Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-dmm-mag-multihoming
draft-ietf-dmm-mag-multihoming
DMM WG P. Seite
Internet-Draft Orange
Intended status: Standards Track A. Yegin
Expires: March 29, 2018 Actility
S. Gundavelli
Cisco
September 25, 2017
MAG Multipath Binding Option
draft-ietf-dmm-mag-multihoming-07.txt
Abstract
This specification defines extensions to the Proxy Mobile IPv6
protocol for allowing a mobile access gateway to register more than
one proxy care-of-address with the local mobility anchor and to
simultaneously establish multiple IP tunnels with the local mobility
anchor. This capability allows the mobile access gateway to utilize
all the available access networks for routing mobile node's IP
traffic.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 29, 2018.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
Seite, et al. Expires March 29, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MAG Multipath Binding Option September 2017
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Example Call Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Traffic distribution schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. MAG Multipath-Binding Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. MAG Identifier Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.3. New Status Code for Proxy Binding Acknowledgement . . . . 11
4.4. Signaling Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Seite, et al. Expires March 29, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MAG Multipath Binding Option September 2017
1. Introduction
Multihoming support on IP hosts can greatly improve the user
experience. With the simultaneoous use of multiple access networks,
multihoming brings better network connectivity, reliability and
improved quality of communication. Following are some of the goals
and benefits of multihoming support:
o Redundancy/Fault-Recovery
o Load balancing
o Load sharing
o Preferences settings
According to [RFC4908], users of Small-Scale Networks can take
benefit of multihoming using mobile IP [RFC6275] and Network Mobility
(NEMO) [RFC3963] architecture in a mobile and fixed networking
environment. This document is introducing the concept of multiple
Care-of Addresses (CoAs) [RFC5648] that have been specified since
then.
The motivation for this work is to extend Proxy Mobile IPv6 protocol
with multihoming extensions [RFC4908] for realizing the following
capabilities:
o using GRE as mobile tuneling, possibly with its key extension
[RFC5845] (a possible reason to use GRE is given on Section 3.2).
o using UDP encapsulation [RFC5844] in order to support NAT
traversal in IPv4 networking environment.
o Prefix Delegation mechanism [RFC7148].
o Using the vendor specific mobility option [RFC5094], for example
to allow the MAG and LMA to exchange information (e.g. WAN
interface QoS metrics) allowing to make appropriate traffic
steering decision.
Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) relies on two mobility entities: the
mobile access gateway (MAG), which acts as the default gateway for
the end-node and the local mobility anchor (LMA), which acts as the
topological anchor point. Point-to-point links are established,
using IP-in-IP tunnels, between MAG and LMA. Then, the MAG and LMA
are distributing traffic over these tunnels. All PMIPv6 operations
are performed on behalf of the end-node and its corespondent node, it
thus makes PMIPv6 well adapted to multihomed architecture as
Seite, et al. Expires March 29, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MAG Multipath Binding Option September 2017
considered in [RFC4908]. Taking the LTE and WLAN networking
environments as an example, the PMIPv6 based multihomed architecture
is depicted on Figure 1. Flow-1,2 and 3 are distributed either on
Tunnel-1 (over LTE) or Tunnel-2 (over WLAN), while Flow-4 is spread
on both Tunnel-1 and 2.
Flow-1
|
|Flow-2 _----_
| | CoA-1 _( )_ Tunnel-1
| | .---=======( LTE )========\ Flow-1
| | | (_ _) \Flow-4
| | | '----' \
| | +=====+ \ +=====+ _----_
| '-| | \ | | _( )_
'---| MAG | | LMA |-( Internet )--
.---| | | | (_ _)
| .-| | / | | '----'
| | +=====+ / +=====+
| | | _----_ /
| | | CoA-2 _( )_ Tunnel-2 /
| | .---=======( WLAN )========/ Flow-2
| | (_ _) Flow-3
| | '----'
|Flow-3
|
Flow0-4
Figure 1: Multihomed MAG using Proxy Mobile IPv6
The current version of Proxy Mobile IPv6 does not allow a MAG to
register more than one proxy Care-of-Adresse to the LMA. In other
words, only one MAG/LMA link, i.e. IP-in-IP tunnel, can be used at
the same time. This document overcomes this limitation by defining
the multiple proxy Care-of Addresses (pCoAs) extension for Proxy
Mobile IPv6.
