Internet DRAFT - draft-thubert-dmm-global-haha
draft-thubert-dmm-global-haha
DMM P. Thubert, Ed.
Internet-Draft Cisco
Intended status: Informational R. Wakikawa
Expires: April 19, 2014 Softbank Mobile
V. Devarapalli
WiChorus
October 18, 2013
Global HA to HA protocol
draft-thubert-dmm-global-haha-00
Abstract
This HAHA protocol extends MIPv6 [RFC6275] and NEMO [RFC3963] to
remove their link layer dependencies on the Home Link and distribute
the HAs at IP layer. Global HAHA considers the distribution at the
scale of the Internet, and introduces the MIP proxy for Local
Mobility Management and Route Optimization in the Infrastructure.
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 April 19, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 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 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
Thubert, Wakikawa & DevarExpires April 19, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Global-HAHA October 2013
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Motivations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Layer 3 operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Route Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4. Single point of failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Rationale for the proposed solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. A proxy for Mobile IP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. Initial routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1.1. External routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1.2. Internal routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2. Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2.1. Direct primary binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2.2. local proxy binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2.3. Foreign proxy binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.3. Route Optimizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.3.1. Leaking MNP routes in the HAHA network . . . . . . . . 14
5.3.2. On-demand proxy routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. Terminology and concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7. Distributed Home Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8. Message Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9. Mobile Router Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9.1. Locating Home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9.2. Proxy MIP client . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10. Home Agent Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10.1. Locating the other HAs that serve the same Home . . . . . 19
10.2. Locating the HA that owns the binding for a HoA . . . . . 19
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
12. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
13. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
14.1. informative reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
14.2. normative reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1. Introduction
This draft was initially submitted as draft-thubert-nemo-global-haha
in 2004, but the object of the work is now being considered at DMM,
so the draft is republished there to provide an historical reference.
Over the ten years since the draft was originally published, IPv6
mobility evolved in particular with the introduction of Proxy Mobile
IPv6 (PMIP) [RFC5213] and the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)
[RFC6830]. It can be noted that the MIP proxy introduced in this
document is a Route Optimization function, entirely different from a
PMIP proxy function.
The MIP proxy in global HAHA is probably still relevant since it
allows the separation of the interaction with 1) the client, 2) the
HAs and 3)other MIP proxies, which can be individually based on
traditional protocols such as Mobile IPv6 [RFC6275] and NEMO
[RFC3963], or more recent approaches such as PMIP and LISP.
Thubert, Wakikawa & DevarExpires April 19, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Global-HAHA October 2013
The reader of this document is expected to be familiar with both the
Mobile IPv6 [RFC6275] and NEMO Basic Support [RFC3963] documents.
As such, the reader is expected to understand the concept of a Home
Link and the Neighbor Discovery related operations that take place
over that link.
Home Agent global distribution is useful when a Mobile Router moves
geographically large area such as airplane, vehicle, etc... The
overhead of the basic NEMO protocol is redundant route caused by the
bi-directional tunnel between a Home Agent and a Mobile Router. If a
Mobile Router moves far away from a Home Agent, the overhead can not
be ignored.
Thus, it is reasonable to consider that a Mobile Router dynamically
switches to the topologically closest Home Agent (Home Link). This
distribution is also effective for load-balancing. The Home Agent is
expected to serve thousands of Mobile Routers on its Home Link and
tunnels all packets for the Mobile Routers by itself.
But with NEMO basic support and MIPv6, Home is locally anchored to
the Home Link at Layer 2, so Home can not be distributed
geographically. In particular for NEMO, what's needed is a route to
a mobile prefix via a tunnel end point that is the CareOf address of
the Mobile Router. The Home Address is but a practical artifact that
is mostly needed as a correlator for the registration.
This draft proposes a model that enables the HA to HA communication
at Layer 3, allowing to get rid of the Home Link in configurations
where it's not needed.
This draft also introduces the concept of proxy Home Agent, enabling
a Mobile Router to binding locally as it is roaming far from any of
its own Home Agents.
Finally, the draft presents how the Home Agents and the proxy Home
Agents can use the concept of route projection to improve the data
path between Mobile Routers.
2. Motivations
2.1. Requirements
This draft addresses two generic requirements expressed in the Nemo
requirements [RFC4886]:
Local Mobility and Global Mobility: Multihoming is mentioned as
desirable. The global mobility type is not expected to be limited
for any consideration other than administrative and security
policies.
