Mobility for IP: Performance, Signaling and Handoff Optimization (mipshop) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Charter Last Modified: 2007-11-26 Current Status: Active Working Group Chair(s): Stefano Faccin Vijay Devarapalli Internet Area Director(s): Jari Arkko Mark Townsley Internet Area Advisor: Jari Arkko Mailing Lists: General Discussion:mipshop@ietf.org To 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 to move 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: Posted Revised I-D Title ------ ------- -------------------------------------------- Apr 2006 Mar 2008 Mobile IPv6 Fast Handovers over IEEE 802.16e Networks May 2006 Apr 2008 Mobile IPv6 Fast Handovers for 3G CDMA Networks May 2006 Apr 2008 Mobile IPv6 Fast Handovers Mar 2007 Oct 2007 Distributing a Symmetric FMIPv6 Handover Key using SEND Mar 2007 Apr 2008 Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 Mobility Management (HMIPv6) Dec 2007 Feb 2008 Mobility Services Framework Design Request For Comments: RFC Stat Published Title ------- -- ----------- ------------------------------------ RFC4068 E Jul 2005 Fast Handovers for Mobile IPv6 RFC4140 E Aug 2005 Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 mobility management (HMIPv6) RFC4260 I Jan 2006 Mobile IPv6 Fast Handovers for 802.11 Networks RFC4866 PS May 2007 Enhanced Route Optimization for Mobile IPv6 RFC5164 I Mar 2008 Mobility Services Transport: Problem Statement