2. Conventions and Terminology
Seite, et al. Expires March 29, 2018 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MAG Multipath Binding Option September 2017
2.1. Conventions
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2.2. Terminology
All mobility related terms used in this document are to be
interpreted as defined in [RFC5213], [RFC5844] and [RFC7148].
Additionally, this document uses the following terms:
IP-in-IP
IP-within-IP encapsulation [RFC2473], [RFC4213]
3. Overview
3.1. Example Call Flow
Figure 2 is the callflow detailing multi-access support with PMIPv6.
The MAG in this example scenario is equipped with both WLAN and LTE
interfaces and is also configured with the multihoming functionality.
The steps of the callflow are as follows:
Steps (1) and (2): the MAG attaches to both WLAN and LTE networks;
the MAG obtains respectively two different proxy care-of-addresses
(pCoA).
Step (3): The MAG sends, over the WLAN access, a Proxy Binding Update
(PBU) message, with the new MAG Multipath Binding (MMB) and MAG
Identifier (MAG-NAI) options to the LMA. The request can be for a
physical mobile node attached to the MAG, or for a logical mobile
node configured on the mobile node. A logical mobile node is ALWAYS-
ATTACHED mobile node configuration enabled on the MAG. The mobility
session that is created (i.e. create a Binding Cache Entry) on the
LMA will be marked with multipath support.
Step (4): the LMA sends back a Proxy Binding Acknowledgement (PBA)
including the HNP and other session parameters allocated for that
mobility session.
Step (5): IP tunnel (IP-in-IP, GRE ...) is created over the WLAN
access.
Steps (6) to (8): The MAG repeats steps (3) to (5) on the LTE access.
The MAG includes the HNP, received on step (4) in the PBU. The LMA
Seite, et al. Expires March 29, 2018 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MAG Multipath Binding Option September 2017
update its binding cache by creating a new mobility session for this
MAG.
Steps (9) and (10): The IP hosts MN_1 and MN_2 are assigned IP
addresses from the mobile network prefix delegated by the MAG.
+=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+
| MN_1| | MN_2| | MAG | | WLAN| | LTE | | LMA |
+=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | (1) ATTACH | | |
| | | <--------> | | |
| | | (2) ATTACH | |
| | | <---------------------->| |
| | | (3) PBU (MAG-NAI, MMB, ...) |
| | | ------------------------*-------------->|
| | | |
| | | Accept PBU
| | | (allocate HNP,
| | | create BCE)
| | | (4) PBA (MMB, ...) |
| | | <-----------------------*---------------|
| | | (5) TUNNEL INTERFACE CREATION over WLAN |
| | |-============== TUNNEL ==*==============-|
| | | |
| | | (6) PBU (MAG-NAI, MMB, ...) |
| | | -----------*--------------------------->|
| | | |
| | | Accept PBU
| | | (update BCE)
| | | (7) PBA (MMB, ...) |
| | | <----------*--------------------------- |
| | | (8) TUNNEL INTERFACE CREATION over LTE |
| | |-===========*== TUNNEL =================-|
| (9) ATTACH | |
| <---------------> | |
| |(10) ATTACH| |
| |<--------> | |
Figure 2: Functional Separation of the Control and User Plane
Seite, et al. Expires March 29, 2018 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft MAG Multipath Binding Option September 2017
3.2. Traffic distribution schemes
When the MAG has registered multipath binding with the LMA, there
will be multiple established overlay tunnels between them. The MAG
and the LMA can use any one, or more of the available tunnels paths
for routing the mobile node's IP traffic. This specification does
not recommend, or define any specific traffic distribution scheme,
however it identifies two well-known approaches that implementations
can potentially use. These approaches are, Per-flow and Per-packet
Traffic distribution schemes.
Per-Flow Traffic Distribution:
o In this approach the MAG and the LMA associate each of the IP
flows (upstream and downstream) to a specific tunnel path. The
packets in a given IP flow are always routed on the same overlay
tunnel path; they are never split and routed concurrently on more
than one tunnel path. It is possible a given flow may be moved
from one tunnel path to another, but the flow is never split. The
decision to bind a given IP flow to a specific tunnel path is
based on traffic distribution policy. This traffic distribution
policy is either statically configured on both the MAG and the
LMA, or dynamically negotiated over Proxy Mobile IPv6 signaling.
The Flow Binding extension [RFC6089] and Traffic Selectors for
Flow Bindings [RFC6088] defines the mechanism and the semantics
for exchanging the traffic policy between two tunnel peers and the
same mechanism and the mobility options are used here.