Scalability: NEMO support signaling and processing is expected to
scale to a potentially large number of mobile networks. Thus
draft extends the scalality of the NEMO basic protocol.
Thubert, Wakikawa & DevarExpires April 19, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Global-HAHA October 2013
There is a requirement from airplane companies which want to be at
Home in the various airports that their planes visit. In fact, this
is expressed in an abstract fashion by the case (1,n,1) of the NEMO
multihoming issues [RFC4980] draft: "Single MR, Multiple HAs, Single
NEMO-Prefix".
There is also a general direction that indicates that NEMO could be
extended as a solution for VPN. To get there, we must ensure that
NEMO is upscaled to the classical capabilities of VPN, including the
global distribution of Points Of Presence. It is a classical feature
for VPNs to allow the roaming users to connect to the closest point
of presence into their company VPN. The same feature can not be
provided with MIPv6 or NEMO, because the Home depends on a link that
has a unique physical location.
2.2. Layer 3 operations
Mobile IPv6 [RFC6275] standarizes an interface between a Mobile Node
and its Home Agent and its correspondents, as well as an interface
between Home Agents. One angle of the MIPv6 operation is that the
protocols hides the MN mobility by making as if the Mobile Node was
always connected to a Home Link. The connectivity is maintained by
Home Agents that are permanently and physically attached to that Home
Link.
So the model for MIPv6 is Home Link centric and it is no surprise
that it extends IPv6 Neighbor Discovery [RFC4861] for its
operations, in particular for HAs to discover each others, and to
discover when one of them has a binding for a Mobile Node, and which
one. An immediate consequence of being Link centric is that Home can
not be distributed at Layer 3, locally within a site or over the
Internet.
the NEMO Basic Support [RFC3963] inherits the concept of Home Link
and MIPv6 operations on that link, making NEMO partially a link layer
operation. On the other hand, the NEMO Basic Support also operates
as a routing protocol at L3, for example when it injects routes in
the explicit prefix mode. So NEMO operations are somewhat half L2
and half L3.
What we are getting at with the HAHA protocol is placing NEMO fully
at L3. This mostly means the replacement of all ND based exchanges
by some equivalent, but at Layer 3, over the Internet Protocol. This
also means the abstraction of the concept of Home Address into a
globally unique router ID, as opposed to an address from a Home Link.
So even if this paper trivially applies to Mobile IPv6, we place our
descriptions in the context of NEMO, and use MRs where MIPv6 MNs
Thubert, Wakikawa & DevarExpires April 19, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Global-HAHA October 2013
could fit as well.
2.3. Route Optimization
MIPv6 comes with a Route Optimization scheme that enables a direct
MR-CN conversation, bypassing the Home Agent. With the basic
support, NEMO does not have such a support yet. In any case, RO
comes at an additional cost in terms of protocol, which varies with
the degree of expected trust.
Without Route optimization, all the packets MR-CN flow via the Home
Agent; this increases both the cost and the latency. The resulting
path can be illustrated like this:
CN1 <--------------------- -- -- -----------------+ +---> CN2
(NYC) | | (NICE)
| |
| |
| |
| |
MRHA tunnel | |
===================== == == ================
MR <--------------------- -- -- ----------------- HA (BRITTANY)
(NJ) ===================== == == ================
|
|
-----
/////
Home Link
The routing overhead becomes costly when:
The distance ||MR, CN|| is much smaller then the sum of the
distances ||MR, HA|| + ||HA, CN||.
AND
||MR, HA||+||HA, CN|| is costly. If the 3 points are very close,
the overhead is relatively important, but small in absolute terms.
In the picture above, say that a European phone (MR) is roaming in
New Jersey but Homed in Brittany. And say that the phone owner
places a call in New York city to CN1. Without RO, the voice packets
flow back and forth over the peering lines between Brittany and the
US, and the routing overhead causes an additional latency that
decreases the perceived quality of the phone call.
On the other hand, calling CN2 would result in a small, acceptable
overhead, considering that the distance ||HA, CN2|| is very small
with regards to ||MR, HA|| or ||MR, CN2||. Now, when the MR moves
back to Brittany and places a new call to CN2, going via the HA might
double the distance, but the whole thing being local, it is
Thubert, Wakikawa & DevarExpires April 19, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Global-HAHA October 2013
negligible.
