area to be taken up by the IETF on the subject and discusses
requirements for appropriate solutions.

3. Problem Description

Mobile IP (v4 and v6) uses a signaling protocol (Registration
requests in MIPv4 [RFC3344] and Binding updates in MIPv6 [RFC3775])
to set up tunnels between two end points. At the moment, Mobile IP
signaling is tightly coupled to the address family (i.e., IPv4 or
IPv6) used, in the connections it attempts to manipulate. There are
no fundamental technical reasons for such coupling. If Mobile IP
were viewed as a tunnel setup tunnel-setup protocol, it should be able to setup set up
IP in IP tunnels, independently of the IP version used in the outer
and inner headers. Other protocols, protocols -- for example example, SIP [RFC3261], [RFC3261] --
are able to use either IPv4 an IPv4- or IPv6 based IPv6-based signaling plane to
manipulate IPv4 and IPv6 connections.

A node that is both MIPv4 and MIPv6 capable, will require the
following to roam within the Internet:

- The network operator needs to ensure that the home agent supports
both protocols or that it has two separate Home Agents supporting
the two protocols, each requiring its own management.

- Double the amount of configuration in the mobile node and the home
agent (e.g., security associations).

- IP layer IP-layer local network optimizations for handovers will also need
to be duplicated.

We argue that all of the above will make the deployment of Mobile
IPv6
IPv6, as well as any dual stack solution in a mobile environment environment,
harder. We will discuss some of the issues with the current approach
separately in the following sections.

4.1.

3.1. The impossibility Impossibility of Maintaining IP Connectivity

Even if a mobile node is both MIPv4 and MIPv6 capable, connectivity
across different networks would not not, in fact fact, be guaranteed since
that also depends on the IPv4/IPv6 capabilities of the networks the
mobile is visiting; i.e., a node attempting to connect via a IPv4 IPv4-
only network would not be able to maintain connectivity of its IPv6
applications and vice versa. This is potentially the most serious
problem discussed in this document.

4.2.

3.2. Implementation Burdens

As mentioned above, a node that is IPv4 and IPv6 capable must also be
MIPv4 and MIPv6 capable to roam within the Internet. Clearly this
increases the complexity of implementations for vendors that decide The ability to support both protocols.

Some vendors, however, may not support
employ both protocols IP versions from one mobility protocol makes it possible
to implement just that one protocol, assuming the protocol choice is
known. However, in either situations where the mobile nodes or home agents. Although this is more node must be capable
of a commercial
issue, working in any network, it does affect the large-scale deployment of mobile devices on
the Internet.

4.3. may still need two protocols.

3.3. Operational Burdens

As mentioned earlier, deploying both protocols will require managing
both protocols in the mobile node and the home agent. This adds
significant operational issues for the network operator. It would
certainly require the network operator to have deep knowledge in both
protocols
protocols, which is something an operator may not be able to justify
due to the lack of substantial gains.

In addition, deploying both protocols will require duplication of
security credentials on mobile nodes and home agents. This includes, includes
IPsec security associations, keying material, and new authentication
protocols for Mobile IPv6, in addition to the security credentials
and associations required by Mobile IPv4. Depending on the security
mechanisms used and with some further work work, it might be possible to
optimize some
rely on one set of these processes. set common credentials. Assuming nothing else
changes, however, such duplication is again significant with no gain
to the operator or the mobile node.

4.4.

3.4. Mobility Management Inefficiencies

Suppose that a mobile node is moving within a dual stack access
network. Every time the mobile node moves moves, it needs to send two
mobile IP messages to its home agent to allow its IPv4 and IPv6
connections to survive. There is no reason for such duplication. If
local mobility optimizations were deployed (e.g., Hierarchical Mobile
IPv6 (HMIPv6) [RFC4140], Fast handovers for Mobile IPv4 [RFC4068]) [RFC4068]),
the mobile node will need to update the local agents running each
protocol. Ironically, one local agent might be running both HMIPv6
and local MIPv4 home agent. Clearly, it is not desirable to have to
send two messages and complete two sets of transactions for the same
fundamental optimization.

Hence, such parallel operation of Mobile IPv4 and Mobile IPv6 will
complicate mobility management within the Internet and increase the
amount of bandwidth needed at the critical handover time for no
apparent gain.

4.5.

