NETLMM Meeting IETF 67 James Kempf Phil Roberts

Agenda Agenda bashing – all, 5 min. Draft status – James Kempf, 5 min. SDO Liason Update – James Kempf, 5 min. Ground Rules for Discussion – Jari Arkko, 5 min. Context for Current Situation – Phil Roberts, 5 min. Summary of Design Team Document, Henrik Levkowetz, 10 min. draft-sgundave-mipv6-proxymipv6-00, Sri Gundaveli, 5 min. draft-chowdhury-netmip6-01, Kuntal Chowdhury, 5 min. draft-templin-autoconf-netlmm-dhcp-04.txt, Fred Templin, 5 min. Discussion, all, 20 min. Consensus Call, James Kempf, 5 min.

Draft Status draft-ietf-netlmm-nohost-ps –One round of IESG review, all discuss comments resolved –Resubmitted to IESG in Sept. –Current state: AD-Followup draft-ietf-netlmm-nohost-req –One round of IESG review, all discuss comments resolved –Resubmitted to IESG in Oct. –Current state: AD-Followup draft-ietf-netlmm-threats –Submitted to IESG in Oct. –AD Review complete –Current state: IESG Evaluation

SDO Liaison Update James Kempf

3GPP System Architecture Evolution (SAE) Conference call Tues. –NETLMM co-chairs –SAE chair (Magnus Olsson) –3GPP liaison to IETF (Hannu Hietalahti) –IETF liaison to 3GPP (Gonzalo Camarillo) –Jonne Soininen 3GPP is currently debating what protocol to use on S5 and S2 interfaces –These are inter-technology interfaces Most companies prefer an IETF solution, but which one? –Network based Mobile IP Other –Client Mobile IP GTP is also under discussion Schedule: –Architecture complete 6/07 –Protocols selected 12/07

3GPP2 Meeting Lunch meeting –IETF 3GPP2 liaison (Thomas Narten) –INT AD (Jari Arkko) –NETLMM co-chairs –3GPP2 IETF liaison (AC Mahendran) –A few others 3GPP2 intends to submit a liaison statement to IETF requesting PMIP be standardized What they want: –Reuse, even if a 3775 HA couldn’t be reused without change –Global mobility management, but they would be willing to settle for local Schedule: –RFC number by 12/07

Wimax Forum JAK presented NETLMM DT protocol in August at San Diego Meeting Reception was hostile Not much interest

Ground Rules for Discussion Jari Arkko

Protocol choice is a community decision We need to make the decision now Documented requirements will not be compromised We are also sticking to our earlier link model decisions All the usual Standards Track requirements apply There will be some changes to implementations All the specifications will take some time to finish IETF has change control -- result is NOT what you already may have deployed Ground Rules

Context for Current Situation Phil Roberts

List Discussion Background Results of consensus call on making DT draft a WG draft –13 in favor –6 opposed –2 abstained or unclear WG chairs wanted to see some discussion on technical merits of PMIP as opposed to DT protocol for NETLMM After a rocky start, some discussion did occur and some conclusions seem possible –Some questions are still unclear, however

What’s Coming Up Now Presentations on proposals for protocols Discussion Consensus call on moving forward –Which approach should the WG adopt? DT Protocol? DHCP-based approach? PMIP? –Which drafts should be WG drafts? If you care, please pay attention

Summary of Design Team Document Henrik Levkowetz

draft-sgundave-mipv6- proxymipv6-00 Sri Gundaveli

Proxy Mobile IPv6 draft-sgundave-mip-pmipv6-00.txt Goals: Provides mobility support to a IPv6 host within a topologically localized portion of the network, with out requiring the host to participate in any mobility related signaling. Assumptions: - MN-AR link is a p2p link - The access authorization ensures a secure MN-AR link - Per MN Prefix model (We do support Per-MN-Address model, but requires extra messaging between AR and HA) New Entity (Proxy Mobile Agent): The proxy mobile agent is a functional element on the access router. This is the entity that makes the mobile station believe it is at its home link, by emulating the home link properties. The function is very similar to MIPv4’s foreign agent.

Proxy Mobile IPv6 Overview LMM Network D D C C Prefix CAFÉ::/64 Prefix BABA::/64 PMA2 Host Home Agent Proxy Binding Update (PBU) Control message sent out by PMA to HA to register its correct location Home Network Mobile’s Home Network (Topological Anchor Point) Care of Address (CoA) The address of the Proxy Mobile Agent. That will be the tunnel end-point. Mobile IP Tunnel A IPinIP tunnel HA and PMA. Access Router PMA1

Address Allocation Models PER-MN-PREFIX MODEL -The mobile’s prefix/link follows the mobile. The home agent just creates a routing state for the mobile’s prefix. It will not participate in any link specific ND operations. -Address pool configuration in DHCP, on a per-MN basis becomes simple. PER-MN-ADDRESS MODEL -Need to deal with issues related to split links. Home Agent needs to participate in ND relation operations. -Home Agent needs to participate in Global Address / LLA uniqueness

Address Allocation Schemes Stateless Address Configuration Mode Support for stateless auto configuration mode. The mobile will be able to auto-configure an address after it receives the RA from the Access Router. DHCP Based Address Configuration Mode The mobile will be able to send a DHCP request and the proxy mobile agent acting as a DHCP relay agent, will ensure the mobile gets an address from its own configured address block.

Home Agent Changes Changes required for supporting Proxy Trust Model. Subtle logic changes are required for validating Proxy Registrations that are protected by IPSec SA. The 1:1 relation between a Mobile Node and a tunnel needs to be modified to adapt m:1 relation. The tunnel between the mobile and the proxy is a shared tunnel. Handling of the sequence numbers in the proxy binding updates needs to modified. The Proxy sending the PBU to the home agent will not be able to set the sequence number correctly.

draft-chowdhury-netmip6-01 Kuntal Chowdhury

Motivation Network based mobility management using MIP6 protocol when the MN does NOT use Client MIP6 Reuse of deployed infrastructure such as the Home Agent

Solution Overview Defines IP session setup procedures with PMIP6 Covers both: –DHCP case –PPP/IPCP case Supports both IPv6 and IPv4 addressing Reuses MIP6 base protocol (RFC 3775) for mobility management No new MH and MO introduced

Solution Overview, contd. Addresses Inter Access Router (AR) handoffs –Inter AR signaling with ICMPv6 extensions Includes HMIP6 consideration –Proxy HMIP6 within the MAP footprint

draft-templin-autoconf- netlmm-dhcp-04.txt Fred Templin

Consensus Call James Kempf

Which Approach to Adopt? NETLMM WG should adopt DT draft? –Please raise your hands! NETLMM WG should adopt a PMIP draft –Please raise your hands! NETLMM WG should adopt DHCP-based approach –Please raise your hands! NETLMM WG should adopt more than one draft –Please raise your hands!

Which PMIP Draft Should the WG Adopt? draft-sgundave-mipv6-proxymipv6-00 –Please raise your hand! draft-chowdhury-netmip6-01 –Please raise your hand!