The geographical distribution of Home generalizes this latter
situation. If we can get rid of the concept of a Home Link that
anchors the HA in a single location, then we can distribute HAs
geographically, and, hopefully, one is close to our MR when it's
roaming.
So if a MR can locate and bind with a closeby HA, then ||MR, HA|| is
contained and the overhead is globally limited. In a same fashion,
when a CN sends a packet to the MR, it finds a HA closeby and the
overhead ||HA, CN|| is contained as well.
CN1 <-----+ +-----> CN2
(NYC) | | (NICE)
| |
| |
| |
| long distance |
| HAHA tunnel |
=========== == == =================
HA' ------------ -- -- ------------------ HA (BRITTANY)
(DC) =========== == == =================
|| | || (under the Atlantic :)
|| | ||
|| | || short distance
|| | || MRHA Tunnel
|| | ||
v
MR (NJ)
In our previous example, we see that a HA' deployed in the East Coast
saves the round trip over the Atlantic. There is a new overhead for
the call to Europe, though, since an additional path is involved
between MR and HA'. Then again, if both ||MR, HA'|| and ||CN2, HA||
are relatively small compared to ||HA, HA'|| then the overhead is
acceptable; unless all 3 points are located closeby, in which case,
again, the additional cost is acceptable.
CN2 (NICE)
^
|
HA'(DC) ------------------------------------------------- HA
| (BRITTANY)
v
MR (NJ)
<------------------------------------------------------------->
Diagonal (direct path) cost
<--------------------------------------------------------------->
Thubert, Wakikawa & DevarExpires April 19, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Global-HAHA October 2013
Via HAs
2.4. Single point of failure
The Home Link is a single point of failure for MIPv6/NEMO operations.
Should the Home Link fail, the whole set of MNs / MRs is disconnected
from the rest of the world. One could decide to use a virtual link
for Home, but then:
MIPv6 provides a support for multiple HAs, with the DHAAD mechanism.
This mechanism helps scaling up the Home by adding HAs dynamically,
and eventually load balancing the bindings between them. But this
all relies on HAHA communication over the PHYSICAL Home Link; so
making that link virtual implies a single Home Agent.
In turn this makes the HA a single point of failure, and disables the
scalability that the DHAAD mechanism provides to MIPv6.
3. Rationale for the proposed solution
For the time being, the precise flows are not elaborated. One idea
is that a protocol such as IS-IS or OSPFv3 could help a lot, mostly
in the registration phase. Another is that HAs should be proactively
preassigned to receive a given set of registration, in order to allow
a certain degree of aggregation within sites and in between site.
Finally, the concept of proxy is introduced to limit the number of
primary sites (to 1?) and as a key element for an upcoming NEMO route
optimization scheme, where routes can be echanged in a trusted
fashion between proxies.
4. A proxy for Mobile IP
The draft references extensively a MIP proxy HA function. The word
proxy, here, is taken in a classical sense, like, for instance, a web
proxy: a MIP proxy Home Agent acts as a HA for the MN and as a MN for
the HA, the CN, and other proxies. In particular, the MIP proxy
terminates the MR-HA tunnel and the associated encryption, extracts
the packets, and reencapsulates them to the destination.
This differs from a proxy-MIP function, which performs the Mobile
Node operation on behalf of a non MIP-enabled node, in order to
manage its mobility transparently.
Thubert, Wakikawa & DevarExpires April 19, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Global-HAHA October 2013
+-------+ +-------+
| | | |
| HA 1 | | HA 2 |
| | | |
+-------+ +-------+
primary ^ primary ^
binding | binding |
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+
| | --------->| |---------->| |
| MN/MR | proxy |proxy 1| secondary |proxy 2|
| 1 | binding | | binding | |
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+
RO | proxy ^
binding v binding |
+-------+ +-------+
| | | |
| CN | | MN/MR |
| | | 2 |
+-------+ +-------+
Distributing widely the MIP proxies presents a number of advantages:
Route Optimization: a proxy-to-proxy path between to MNs/MRs could be
much shorter then the path via the HAs.
Local Mobility Management: when the MN moves around a given proxy,
but keeps binding to that same proxy, the proxy does not need to
inform the primary HA.
Nested NEMO: when Mobile Routers attach to one another and form a
nested NEMO, the corresponding MRHA tunnel are nested as well. If
they all bind to a same proxy, the proxy will decapsulate all the
levels of tunneling, and retunnel only once towards the Internet
5. Overview
This description covers the specific case of a Partitioned Home
Network. Home is subnetted and the subnets are attributed to the
distributed sites. As a result, in a given location, HAs will be
operating both as primary HA taking the registrations for the local
partition and proxy HA for registrations that belong to other sites.