3.5. IPv4 to IPv6 Transition Mechanisms

The IETF has standardized a number of transition mechanisms to allow
networks and end nodes to gain IPv6 connectivity while the Internet
is migrating from IPv4 to IPv6. A cursory examination of such
transition mechanisms indicates that none of them is designed to deal
with mobile nodes. While However, while some transition
mechanisms can be combined with Mobile IPv4 or Mobile IPv6, non none of
the known mechanisms have been shown to assist with the issues
described in this document.

4. Conclusions and Recommendations

The points above highlight the tight coupling in both Mobile IPv4 and
Mobile IPv6 between signaling and the IP addresses used by upper
layers. Given that Mobile IPv4 is currently deployed and Mobile IPv6
is expected to be deployed, there is a need for gradual transition
from IPv4 mobility management to IPv6. Running both protocols
simultaneously is inefficient and has the problems described above.
The gradual transition can be done when needed or deemed appropriate
by operators or implementers. In the mean time, meantime, it is important to
ensure that the problems listed above can be avoided. Hence, this
section lists some actions that should be taken by the IETF to
address the problems listed above, without mandating the use of two
mobility management protocols simultaneously.

In order

The Mobile IPv6 Working Group has reached the view that to allow for
a gradual transition based on current standards and deployment, the
following work areas seem to would be reasonable:

- It should be possible to run one mobility management protocol that
can manage mobility for both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses used by upper
layers. Both Mobile IPv4 and Mobile IPv6 should be able of
performing to
perform such task. tasks. It may not be possible to support route
optimization for Mobile IPv6 in all cases; however, mobility
management and session continuity can be supported.

- It should be possible to create IPv4 extensions to Mobile IPv6 so
that an IPv4 and IPv6 capable mobile node can register its IPv4
and IPv6 home addresses to an IPv4 IPv4- and IPv6 enabled IPv6-enabled Home Agent
using MIPv6 signaling only.

- It should be possible to create IPv6 extensions to Mobile IPv4 so
that an IPv4 and IPv6 capable mobile node can register its IPv4
and IPv6 home addresses to an IPv4 IPv4- and IPv6 enabled IPv6-enabled Home Agent
using Mobile IPv4 signaling only.

- It should also be possible to extend MIPv4 [RFC3344] and MIPv6
[RFC3775] so that a mobile node can register a single care-of
address (IPv4 or IPv6) to which IPv4 and/or IPv6 packets can be
tunneled.

Following

If the steps listed above, IETF chooses to pursue all these paths, a vendor can could choose
to support one mobility management protocol while avoiding the
incompatibility and inefficiency problems listed in this document.
Similarly, operators
can could decide to continue using one mobility
management protocol while
addressing throughout the transition scenarios that period of IPv4 and IPv6
coexistence. However, a mobile node is likely would be forced to
face when roaming within choose one
approach or the Internet.

6. other, or nevertheless to install both and use one or
the other according to circumstances.

5. Security Considerations

This documents document is a problem statement which that does not by itself
introduce any security issues.

7. IANA Considerations

This document does not introduce any IANA considerations.

8. Changes from version .02

- Re-wrote draft using XML template

- Changed title to fit in under 47 characters

- Rearranged subsections under Section 4

- In Section 4.2, clarified that implementation complexity is
increased for vendors that decide to support both versions of the
protocol

- In Section 4.3, clarified that some optimizations might be
possible with respect to duplicated security mechanisms for MIPv4
and MIPv6

- Added a section on transition mechanisms (Section 4.5)

- Added "Security Considerations" Section 6

- General clean up and a number editorial corrections.

6. References

9.1.

6.1. Normative References

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

[RFC2765] Nordmark, E., "Stateless IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm
(SIIT)", RFC 2765, February 2000.

[RFC3344] Perkins, C., "IP Mobility Support for IPv4", RFC 3344,
August 2002.

[RFC3775] Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support
in IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004.

9.2.

6.2. Informative References

[RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
June 2002.

[RFC4068] Koodli, R., "Fast Handovers for Mobile IPv6", RFC 4068,
July 2005.

[RFC4140] Soliman, H., Castelluccia, C., El Malki, K., and L.

Bellier, "Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 Mobility Management
(HMIPv6)", RFC 4140, August 2005.

Authors' Addresses

George Tsirtsis
Qualcomm

Phone: +908-443-8174
Email:
EMail: tsirtsis@qualcomm.com

Hesham Soliman
Elevate Technologies

Phone: +614-111-410-445
Email:
EMail: hesham@elevatemobile.com

Full Copyright Statement

This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.

This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Intellectual Property

The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.

Acknowledgment

Acknowledgement

Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).