Per-Packet Traffic Distribution:
o In this approach, packets belonging a given IP flow will be split
and routed across more than one tunnel paths. The exact approach
for traffic distribution, or the distribution weights is outside
the scope of this specification. In a very simplistic approach,
assuming the established tunnel paths have symmetric
characteristics, the packets can be equally distributed on all the
available tunnel paths. In a different scenario when the links
have different speeds, the chosen approach can be based on
weighted distribution (Ex: n:m ratio). However, in any of these
chosen approaches, implementations have to be sensitive to issues
related to asymmetric link characteristics and the resulting
issues such as re-ordering, buffering and the impact to the
application performance. Care must be taken to ensure there is no
negative impact to the application performance due to the use of
this approach.
Seite, et al. Expires March 29, 2018 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft MAG Multipath Binding Option September 2017
4. Protocol Extensions
4.1. MAG Multipath-Binding Option
The MAG Multipath-Binding option is a new mobility header option
defined for use with Proxy Binding Update and Proxy Binding
Acknowledgement messages exchanged between the local mobility anchor
and the mobile access gateway.
This mobility header option is used for requesting multipath support.
It indicates that the mobile access gateway is requesting the local
mobility anchor to register the current care-of address associated
with the request as one of the many care-addresses through which the
mobile access gateway can be reached. It is also for carrying the
information related to the access network associated with the care-of
address.
The MAG Multipath-Binding option has an alignment requirement of
8n+2. Its format is as shown in Figure 3:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | If-ATT | If-Label |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Binding-Id |B|O| RESERVED |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: MAG Multipath Binding Option
Type
<IANA-1> To be assigned by IANA.
Length
8-bit unsigned integer indicating the length of the option in
octets, excluding the type and length fields.
Interface Access-Technology Type (If-ATT)
This 8-bit field identifies the Access-Technology type of the
interface through which the mobile node is connected. The
permitted values for this are from the Access Technology Type
registry defined in [RFC5213].
Interface Label (If-Label)
Seite, et al. Expires March 29, 2018 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft MAG Multipath Binding Option September 2017
This 8-bit unsigned integer represents the interface label.
The interface label is an identifier configured on the WAN
interface of the MAG. All the WAN interfaces of the MAG that are
used for sending PBU messages are configured with a label. The
labels merely identify the type of WAN interface and are primarily
used in Application routing policies. For example, a Wi-Fi
interfaces can be configured with a label RED and a LTE interface
with a label BLUE. Furthermore, the same label may be configured
on two WAN interfaces of similar characteristics (Ex: Two Ethernet
interfaces with the same label).
Interfaces labels are signaled from the MAG to LMA in the PBU
messages and both the LMA and MAG will be able to mark each of the
dynamically created Binding/Tunnel with the associated label.
These labels are used in generating consistent application routing
rules on the both the LMA and the MAG. For example, there can be
a policy requiring HTTP packets to be routed over interface that
has Label RED, and if any of the RED interfaces are not available,
the traffic needs to be routed over the BLUE interface. The MAG
and the LMA will be able to apply this Routing Rule with the
exchange of Labels in PBU messages and by associating the
application flows to tunnels with the matching labels.
Binding-Identifier (BID)
This 8-bit unsigned integer is used for identifying the binding.
The permitted values are 1 through 254. The values, 0 and 255 are
reserved.
The MAG identifies each of the mobile node's binding with a unique
identifier. The MAG includes the identifier in the PBU message
and when the PBU request is accepted by the LMA, the resulting
Binding is associated with this binding identifier.
Bulk Re-registration Flag (B)
This flag, if set to a value of (1), is to notify the local
mobility anchor to consider this request as a request to update
the binding lifetime of all the mobile node's bindings, upon
accepting this specific request. This flag MUST NOT be set to a
value of (1), if the value of the Registration Overwrite Flag (O)
is set to a value of (1).
Binding Overwrite (O)
This flag, if set to a value of (1), notifies the local mobility
anchor that upon accepting this request, it should replace all of
Seite, et al. Expires March 29, 2018 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft MAG Multipath Binding Option September 2017
the mobile node's existing bindings with this binding. This flag
MUST NOT be set to a value of (1), if the value of the Bulk Re-
registration Flag (B) is set to a value of (1). This flag MUST be
set to a value of (0), in de-registration requests.
Reserved
This field is unused in this specification. The value MUST be set
to zero (0) by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.
4.2. MAG Identifier Option
The MAG Identifier option is a new mobility header option defined for
use with Proxy Binding Update and Proxy Binding Acknowledgement
messages exchanged between the local mobility anchor and the mobile
access gateway. This mobility header option is used for conveying
the MAG's identity.