Additional satellite sites might be deployed around some of the main
sites.
Thubert, Wakikawa & DevarExpires April 19, 2014 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Global-HAHA October 2013
## ##
## ## ##
##\ || ||proxy/parent
\\ || || tunnel
\\ ---||---- ...... ... ----||---
\\| | .... .... ... | |
\ @---@ | .... ..... | @---@ |
## ----- | X | --------------------------------- \ / ------##
## ----- @---@ .... HAHA tunnel .... @ ------##
| --------------------------------- |
------\ \ ... .... / /-||---
\ \... .../ / ||
\.\. /./ ||
.\.\ internet /./. ||
.\.\ ........... / /... ##
...\ \ / / .. ##
.. \ \ / / ...
...\ \ / / ...
..\ \ ...... / /...
\.\ . ...... .././
@ primary HA \ \ .. / /
\ \ --------- / /
## proxy HA or \ \ @ @ / /
## satellite site \ \ / /
\ @ /-----##
-- | / \ ------##
| | primary site | @ @ |
-- ---------
It is out of the scope of this document to discuss how the subnetting
was decided and configured. It is also out of the scope of this
document to describe the operations within a site where more than one
HA is deployed. It is expected that in each primary site, HAs
discover each other, mesh using tunnels, and form an area that owns
the partition of Home that was assigned to that site.
5.1. Initial routing
5.1.1. External routing
Sites are expected to be connected locally to the internet, via the
network of one or more service provider. Each site has a default
route to the internet via that connection.
Thubert, Wakikawa & DevarExpires April 19, 2014 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Global-HAHA October 2013
. .. /
--------- ........ ..;. ---------
| | .. / ..... | |
| ::/0 -> .... ; ... <- ::/0 |
| ============HAHA=TUNNEL=========== |
| | .... ; .... | |
| | .<- Home::/16 / Home::/16 ->..| |
--------- ... ; ... ---------
..... / ..
. ;.... ......
/ ..........
In return, each site advertises a Home aggregation to the internet.
The Home aggregation has a very short prefix which should be
partitioned amongst a number of Service Providers and subnetted to
serve as Distributed Home Networks for their customers. One could
visualize this aggregation as a subway for Mobile Nodes.
......
--------- ....... .../ ---------
| | ..... ; .... | |
| ---------------------------------- |
| <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< |
| v ------------HAHA-tunnel----------- ^ |
| v | / .| ^ |
| \ ==MRHA== / ... | ^ |
| HA >---------- MR ; .. | ^ |
| / =tunnel= / .| ^ |
| v | ; | ^ |
| >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CN >>>>>> HA |
| | . ; ... | |
--------- . / ... ---------
... ;.... ......
/ ..........
Thus, a site attracts the DHAAD requests from any MR that happens to
be roaming close to the site, regardless of the MR primary site. So
MRs bind to the closest site from their physical location. In a same
fashion, CNs send all packets to LFNs via the closest Home site. But
packets back flow directly from the site where the MR is bound.
5.1.2. Internal routing
In each site, border HAs are elected to mesh with peers in other
sites. Sites are interconnected over a mesh tunnels and private
links. Routing between sites obeys the traditional rules of the
Internet, using for instance an Exterior Gateway Protocol (like BGP)
between different service providers, and an IGP within a Distributed
Home Network.
Between sites of a given Distributed Home Network, it might be
Thubert, Wakikawa & DevarExpires April 19, 2014 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Global-HAHA October 2013
preferable to form a fully meshed backbone, in order to limit the
cost of routing and optimize the paths.
......
--------- ....... .../ ---------
| site1 | ..... ; .... | Site2|
| ---------------------------------- |
| Home:Site2::/48 -> <- Home:Site1::/48 |
| ------------HAHA-tunnel----------- |
| @ @ @ | / .| @ @ |
| @ @ | <- Home::/16 ; Home::/16 -> | @ @ @ |
--------- . / ... ---------
... ....; ......
/..........
It can be expected that, in order to scale, satellite sites would be
deployed to take the proxy bindings but would not participate to the
HAHA protocol that happens between the primary sites - at least when
a proactive version of HAHA is being used.
......
