Internet DRAFT - draft-cui-mobopts-netctrl-handover-ps
draft-cui-mobopts-netctrl-handover-ps
MobOpts Working Group Y. Cui
Internet-Draft K. Xu
Expires: April 20, 2006 J. Wu
CERNET
H. Deng
Hitachi (China)
October 17, 2005
Network Controlled Handover Problem Statement
draft-cui-mobopts-netctrl-handover-ps-00.txt
Status of 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 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. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 20, 2006.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
Abstract
This document describes why network controlled handover is necessary
to future IPv6 deployment, and also outlines some of its features.
Cui, et al. Expires April 20, 2006 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Network Controlled Handover PS October 2005
Table of Contents
1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Network Controlled Handover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. OAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Administrating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3. Scalability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.4. Simplicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.5. Handover Delay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.6. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.7. IPv4 Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 8
Cui, et al. Expires April 20, 2006 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Network Controlled Handover PS October 2005
1. Terminology
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].
General mobility terminology can be found in [RFC3753]. Security
terminology can be found in [RFC2401]
2. Introduction
CERNET2 is one of the China Next Generation Internet (CNGI)
backbones. The network design schemes of CERNET2, referring to
overall architecture, backbone, core nodes, access networks and CNGI
peer centers, are presented. CERNET2 connects 25 core nodes
distributed in 20 cities at speeds of 2.5-10 Gb/s. The unique
features of CERNET2 are:
1. Its backbones are IPv6-only networks (the biggest in the world),
not the mixed IPv4/IPv6 infrastructure;
2. It provides a multi-vendor environment for the testing and trial
operation of homemade IPv6 core routers in respects of
interconnection, interworking and interoperation;
3. It is a testbed for NGI applications.
CERNET plans to deploy a nationwide university Wireless LAN based
Mobile IPv6 [RFC3775] network deployment to support VoIP, Video
Telephony, and other multi-media services. In such a large scale and
complicated network environment, it is crucial to guarantee quality
of service to meet the requirements from end users. Therefore the
network handover process should be in control and the latency need to
be minimized.
There are variety of factors which will influence handover
performance. Thus currently there are several proposals related to
improving handover performance which are already under the process of
standardization. e.g. Fast-handover [RFC4068], Hierarchical Mobile
IPv6 [RFC4140], Detecting Network Attachment (DNA).[RFC4135]
But access routers from different vendors are already deployed in
CERNET network. In order to support those technologies like Mobile
IPv6 fast-handover, or DNA, those access routers must be upgraded.
It is not feasible to upgrade all of those equipments.
It is necessary to find a both economical and convinient scheme to
solve this problem, and network controlled handover is such a
potential solution.
Cui, et al. Expires April 20, 2006 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Network Controlled Handover PS October 2005
3. Network Controlled Handover
This section outlines those problems which need to be considered by a
network controlled handover solution.
3.1. OAM
As to operation and management, network controlled handover may be
able to provider a convenient user management and operating interface
to control the box/module which implements the network controlled
function. The failure discovery of such a box/module is required in
the OAM interface.
3.2. Administrating
In order to satisfy the requirements from monitoring and accounting,
network controlled handover should provide a proper mechanism for
administrating. User differentiation and priority control needs to
be supported.
3.3. Scalability
Mobile IPv6 network will be deployed in CERNET which scales more than
100 unversities, and each university will serve at least 5000 users.
Also the network is growing continuously.
Existing solutions will face crucial challenge in scalability.
3.4. Simplicity
Current solutions seams complicated to be widely deployed.
Simplicity must be taken into consideration. For example, network
interaction and signaling must be simplified.
3.5. Handover Delay
Since network should be acceptable to typical services such as VoIP,
it is preferable that Mobile IPv6 handover latency can be controlled
within 500ms or less.
3.6. Security
In control plane, network-constrol box/module must support
authentication, but an ISP may decide to turn it off in some
circumstances. be able to authenticate its user.
In data plane, the network and potential sulotion should support
procotol can use IPsec procotol and an IPsec profile will have to be
Cui, et al. Expires April 20, 2006 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Network Controlled Handover PS October 2005
defined to protect its data.
3.7. IPv4 Compatibility
The co-existence of IPv6 and IPv4 is unavoidable. It is expected
that mobile IPv6 network should be compatible with IPv4 as much as
possible.
4. Security Considerations
Under certain circumstances, it is expected that IPsec in Mobile IPv6
protocol [RFC3776] can be disabled by certain user who have no
requirement for security.
IPsec security association SHOULD be able to transferred among access
routers (thus [RFC4067] can be used), and IPsec security association
transferring MUST be initiated by the network side, e.g. by router,
and MUST not be initiated by the Mobile Node.
5. References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2401] Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "Security Architecture for the
Internet Protocol", RFC 2401, November 1998.
[RFC3753] Manner, J. and M. Kojo, "Mobility Related Terminology",
RFC 3753, June 2004.
[RFC3775] Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support
in IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004.
[RFC3776] Arkko, J., Devarapalli, V., and F. Dupont, "Using IPsec to
Protect Mobile IPv6 Signaling Between Mobile Nodes and
Home Agents", RFC 3776, June 2004.
[RFC4067] Loughney, J., Nakhjiri, M., Perkins, C., and R. Koodli,
"Context Transfer Protocol (CXTP)", RFC 4067, July 2005.
[RFC4068] Koodli, R., "Fast Handovers for Mobile IPv6", RFC 4068,
July 2005.
[RFC4135] Choi, JH. and G. Daley, "Goals of Detecting Network
Attachment in IPv6", RFC 4135, August 2005.
[RFC4140] Soliman, H., Castelluccia, C., El Malki, K., and L.
Cui, et al. Expires April 20, 2006 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Network Controlled Handover PS October 2005
Bellier, "Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 Mobility Management
(HMIPv6)", RFC 4140, August 2005.
Cui, et al. Expires April 20, 2006 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Network Controlled Handover PS October 2005
Authors' Addresses
Yong Cui
CERNET
Department of Computer Science and Technology
Tsinghua University
Beijing 100084
China
Email: yong@csnet1.cs.tsinghua.edu.cn
Ke Xu
CERNET
Department of Computer Science and Technology
Tsinghua University
Beijing 100084
China
Email: xuke@csnet1.cs.tsinghua.edu.cn
Jianping Wu
CERNET
Department of Computer Science and Technology
Tsinghua University
Beijing 100084
China
Email: jianping@cernet.edu.cn
Hui Deng
Hitachi (China)
Beijing Fortune Bldg. 1701
5 Dong San Huan Bei-Lu
Chao Yang District
Beijing 100004
China
Email: hdeng@hitachi.cn
Cui, et al. Expires April 20, 2006 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Network Controlled Handover PS October 2005
Intellectual Property Statement
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.
Disclaimer of Validity
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 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.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). 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.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Cui, et al. Expires April 20, 2006 [Page 8]