This option does not have any alignment requirements.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Subtype | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Identifier ... ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: MAG Identifier Option
Type
<IANA-2> To be assigned by IANA.
Length
8-bit unsigned integer indicating the length of the option in
octets, excluding the type and length fields.
Subtype
One byte unsigned integer used for identifying the type of the
Identifier field. Accepted values for this field are the
registered type values from the Mobile Node Identifier Option
Subtypes registry.
Reserved
Seite, et al. Expires March 29, 2018 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft MAG Multipath Binding Option September 2017
This field is unused in this specification. The value MUST be set
to zero (0) by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.
Identifier
A variable length identifier of type indicated in the Subtype
field.
4.3. New Status Code for Proxy Binding Acknowledgement
This document defines the following new Status Code value for use in
Proxy Binding Acknowledgement message.
The LMA SHOULD use this error code when rejecting a Proxy Binding
Update message from a MAG requesting a multipath binding. Following
is the potential reason for rejecting the request:
o The LMA does not support multipath binding.
CANNOT_SUPPORT_MULTIPATH_BINDING (Cannot Support Multipath Binding):
<IANA-4>
4.4. Signaling Considerations
o The MAG when requesting multipath support MUST include the MAG
Multipath Binding Option (Section 4.1) in each of the PBU messages
that it sends through the different WAN interfaces. The inclusion
of this option serves as a hint that the MAG is requesting
Multipath support. Furthermore, the MAG Identifier option MUST
also be present in the PBU message.
o If the MAG is aware that the LMA supports the multipath feature
defined in this specification and if it chooses to enable multiple
path feature, then it can send the PBU packets for each of the
paths, either sequentially, or concurrently. However, if the MAG
is not aware of the LMA capability, then it should first discover
the LMA capability by sending PBU packets with multipath on only
one path first. This will ensure the LMA will not be over-writing
the binding of one path with the other path.
o If the LMA supports multipath capability as defined in this
specification and if it enables the same for a mobile node's'
session per the MAG's request, then the LMA MUST include the
Multipath Binding Option (Section 4.1), without the MAG NAI Option
Section 4.2 in the corresponding PBA reply.
o If the LMA is a legacy LMA that does not support this
specification, the LMA will skip the MAG Multipath Binding option
Seite, et al. Expires March 29, 2018 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft MAG Multipath Binding Option September 2017
(and MAG NAI option) and process the rest of the message as
specified in the base Proxy Mobile IPv6 specification ([RFC5213]).
Furthermore, the LMA will not include the MAG Multipath Binding
option (or the MAG NAI Option)in the PBA message. The MAG on
receiving the PBA message without the MAG Multipath Binding option
SHOULD disable Multipath support for the mobile node.
o If the mobile node is not authorized for Multipath support, then
the LMA will reject the request by sending a PBA message with the
Status field value set to CANNOT_SUPPORT_MULTIPATH_BINDING
(Section 4.3). The LMA will echo the MAG Multipath Binding option
and the MAG NAI option in the PBA message. The MAG on receiving
this message SHOULD disable Multipath support for the mobile node.
o If the request for multipath support is accepted, then the LMA
SHOULD enable multipath support for the mobile node and SHOULD
also echo the MAG Multipath Binding option and the MAG NAI option
in the corresponding PBA message.
5. IANA Considerations
This document requires the following IANA actions.
o Action-1: This specification defines a new mobility option, the
MAG Multipath-Binding option. The format of this option is
described in Section 4.1. The type value <IANA-1> for this
mobility option needs to be allocated from the Mobility Options
registry at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters>.
RFC Editor: Please replace <IANA-1> in Section 4.1 with the
assigned value and update this section accordingly.
o Action-2: This specification defines a new mobility option, the
MAG Identifier option. The format of this option is described in
Section 4.2. The type value <IANA-2> for this mobility option
needs to be allocated from the Mobility Options registry at
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters>. RFC
Editor: Please replace <IANA-2> in Section 4.2 with the assigned
value and update this section accordingly.
o Action-3: This document defines a new status value,
CANNOT_SUPPORT_MULTIPATH_BINDING (<IANA-3>) for use in Proxy
Binding Acknowledgement message, as described in Section 4.3.
This value is to be assigned from the "Status Codes" registry at
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters>. The
allocated value has to be greater than 127. RFC Editor: Please
replace <IANA-3> in Section 4.3 with the assigned value and update
this section accordingly.