--------- ....... .../. ---------
| Sat1 | ..... ; .... | Site1 |
| ---------------------------------- |
| Home::/16 -> <- Home:Site1:Sat1:/64 |
| ----proxyHAHA-tunnel-------------- |
| #### | / .| @ @ @ |
| #### | <- Home::/16 ; Home::/16 -> | @ @ |
--------- . / ... ---------
... ....; ......
/..........
In a satellite site, HAs are only proxy, never primary. Each proxy
HA has at least one assigned parent HA, which belongs to a primary
site. A tunnel is established between the proxy HA and the parent
HA. The parent advertises the Home Aggregation to the proxy over
that tunnel, as it does over the internet. In return, the proxy
advertises its own prefixes, and redistributes the Home Aggregation
over the internet. Finally, the parent redistributes the route to
the proxy's network into its area, via itself, as an external route.
5.2. Binding
At that point, the primary sites are ready to accept bindings, either
directly from Mobile Routers or via proxy HAs. This is the runtime
phase for HAHA.
Thubert, Wakikawa & DevarExpires April 19, 2014 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Global-HAHA October 2013
A MR that is located close to its primary site will register there
for its primary binding. In that case, the binding is direct.
Otherwise, the MR will use a proxy in order to bind locally, and the
proxy will perform the primary binding on behalf of the MR. If the
proxy is parented at the primary site, the binding is local;
otherwise, it is called a foreign binding.
5.2.1. Direct primary binding
When the primary HA accepts a direct binding from a MR, then it must
let the other primaries know that it owns the binding for that Home
Address, in a fashion that is discussed in Section 10.2.
......
......../. ... ---------------------------
... ; .. | Site1 |
.. / Home::/16 ->.| @--@--@ |
... ; .. | / |
.... / MR ==MRHA==== @ <- Home:site1:MNP::/64 |
.... ; | .. | \ |
... / ------ ... | @--@ |
... ; MNP | |
... / .. ... ---------------------------
...........
The primary HA installs all (implicit and explicit) routes to the MR
MNPs over the MRHA tunnel. It must also inject any required route,
such as explicit prefix routes, into the primary area, as external
routes via itself. All these routes are summarized at the area
border and the other areas are not affected by the routing change.
5.2.2. local proxy binding
When a MR binds to a satellite site, a HA acts as a proxy and binds
in turn with a primary site, on behalf of that MR, to create the
primary binding. The proxy binding can only succeed if the primary
binding does. If the primary accepts the binding, then it returns a
positive Binding Ack, with the list of the prefixes that are routed
via the Mobile Router.
.. ........
--------- .. . ... ------------------
| Sat1 | .. /. | Site1 |
| | <- Home::/16 ; . | |
| | .. / .. | |
| ---> =========================== @ <- Home:site1 |
| | |. / .. | :MNP::/64 |
| -- # ======= MR ; ... | |
| | . | / | |
--------- . ----- ; ... ------------------
MNP.../..
Thubert, Wakikawa & DevarExpires April 19, 2014 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Global-HAHA October 2013
Then the proxy HA installs the routes that it got from the the
positive Binding Acknowledgement over the proxy MRHA tunnel, and
Acknowledges the proxy BU. Once a primary binding has succeeded, the
proxy might establish secondary bindings with other sites.
5.2.3. Foreign proxy binding
When a MR binds to a foreign site, whether the site is primary or
satellite, a HA from the site acts as a proxy as if the site was a
satellite from the primary.
----------------- .. .. ... -----------------
| Foreign site | .. .. | . | MR primary Site |
| ------------------------ |
| +-------------------------------------- primary |
| | +----------proxyHAHA----------------- |
| | | ------------------------ ^ |
| | | | . | ^ |
-------|| ||----- .. | .. -----------------
|| || - . - . - . - . - .
-------|| ||----- | .
| | | |. |MNP . ..
| proxy --MRHA--- MR-| | ...
| HA --------- | | ...
| | .. . .
|Foreign satellite|<- Home::/16 | .
----------------- ... .. ...
5.3. Route Optimizations
When the MR binds in a foreign location, the transport between an
arbitrary correspondent and the MR within the HAHA network might be
far from optimized.
As a result of the primary binding, a proxyHAHA tunnel is established
between the proxy and the primary HA. That tunnel is itself
encapsulated in the HAHA tunnels when packets flow over the internet.
Thubert, Wakikawa & DevarExpires April 19, 2014 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Global-HAHA October 2013
.. .. |...
----------------- .. . ... -----------------
| Foreign site | .. | . | MR primary Site |
| ------------------------ |
| +-------------------------------------- primary |
| |v<<<<<<<<<<<home:site:mnp::/64<<<<<<<< HA |
| |v+----------proxyHAHA----------------- |
| |v| ------------------------ ^ |
| |v| | . | ^ |
-------||v||----- .. | .. ------| ^ |------
||v|| - . - . - . - . - . - . - | ^ |
-------||v||----- | . ------| ^ |------
| |v| |. . .. | ^ |
| --MRHA--- |MNP | ... | home: |
| proxyHA >>>>>>>>>> MR-| . .. | site:: |
| --------- | | ...| /48 |
| | . ..| ^ |
|Foreign satellite|<- Home::/16 | . |Foreign ^ site |
----------------- . .. ------| ^ |------
- . - . - . - .- . - . - . - | ^ |
... .. ------| ^ |------
.. ...| ^ |
... CN >>>>Home::/16>>>>> |
... ..| |
.. ..| |
..... Home::/16 ->| |
..... ....... |Foreign satellite|
.......... -----------------
Also, packets from an arbitrary correspondent reach the site that is
closest to the correspondent, then forwarded to the primary site for
the destination. Within the primary site, they are encapsulated
towards the proxy and sent across the HAHA network again. Finally
they reach the proxy that decapsulates the packets and encapsulates
them back.
In order to improve this, various possibilities are offered:
5.3.1. Leaking MNP routes in the HAHA network
The proxy can establish a secondary binding with its parent. In
return, the parent redistributes an external route to the MNP via
itself, and leaks that route inside the whole HAHA network.
Thubert, Wakikawa & DevarExpires April 19, 2014 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Global-HAHA October 2013
.. .. |...
----------------- .. . ..
| Foreign site | .. | .
| ----------------------------------+
| parentHA <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< |
| ------------------------------+ ^ |
| |v| | . | ^ |
-------||v||----- .. | .. | ^ |
||v|| - . - . - . - . - . - . - | ^ |
-------||v||----- | . ------| ^ |------
| |v| |. . .. | home: |
| --MRHA--- |MNP | ... | site: |
| proxyHA >>>>>>>>>> MR-| . .. | mnp:: |
| --------- | | ...| /64 |
| | . ..| ^ |
| egress satellite|<- Home::/16 | . |Foreign ^ site |
----------------- . .. ------| ^ |------
- . - . - . - .- . - . - . - | ^ |
... .. ------| ^ |------
.. ...| ^ |
... CN >>>>Home::/16>>>>> |
... ..| |
.. ..| |
..... Home::/16 ->| |
..... ....... |ingress satellite|
.......... -----------------
This bypasses the primary home agent for packet forwarding. Note
that the packets still flow within the HAHA network between the
ingress site close to the correspondent and the egress (satellite)
site.
Note also that when the proxy HA binds to either its parent or the
primary HA, it uses an address from within the HAHA network (its HAHA
Address), as CareOf.
5.3.2. On-demand proxy routes
The proxy can establish a secondary binding with the correspondent's
proxy provided there's such a node. It might be envisioned to adapt
NHRP [RFC2735] for IPv6 in order to discover the remote tunnel end
point.
Thubert, Wakikawa & DevarExpires April 19, 2014 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Global-HAHA October 2013
----------------- ....
| | .... ..
| egress satellite|<- Home::/16 | . ..
| | .. .
| --MRHA--- |MNP1 ..
| proxyHA >>>>>>>>>> MR1-| ..
| --------- | ...
| ^ | ..
------| ^ |------ ..
.... | ^ | .
.. | ^ | proxy-to-proxy ...
... | ^ | on demand tunnel ...
.. | ^ | ..
- . -| ^ |. - . - . - .- . - . - . - . -
------| ^ |------ ..
| ^ | .....
| ^ --MRHA--- |MNP2 .....
| proxyHA <<<<<<<<<< MR2-| ....
| --------- | ...
| |. ..
|ingress satellite|<- Home::/16 ...
| | ... ....
----------------- ............
An example of application is when two proxies from a same Home
establish a cross binding. In fact, the Mobile Routers are unaware
of the Route Optimization that takes place. This feature might be
desirable when the privacy of the location is an issue for the
service provider.
As part of the secondary binding to the ingress proxy, the egress
proxy passes all the MNPs for the MR. This can be done using HAHA
signalling, as explicit prefix routes. It is expected that the
proxies belong to a chain of trust that links the primary and the
satellite sites together. This, the ingress proxy trusts the egress
proxy both for the binding and for the explicit prefixes.