Seite, et al. Expires March 29, 2018 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft MAG Multipath Binding Option September 2017
6. Security Considerations
This specification allows a mobile access gateway to establish
multiple Proxy Mobile IPv6 tunnels with a local mobility anchor, by
registering a care-of address for each of its connected access
networks. This essentially allows the mobile node's IP traffic to be
routed through any of the tunnel paths based on the negotiated flow
policy. This new capability has no impact on the protocol security.
Furthermore, this specification defines two new mobility header
options, MAG Multipath-Binding option and the MAG Identifier option.
These options are carried like any other mobility header option as
specified in [RFC5213]. Therefore, it inherits security guidelines
from [RFC5213]. Thus, this specification does not weaken the
security of Proxy Mobile IPv6 Protocol, and does not introduce any
new security vulnerabilities.
7. Acknowledgements
The authors of this draft would like to acknowledge the discussions
and feedback on this topic from the members of the DMM working group.
The authors would also like to thank Jouni Korhonen, Jong Hyouk Lee,
Dirk Von-Hugo, Seil Jeon, Carlos Bernardos, Robert Sparks, Adam
Roach, Kathleen Moriarty, Hilarie Orman, Ben Campbell, Warren Kumari,
for their review feedback. Special thanks to Mirja Kuehlewind for a
very thorugh review and suggesting many text improvements.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/
RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3963] Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., and P.
Thubert, "Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol",
RFC 3963, DOI 10.17487/RFC3963, January 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3963>.
[RFC5094] Devarapalli, V., Patel, A., and K. Leung, "Mobile IPv6
Vendor Specific Option", RFC 5094, DOI 10.17487/RFC5094,
December 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5094>.
[RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., Ed., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V.,
Chowdhury, K., and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6",
Seite, et al. Expires March 29, 2018 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft MAG Multipath Binding Option September 2017
RFC 5213, DOI 10.17487/RFC5213, August 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5213>.
[RFC5648] Wakikawa, R., Ed., Devarapalli, V., Tsirtsis, G., Ernst,
T., and K. Nagami, "Multiple Care-of Addresses
Registration", RFC 5648, DOI 10.17487/RFC5648,
October 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5648>.
[RFC5844] Wakikawa, R. and S. Gundavelli, "IPv4 Support for Proxy
Mobile IPv6", RFC 5844, DOI 10.17487/RFC5844, May 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5844>.
[RFC5845] Muhanna, A., Khalil, M., Gundavelli, S., and K. Leung,
"Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) Key Option for Proxy
Mobile IPv6", RFC 5845, DOI 10.17487/RFC5845, June 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5845>.
[RFC6088] Tsirtsis, G., Giarreta, G., Soliman, H., and N. Montavont,
"Traffic Selectors for Flow Bindings", RFC 6088,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6088, January 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6088>.
[RFC6089] Tsirtsis, G., Soliman, H., Montavont, N., Giaretta, G.,
and K. Kuladinithi, "Flow Bindings in Mobile IPv6 and
Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support", RFC 6089,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6089, January 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6089>.
[RFC6275] Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility
Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, DOI 10.17487/RFC6275,
July 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6275>.
[RFC7148] Zhou, X., Korhonen, J., Williams, C., Gundavelli, S., and
CJ. Bernardos, "Prefix Delegation Support for Proxy Mobile
IPv6", RFC 7148, DOI 10.17487/RFC7148, March 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7148>.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC2473] Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Generic Packet Tunneling in
IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, DOI 10.17487/RFC2473,
December 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2473>.
[RFC4213] Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms
for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213, DOI 10.17487/
RFC4213, October 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4213>.
Seite, et al. Expires March 29, 2018 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft MAG Multipath Binding Option September 2017
[RFC4908] Nagami, K., Uda, S., Ogashiwa, N., Esaki, H., Wakikawa,
R., and H. Ohnishi, "Multi-homing for small scale fixed
network Using Mobile IP and NEMO", RFC 4908, DOI 10.17487/
RFC4908, June 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4908>.
Authors' Addresses
Pierrick Seite
Orange
4, rue du Clos Courtel, BP 91226
Cesson-Sevigne 35512
France
Email: pierrick.seite@orange.com
Alper Yegin
Actility
Turkey
Email: alper.yegin@actility.com
Sri Gundavelli
Cisco
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
Email: sgundave@cisco.com
Seite, et al. Expires March 29, 2018 [Page 15]