The routes are literally projected from a proxy to the other while
unseen by node in between; this is why this model is called Route
Projection, by opposition with the traditional model of route
injection which impacts the nodes on the way and is problematic with
mobility.
Note that in that case, the binding uses the proxy's external address
as careof. The packets are thus routed straight between the proxies,
outside of the HAHA network.
6. Terminology and concepts
Most of the mobility related terms used in this document are defined
in the Mobility Related Terminology document [RFC3753] and in the
Mobile IPv6 specification [RFC6275].
Thubert, Wakikawa & DevarExpires April 19, 2014 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Global-HAHA October 2013
Additionally, some terms were created or extended for NEMO. These
specific terms are defined in the NEMO Terminology document
[RFC4885].
This draft introduces the following definitions:
Distributed Home Network: In distributed home network, a global Home
is advertised by several sites that are geographically distributed
and meshed using tunnels in a VPN fashion. Mobile Nodes locate
the closest site using DHAAD and bind there. More in Section 7...
Partitioned Home Network: A Partitioned Home is a specific deployment
of a Distributed Home Network where each location owns a subnet of
Home. The local Home Agents accept registration for the local
partition. The local HAs also act as NEMO proxy HAs for the rest
of Home.
Primary Home Agent: A Home Agent that can serve a Binding Update from
a Mobile Router. The Mobile Router is always associated with a
(set of) primary Home Agent (s) to register its binding.
Proxy Home Agent: This is a form of proxy, for the NEMO protocol. A
proxy HA acts as a HA for MRs to register, but needs to register
to a primary HA in order to accept the binding.
Primary site: A site is primary for a MR if at least one local HA on
that site can accept a registration for that MR. When Home is not
partitioned and sites overlap, primary HAs for a same subnet have
to be aware of each other in order to find if a binding already
exists in one of the sites and in which Home Agent.
satellite site: A site that is not primary for any binding. It is
dependent on a parent primary site for HAHA operations. satellite
sites are deployed around central primary sites, and one final
goal for HAHA is to dynamically draw routes between satellite
sites in order to shortcut the backbone of primary HAs.
Secondary site: A site is secondary for a MR if it is primary for
other MRs but not that one. HAs in a secondary site can act as
proxies for that MR, and the site is its own parent.
Primary Binding: A Binding is primary if it happens with a primary
Home Agent, whether the client is a MR or a proxy HA.
Secondary Binding: A Binding is secondary if it happens between a
proxy and a non primary Home Agent. It is used to improve the
path between sites towards the HA where a MR is registered.
Proxy Binding: A Binding is proxy if it happens between a MR and a
proxy HA, whether the proxy is a pure proxy HA or a secondary HA
acting as proxy for that MR. The proxy HA relays the proxy binding
to a primary HA in a primary binding. It may maintain a set of
secondary bindings, depending on the deployment.
Thubert, Wakikawa & DevarExpires April 19, 2014 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Global-HAHA October 2013
Direct Binding: A Binding that does not pass via a proxy, straight
between the MR and its Home Agent.
7. Distributed Home Network
This section describes a detailed example how multiple Home Agents
are configured in different routing domains. You are encouraged to
read the nemo basic Home Network Models [RFC4887] draft before going
through this section.
HA HA
| ______ |
--+-----+--+- . -+- . -+-- TUNNEL --+-----+--+- . -+- .. -+--
| | | | ______ | | | |
MR1 MR2 MRi MRN MR1 MR2 MRi MRN
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ---- - ----
/64 A:B:1:i::/64 /64 A:B:n:i::/64
Distributed Home Network /48
<------------------------------------------------------------------>
extended HN Aggregated HN Virtual HN
<----------------------><---------------------->...<--------------->
Home Mob Mob Mob Mob Mob Mob Mob
<-----><----->...<-----><-----><----->...<----->...<----->...<----->
In distributed home network, a global Home is advertised by several
sites that are geographically distributed and meshed using tunnels in
a VPN fashion. Mobile Nodes locate the closest site using DHAAD
against the global Home Network and bind there. Some form of inter-
site synchronization (e.g. a routing protocol), which Mobile IPv6
and Nemo Basic Support do not provide, must take place in order to
allow packets to be routed between the incoming site to the Mobile
Node. The HAHA (Home Agent to Home Agent) protocol is being designed
for that purpose.
In one model, called the Partitioned Home Network each site is
responsible for a subnet of Home. When a Mobile Node roams far from
its natural (primary) site, it registers to a Home Agent on a remote
site, that takes the registration and notifies at least the natural
site of the foreign registration.
One specific advantage of not relying on a Home Link for HAHA
communication is that for a large configuration, the Home Agents can
be organized hierarchically and distributed geographically, as a set
of local clusters linked together to form a global Home Network.
8. Message Formats
Thubert, Wakikawa & DevarExpires April 19, 2014 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Global-HAHA October 2013
A traditional IGP coul be used over the HAHA tunnel. But in order to
integrate HAHA smoothly with the rest of the MIP operation, this
drafts suggest to use the messages and formats detailed in the HAHA
specification [I-D.wakikawa-mip6-nemo-haha-spec].
9. Mobile Router Operation
9.1. Locating Home
9.2. Proxy MIP client
10. Home Agent Operation
10.1. Locating the other HAs that serve the same Home
10.2. Locating the HA that owns the binding for a HoA
At the time of processing a binding update, a Home Agent (be it
primary or simply proxy for the binding Home Address) needs to
discover if the binding already exists with a primary Home Agent.
There are at least 3 approaches that might be deployed for that
purpose:
Reactive: This method is also referred to as 'on-demand'. In case of
a binding cache miss, a primary Home Agent floods a Binding
Information Request message to all the other primary Home Agents
for the home address that is sought for. The reactive approach
can be used between a satellite site and its parent site even when
the primary HAs use an other method in the backbone.
Proactive: The binding information is shared proactively between the
primary Home Agents for the existing bindings. All primary HAs
know at any point of time which Home Addresses are bound and with
which primary Home Agent. This approach is preferred for stable
configurations, for instance if NEMO is used as a tool to simplify
the configuration and reconfiguration of mostly stable networks.
Predictive: Ranges of Home Addresses and prefixes are preassigned to
the Home Agents, following a rule that is shared or commonly
computed by all HAs. A partitioned Home Network is an example of
that, but this is mostly useful within a site between local Home
Agents.
11. Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank:
12. IANA considerations
This document does not require any IANA action.
13. Security Considerations
Thubert, Wakikawa & DevarExpires April 19, 2014 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Global-HAHA October 2013
This document explores how t use the haha protocol but does not
standardize any new operation that would be harmful.
14. References
14.1. informative reference
[RFC3753] Manner, J. and M. Kojo, "Mobility Related Terminology",
RFC 3753, June 2004.
[RFC4885] Ernst, T. and H-Y. Lach, "Network Mobility Support
Terminology", RFC 4885, July 2007.
[RFC4886] Ernst, T., "Network Mobility Support Goals and
Requirements", RFC 4886, July 2007.
[RFC4887] Thubert, P., Wakikawa, R. and V. Devarapalli, "Network
Mobility Home Network Models", RFC 4887, July 2007.
[RFC4980] Ng, C., Ernst, T., Paik, E. and M. Bagnulo, "Analysis of
Multihoming in Network Mobility Support", RFC 4980,
October 2007.
14.2. normative reference
[RFC2735] Fox, B.A. and B. Petri, "NHRP Support for Virtual Private
Networks", RFC 2735, December 1999.
[RFC3963] Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A. and P.
Thubert, "Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol",
RFC 3963, January 2005.
[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W. and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
September 2007.
[RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V., Chowdhury, K.
and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 5213, August 2008.
[RFC6275] Perkins, C., Johnson, D. and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support
in IPv6", RFC 6275, July 2011.
[RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D. and D. Lewis, "The
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830, January
2013.
Authors' Addresses
Thubert, Wakikawa & DevarExpires April 19, 2014 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Global-HAHA October 2013
Pascal Thubert, editor
Cisco Systems, Inc
Building D
45 Allee des Ormes - BP1200
MOUGINS - Sophia Antipolis, 06254
FRANCE
Phone: +33 497 23 26 34
Email: pthubert@cisco.com
Ryuji Wakikawa
Softbank Mobile
1-9-1,Higashi-Shimbashi,Minato-Ku
Tokyo, 06254105-7322
Japan
Email: ryuji.wakikawa@gmail.com
Vijay Devarapalli
WiChorus
3590 North First St
San Jose, CA, 95134
USA
Email: vijay@wichorus.com
Thubert, Wakikawa & DevarExpires April 19, 2014 [Page 21]
